Recently, the American Chemistry Council (ACC) undercut itsannouncement of supportfor President Bidens request to double fiscal year 2023 funding for the control of toxic substances, under the 2016 Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA), with a strings attached demand that the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) roll back six recent policy improvements that better protect peoples health. This was accompanied by claims that EPA is implementing policy changes that are out of touch with regulatory and economic reality.

As former senior EPA scientists and managers, we applaud ACCs support of a desperately needed increase in EPAs resources, but we are dismayed by the industrys push to reverse or modify policies that are essential to the success of the bipartisan 2016 TSCA amendments, which ironically industry supported.

The lack of EPA resources is jeopardizing the laws basic goal of accelerated risk reduction for substances posing known health and environmental threats. Instead of recognizingthe need for more timely and effective protection against unsafe chemicals, ACC warns of harms to innovation and growth. While these are unfounded fears, instead industry recommends reinstating Trump-era EPA toxics policies that undermine the 2016 law and weaken health protections.

First, it appears the industry wants EPA to ignore peoples exposure to chemicals from air emissions, water discharges, drinking water and waste disposal when evaluating the risks of existing chemicals. Failure to address these exposure pathways will result in incomplete risk evaluations and weak risk management. EPA is appropriately redoing several of the first 10 risk evaluations conducted under the amended law to account for environmental exposure in fenceline communities. This is a major step in strengthening protections for at-risk populations.

ACC next opposes making determinations of unreasonable risk that evaluate the chemical as a whole, and insists that EPA make separate risk determinations for each of the chemicals uses. Under the whole chemical approach, EPA can consider whether and how a single use that does not pose an unreasonable risk in isolation may contribute to total risk in combination with other uses. This assures that the total risk to subpopulations exposed on the job, at home and in the environment is taken into account. In our view, ACC is wrong in predicting that this approach will lock EPA into unfairly branding all uses of a chemical as unsafe. EPA can regulate uses posing unreasonable risk while identifying uses that can continue without restrictions.

ACC thirdly argues that, in evaluating risks to workers, EPA must assume they are wearing Personal Protective Equipment (PPE). However, as EPAs science advisers emphasized, this approach does not reflect reality. There are no PPE requirements for most chemicals. Even when required, small and medium sized enterprises often do not adopt or enforce PPE controls, and PPE such as respirators may be ill-fitting or used intermittently by workers. During the TSCA risk management process, EPA can make accommodations for situations in which health-protective, fully functional PPE will be employed throughout the workday.

Next, ACC claims that the Biden administration is failing to use the best available science and weight of evidence in risk evaluations. This is a stunning charge given the widely reported breaches of scientific integrity that occurred during the Trump administration. The science EPA now uses for TSCA risk evaluations follows recognized guidelines and is rigorously peer reviewed.

ACC also asserts EPA must meet deadlines (90-days) to review new chemicals. The answer to addressingdelays is to provide EPA with adequate resources to make safety determinations in an informed and science-based manner, not cut corners on safety reviews for the benefit of industry.

Finally, industry complains EPA is increasing fees charged to chemical manufacturers for risk evaluations without any accountability or improvements in service. In passing the bipartisan 2016 amendments to TSCA, Congress expected EPA to collect up to 25 percent of TSCA costs from fees. The Trump-era EPA excluded the first 10 risk evaluations from any fees, and industry fee payments have been well below the statutory target. Clearly, manufacturers have not been unduly burdened by fees and would not suffer if required to pay more.

The chemical industry, every member of Congress and the American people should support the president 2023 budget request for a functioning and effective toxic substances control program. Every one of us and especially people living and working in frontline communities is exposed to toxic chemicals daily, most of which are unregulated in the United States. Our health and welfare depend on their control. We must not let the chemical industry take us backward.

Elizabeth Southerland, Ph.D., is the former director of science and technology, EPA Office of Water.

Robert Sussman is former EPA senior policy counsel.

Linda Birnbaum is the former director of the National Institute for Environmental Health Sciences.

Penny Pfenner-Crisp is a former senior science adviser for EPAs Office of Pesticide Programs.

Originally posted here:
Unjustified industry pushback on EPAs toxic chemical regulation - The Hill