Forty years later, toxic chemical control act is finally updated

The bipartisan legislation updates the rules for tens of thousands of chemicals and standardizes safety standards governing the chemical industry.

Yuri Gripas/Reuters
President Obama, pictured here on Sunday, is expected to sign an overhaul of the current rules overseeing the chemical industry on Wednesday.

President Obama is expected to sign new chemical rules Wednesday, 40 years after the previous regulations had been set. 

The bipartisan legislation updated rules for tens of thousands of everyday chemicals as well as setting safety standards for more dangerous chemicals such as formaldehyde, asbestos, and styrene. The bill will also set a nationwide standard to govern the $800 billion-per-year industry, the Associated Press reports. 

The bill updates the 1976 Toxic Substances Control Act, which was criticized for being outdated and unenforceable. It was the only environmental law that had never been updated, and was largely viewed as ineffective, evidenced by the EPA's failed efforts to restrict the use of asbestos under the act in 1991.

Sheldon Krimsky, a professor of environmental policy at Tufts University, told The Christian Science Monitor in 2014 that the TSCA was outdated and left the EPA with little recourse to take action until a chemical was found to cause harm.

"The way TSCA was developed, it’s mostly a reporting mechanism," he said. "Industry uses its own information even if it’s no information when they are reporting to the EPA that they have this chemical."

The new bill gives the EPA deadline-based, written guidance on how and when to act, and it limits companies' use of propriety claims to avoid disclosing chemical recipes, which prevented the EPA from completely evaluating the chemicals. 

This is a major difference from the current conditions, as Dr. Krimsky described. 

"Depending upon EPA staffing and how much time they have, they can review these things," he said. "But if they don’t, then they’ll take a very cursory look at it, and they will let it through. That’s why we see many, many chemicals in this system that don’t have adequate toxicological information." 

The bill, which Congress spent more than three years working on, passed the Senate in a rare voice vote, as it was supported by members of both parties.

Business groups had sought to eliminate the complexity of dealing with uneven state regulations, and although the bill gives the EPA more authority, it was supported by most Republicans. Sen. Rand Paul (R) of Kentucky was a vocal opponent of the bill, saying it was a "sweeping federal takeover of chemical regulation" which should have been left to the states.

On the other hand, some environmental groups raised concerns that it did not go far enough to regulate toxic chemicals. 

Lawmakers from both parties will join President Obama for the ceremony Wednesday. White House press secretary Josh Earnest said the bill is an outlier in today's political climate.

"Any time you see Democrats and Republicans come together on a piece of legislation, it does reflect a measure of compromise, which means that there may be some people who will criticize it because it's not perfect," Mr. Earnest said.

The American Chemistry Council, one of the bill's vocal backers, said described the bill as bringing "chemical regulation into the 21st century."

You've read  of  free articles. Subscribe to continue.

Dear Reader,

About a year ago, I happened upon this statement about the Monitor in the Harvard Business Review – under the charming heading of “do things that don’t interest you”:

“Many things that end up” being meaningful, writes social scientist Joseph Grenny, “have come from conference workshops, articles, or online videos that began as a chore and ended with an insight. My work in Kenya, for example, was heavily influenced by a Christian Science Monitor article I had forced myself to read 10 years earlier. Sometimes, we call things ‘boring’ simply because they lie outside the box we are currently in.”

If you were to come up with a punchline to a joke about the Monitor, that would probably be it. We’re seen as being global, fair, insightful, and perhaps a bit too earnest. We’re the bran muffin of journalism.

But you know what? We change lives. And I’m going to argue that we change lives precisely because we force open that too-small box that most human beings think they live in.

The Monitor is a peculiar little publication that’s hard for the world to figure out. We’re run by a church, but we’re not only for church members and we’re not about converting people. We’re known as being fair even as the world becomes as polarized as at any time since the newspaper’s founding in 1908.

We have a mission beyond circulation, we want to bridge divides. We’re about kicking down the door of thought everywhere and saying, “You are bigger and more capable than you realize. And we can prove it.”

If you’re looking for bran muffin journalism, you can subscribe to the Monitor for $15. You’ll get the Monitor Weekly magazine, the Monitor Daily email, and unlimited access to CSMonitor.com.