Government
Toxic substances act continues to draw flak Both large and small firms assail EPA's implementation of act at recent hearings, charge that EPA is exceeding its legislative authority As part of what appears to be continuing industrial anguish over the Toxic Substances Control Act, small chemical firms increasingly are complaining that they have been saddled with a disproportionate number of burdens. This should not be surprising, however, since small chemical firms were saying just that when the act was signed into law in 1976. But large chemical companies—indeed, the giants of the industry—are not totally pleased either with the way that the Environmental Protection Agency is going about implementing TSCA. And although large firms are in a better position financially to contend with TSCA demands, the larger companies share with the smaller chemical makers what seems to be a basic antipathy toward the act. EPA for its part is not in a happy position either. The agency is faced with carrying out a complex, and in some cases ill-defined, Congressional mandate to protect the public and the environment from dangerous chemicals. Strapped by limited resources of both trained scientific personnel and funds, EPA officials defend the way they are carrying out TSCA as the
Heckert: beyond Congress9 intention
best under the circumstances. Yet industry critics charge that the agency has been over ambitious and is reaching beyond its legislative authority. At Congressional hearings late last month, big and small firms together aired their displeasure with the act. Donald E. Ellison, director of government relations for Virginia Chemicals, a small (sales $100 million) chemical maker in Portsmouth, Va., told the Senate Public Works Subcommittee on Environmental Pollution that extensive testing of new chemical compounds before they can be introduced into commerce might force small firms out of business. "Testing requirements for broad categories of chemical substances could have a devastating impact on small companies," Ellison says, "which may find a substantial part of their product lines subject to extensive testing requirements at the same time The profit margin on most newly developed chemicals is such that little toxicological testing can be undertaken before the cost of development becomes too high to justify the economic risks." At issue is whether TSCA gives EPA the authority to require testing of categories of compounds or only individual chemicals. So far the Interagency Testing Committee, composed of representatives from a wide range of federal agencies, has recommended to EPA 10 categories and eight individual chemicals for priority testing under TSCA provisions. EPA has agreed. But chemical firms argue that the intent of Congress was to limit priority testing to 50 individual compounds each year. To do otherwise, the industry believes, will overwhelm existing toxicological testing capacity, which both sides of the issue agree is already in short supply. Observes Ellison, "Such a shortage of testing resources will have a severe impact on innovation because of the inability to test new products." Although large chemical makers generally have their own sophisticated toxicological testing laboratories, they, too, believe that EPA should limit to 50 the number of compounds that should be tested annually. "In establishing this quantitative restriction, Congress recognized toxicological resource limitations and the need to focus on problem chemicals," says Dr. Richard E. Heckert, executive vice president of Du Pont. Heckert, like most in the industry, believes that the testing priority should be placed on only high-risk individual chemicals rather than on categories of suspect chemicals. Industry representatives also told the subcommittee chairman, Sen. Edmund Muskie (D.-Me.), that EPA should mod-
ify its rules for notifying the agency of chemicals that pose a "substantial risk" under TSCA. Says Heckert, "EPA's first draft of reporting guidelines extended the scope of [reporting regulations] well beyond that intended by Congress." Industry officials insist that even though EPA has modified its regulations to include only those individuals "capable of appreciating" what a substantial risk is, the rules are still too broad and could result in unnecessary reporting. Chemical firms would prefer to have their toxicology experts, not their janitors, tell EPA what is hazardous. EPA may have mollified its industry critics somewhat last month, though, when it issued a confidential business data manual to agency employees designed to safeguard any trade secrets supplied by industry under TSCA regulations. Along with the manual, EPA toxics administrator Steven D. Jellinek also warned agency staffers of the stiff penalties possible for unauthorized release of confidential business data. Amid all the industry criticism, EPA is also under fire from environmental groups over the way it is administering TSCA. At the Senate hearings Jacqueline Warren, an attorney for the Environmental Defense Fund, accused EPA of becoming nothing but "a neutral arbiter between the chemical industry and environmental groups." She describes EPA's administration of TSCA so far as "slow, cautious, and tentative" and responsive more to heavy industry pressure than to the mandate of the act. D
Ellison: severe impact on innovation August 7, 1978 C&EN
19
