Father of toxics law calls for urgent reform

The key architect of a landmark US environmental law has argued for its reform, calling it littered with "procedural landmines" that have made it almost impossible for enforcement agencies to crack down on dangerous chemicals.

J Clarence Davies, who wrote the original version of what became the 1976 Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA), was testifying at a hearing to determine the future of the legislation undertaken by the Congressional Committee on Energy and Commerce Subcommittee on Commerce, Trade and Consumer Protection.

Along with others, Davies, who is a senior fellow at think tank Resources for the Future, warned that the Act was in need of revisiting because of legislative hurdles that made it difficult for the Environmental Protection Agency to force the testing of chemicals.

"The Act contains a number of very difficult, perhaps impossible, requirements that must be met before a chemical can be regulated," said Davies, also former EPA assistant administrator for policy in George W Bush's administration. "For example, EPA must show that the proposed regulation is less burdensome than any alternative and that the risk could not be sufficiently reduced under some other law."

Sub-committee chairman Bobby Rush explained that this requirement to show that another law would not be as effective in reducing risk was why asbestos has still not been banned under the TSCA.

He also voiced concerns that the Act failed to take more recent developments of nanotechnology into account. For example, the legislation ignores chemicals produced in small quantities, and yet research has shown that small amounts of chemicals can have a potentially problematic effect on the human body.

He added that the EPA cannot deal effectively with nanomaterials because " its interpretation of TSCA's definition of a chemical excludes size. Because size is a defining factor in what is a nanomaterial, the agency cannot be sure what new chemicals are or are not nanomaterials."

However, Charles Drevna, president of the National Petrochemical and Refiners Association warned against overly aggressive reform of the legislation. "TSCA requires that EPA fully explores various options to manage the risk, from scientific, economic and social perspectives, because restrictions and bans can cause far-reaching disruption in the market, including the availability of essential goods," he argued.

He also warned against following the path that Europe has taken with its own legislation; the Registration, Evaluation Authorisation and Restriction of Chemicals, which critics claim has imposed an enormous legislative burden on manufacturers and importers of chemicals.