WASHINGTON, D.C. – Charles T. Drevna, President of NPRA, the National Petrochemical & Refiners Association, testified today before the Senate Environment & Public Works Committee’s Subcommittee on Superfund, Toxics and Environmental Health, discussing chemicals risk management policy and outlining steps the Association supports in moving toward responsible, effective modernization of the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA).

 

“NPRA considers the current federal chemicals regulatory framework to be a solid foundation for the protection of human health and the environment,” Drevna told members of the Subcommittee.  “NPRA and its members support responsible modernization of our nation’s chemicals risk management policies; however, we believe that a wholesale rewrite of TSCA is neither necessary nor desirable. …

 

 

“Recognizing that some chemicals can be reactive and toxic, vigorous protection of human health and the environment is imperative and requires appropriate chemical risk management. Even though most chemicals in commerce are used in industrial applications and never come in contact with the general public, there is a fundamental need for the federal government to appropriately manage the risks of all chemicals in commerce from production to disposal.” (p. 5)

“To assure compliance with the wide range of environmental and occupational safety laws and regulations, many chemical manufacturing companies, including NPRA members, have created and maintained environmental, health and safety (EH&S) departments to help fulfill their obligations under the law. … The collective experience of EH&S professionals world-wide has led to the current evolution in industrial chemical risk management.” (pp. 5-6)

 

“Effective chemical risk management strives for the balance between doing nothing – which is unacceptable – and zero risk tolerance – which is neither feasible, sustainable, nor desirable. … When Congress enacted TSCA, its intent was to provide EPA with broad authority to regulate chemicals in commerce.  While some believe TSCA does not provide EPA with the tools to effectively regulate chemicals on the market, it was the intent of Congress to provide a series of checks and balances so that regulatory decisions made under TSCA are scientifically and economically sound.” (p. 6)

 

“Congress took great care in writing TSCA to assure the protection of individuals and the environment, while simultaneously preventing the stifling of innovation and the vast benefits that come with economic prosperity.” (p. 8)

 

 

“While proponents of a dramatic overhaul to domestic chemicals policy have argued that TSCA prevents EPA from carrying out its duties, NPRA believes that the challenges with TSCA implementation are more due to grossly inadequate funding, outside pressure that results in hasty regulation, and the sequence in which the TSCA tools have been implemented.  A thorough and careful review of the Federal Register and associated dockets reveals that in some early risk management actions, EPA did not, or was not able to, do as thorough a job as was necessary.” (p. 13)

 

“That is not to say NPRA believes that EPA has not been doing its job well.  On the contrary, when TSCA was passed, chemical risk management was in its infancy, as were certain aspects of the fields of toxicology, exposure assessment, and chemical risk assessment.  EPA has been able to successfully develop ways to achieve the objectives and goals of TSCA, while allowing innovation to foster in the marketplace.” (p. 13)

 

 

“There have been calls from some groups to completely overhaul domestic chemicals policy and follow the European approach to chemicals management.  The European Union has just started to implement new legislation – Registration, Evaluation and Authorization of Chemicals (REACH) – which dramatically overhauls its chemicals policy.  It calls for extensive animal and other testing of chemicals, based primarily on the quantities at which they are manufactured or imported.” (p. 17)

 

“Pursuit of a program like REACH, taken on with the best of intentions for human health and safety, could very well impair health and safety by denying critical products entry into the marketplace.  Such a program will place unnecessary burdens on industry that will result a significantly higher cost of doing business, inhibiting the development of products to enhance our way of life.  The United States should resist adopting or moving towards this type of program as it explores modernizing TSCA.” (p. 18)