The US House of Representatives has opened a new front this week in the nascent battle on overhauling the troubled system nation to regulate toxic chemicals, as lawmakers held their first debate on a new proposal to reorganize the system. The bipartisan House bill, which does not change the law as radically as two bills introduced in the Senate last month, got mixed reviews April 1 hearing of the Committee on Energy subcommittee House and trade 15.
the question is control Act (TSCA), toxic substances which tasks the Environmental protection Agency (EPA) with the job evaluation and control thousands of products industrial chemicals. The TSCA reform bill in the House, which has attracted bipartisan support, as well as some industry support, but measured criticism from environmental groups, aims to make it easier for the EPA to assess risks and give the agency more power to impose restrictions on them too risky chemicals.
Bill "does not seek to achieve the goal of a fully reformed TSCA with the assurance that all chemicals on the market are safe," said Representative Frank Pallone (D-NJ ), the top Democrat on the panel of energy and trade, at the hearing. "But it will give EPA tools to reduce risk now, in a package that I think has the potential to become law."
most stakeholders and legislators agree that TSCA, Congress has not fully updated since lawmakers adopted in 1976, is broken. past efforts to update the law have failed, but many observers hope that the tide is finally turning.
last month, the Senate environment and public works began to discuss a measure to reform TSCA bipartisan, S.697, which has already attracted the support groups of the chemical industry and at least a major environmental group (environmental Defense Fund). under the bill, the EPA would no longer need to consider the cost to determine the risk of a substance or use the "least burdensome" approach to regulation. chemical companies could also argue that much information on their substances as confidential.
EPA could also force companies to generate more safety data; Now, the agency must show that there is a potential risk before seeking new data. The agency should also take additional measures to protect pregnant women, infants and the elderly. And the bill would require EPA to regularly update its chemical review process to take account of new scientific developments.
The House bill, TSCA Modernization Act of 2015, would seek to toughen TSCA, including removing the cost and examination requirements "lighter". But it makes less drastic corrections in these areas that the proposed Senate bill, and not many other provisions of S.697 entirely.
At the hearing this week, lawmakers in the House acknowledged that previous efforts to write a more comprehensive bill fell short. "We have more questions on the table that we could solve," said Representative Fred Upton (R-MI), chairman of the Committee on Energy and Commerce House. "Drawing on this lesson, Bill this year is a little more focused. "
Absent the House bill is the Senate language requiring industry to show that proposed new substances not an" unreasonable risk "to the public health or the environment before they go on the market. (Now, new candidate chemicals can usually enter the trade unless the EPA can show an unreasonable risk within 0 days.) the House bill is also silent on other provisions of the Senate, including those that would require EPA to prioritize which existing chemicals to consider first, create a federal research and green chemistry development program to establish a group of scientists to advise EPA on chemical safety, and encourage EPA to research and use of non-animal test forms.
Another big difference is that the project house will not duplicate several controversial provisions of the Senate bill, including a stop significantly the ability of state governments to enact future regulations. (Although it contains a different language on the subject). The project house also lacks language Senate bill requiring the EPA to undertake additional studies if it wants to regulate the "articles" that contain a dangerous chemical, not only the chemical itself.
Most environmental and health groups oppose S.697 (S.725 they favor a rival measure offered by some Democrats) and are not wild about the project of the House, either. It is a bit better than S.697, but still "fall short of what is needed," said Ken Cook, president of the Environmental Working Group, an advocacy group based in Washington, DC, in a statement. But the House approach, although imperfect, "that hold many promises" if changes can be made, said Andy Igrejas, director of Safer Chemicals, Healthy Families, a coalition of public interest and environmental groups at the hearing.
In particular, Igrejas expressed concerns about the language bar EPA could regulate a dangerous chemical if it was deemed too expensive, and a provision that could force the EPA to use procedures scientists that the National Academy of Sciences criticized. He also critiqued language that would require the EPA to carry out chemical tests if the industry is in demand, but seems to force the agency to justify criticism that he wants to commit itself. and he said that the bill should allow the regulations of the State of stay on the books and the scope of other restrictions of the State of reduced bill. With corrections in these areas, he said, the bill "could be in shape when you have a success story for public health."
Obama administration approves a bill at the moment, but said that some provisions of the law of the House need rewriting, including one giving EPA time much shorter for examinations requested by the industry. Chief EPA Toxic Substances James Jones, speaking at the hearing, also warned that the bill unwisely limit the discretion of the EPA on scientific procedures which he can use in his comments, which could encourage litigation if the agency were to depart.
Representative John Shimkus (R-IL), president of the environmental subcommittee of the Committee on Energy and Commerce, said the proposal would likely undergo changes, some of which could come before a subcommittee May 14 vote scheduled on the measure. "We must not get perfect [on] first bite," said Shimkus. Backers hope to have the bill to the full House by late spring or summer.
0 Komentar