Environment News Service continues the misinformation that current TSCA law is broken:
“Under current policy, the EPA can only call for safety testing after evidence surfaces demonstrating a chemical is dangerous." WRONG.
Here's what the law says today (highlighting mine):
TSCA Section 4. Testing of chemical substances and mixtures (a) Testing requirements If the Administrator finds that - (1)(A)(i) the manufacture, distribution in commerce, processing, use, or disposal of a chemical substance or mixture, or that any combination of such activities, may present an unreasonable risk of injury to health or the environment, (ii) there are insufficient data and experience upon which the effects of such manufacture, distribution in commerce, processing, use, or disposal of such substance or mixture or of any combination of such activities on health or the environment can reasonably be determined or predicted, and (iii) testing of such substance or mixture with respect to such effects is necessary to develop such data; or (B)(i) a chemical substance or mixture is or will be produced in substantial quantities, and (I) it enters or may reasonably be anticipated to enter the environment in substantial quantities or (II) there is or may be significant or substantial human exposure to such substance or mixture,....
EPA must find there may be an unreasonable risk or there may be significant exposure - why is this impossible to do?
The failure has been in EPA's reluctance to move test rules forward. Why? Test rules can cost a bundle ($ millions) and companies are going to fight not to spend their money. So what? If EPA really wanted to, they can proceed and justify their actions through rulemaking and in court, if necessary. EPA and NGOs whine it takes too long. Sorry, the rulemaking process is there for a reason - to take comments from the affected public and ensure there are some real benefits for the cost of the action. EPA has successfully built default mechanisms into testing for new chemicals because they only have one company they can pretty much blackmail into doing whatever EPA wants. But with some creativity, the same thing can be done for existing chemicals - without overburdening individual companies and testing facilities (not to mention lab animals).
Beware the Jackson EPA: I think they are discovering just how much authority they already have and are willing to use it (without even bending over backwards like CO2 under the Clean Air Act).