While the Coalition’s position on Senator Lautenberg’s bill must await its release and a thorough analysis, the fact that he is moving forward is in itself significant progress toward a long overdue reform of the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA), the antiquated federal law currently governing chemical safety in the United States.

“By stepping forward on TSCA reform, Senator Lautenberg will signal the start of a very important debate. It is our hope that this leads to a complete overhaul and modernization of TSCA,” said Mark Denzler, Vice President and Chief Operating Officer, Illinois Manufacturers’ Association, Springfield, Illinois.

“People should recognize how much is riding on this,” said Stephen Rapundalo, President and CEO of MichBio in Ann Arbor, Michigan. “TSCA reform is important for public safety but it’s also important to get it right so that we continue to be a country that leads the world in developing new products and a country that puts people to work as a result of that innovation.”

Passed in 1976, the Toxic Substances Control Act was designed to give the Environmental Protection Agency authority to oversee chemical safety in the United States. However, the ability of science to determine the impact chemicals have on our bodies and the environment has advanced significantly and the law has not kept up. The Coalition for Chemical Safety believes the EPA should have greater authority and greater resources to make chemical safety determinations and industry should be a more active partner in the process. The key to any TSCA reform should be protecting public safety, promoting innovation and preserving American jobs.

“In this day and age, chemic al safety is of utmost importance concerning the way in which they are being used and distributed,” said Joe Stafford of Correlated Products, Inc in Indiana. “By updating the TSCA, we are committing resources to ensuring that these chemicals are used properly.”

According to Coalition Executive Director Joe Householder, the Coalition intends to play an active role in the upcoming debate. “The Coalition has more than 250 members, including individuals, associations and corporations, across the United States. We all recognize that it is long past time to reform our hopelessly outdated chemical safety laws. We look forward to playing an active role in the discussion in hopes of assuring that Congress takes a comprehensive approach to this vital national issue.”

To learn more about TSCA reform and to join the Coalition for Chemical Safety, visit us at http://www.coalitionforchemsafety.com.

As Executive Director of the Coalition for Chemical Safety, I applaud Holly Lohuis for her commitment to our environment and for highlighting the fight to reform the Toxic Substances Control Act. I do want to take issue with her critique however.

CCS is very clear on its website about its principles. The Coalition for Chemical Safety is for a comprehensive yet balanced reform of our nation’s chemical safety laws.

We believe the law should be such that protecting public safety is its top priority. The EPA should have the power to determine chemical safety and restrict chemicals that are deemed not safe for use as intended.

It also means, however, that the law should promote the kind of chemical innovation that leads to better solar cells (powered by chemically based films), electric cars (powered by chemically based batteries), more powerful microchips (etched by chemical compounds) and so much more that makes America a technology leader. It should also promote the American jobs those chemical innovations provide, rather than sending them overseas.

The Coalition for Chemical Safety is also very clear on who its members are – ranging from large trade associations (yes, including the American Chemistry Council) to small businesses and individuals across the country. They’re all listed on our website. No one is duped.

If Holly Lohuis is fighting for a law that protects public safety while preserving American innovation and supporting American jobs, she may not be a CCS member but she shares our goals.

Furthermore, Ms. Lohuis’ post was picked up by Richard Denison of the Environmental Defense Fund on his blog, and I took the opportunity to respond on his post as well to clarify a few things.

The Coalition for Chemical Safety did not approach OFS to join. In fact, OFS approached the Coalition and signed up as a member via our website. As is often our practice, a representative of the Coalition contacted OFS and very clearly stated who we were, who our members were and what we were about.

After hearing us out, OFS opted to withdraw its membership.

In other words, the Coalition was open and transparent and lost a member for it, and that is fine with us. That in no way comports with my definition of someone who was “duped.” In fact, it is quite the opposite.

What this kind of soap opera has to do with the urgent business of reforming the Toxic Substances Control Act, I do not know. If you agree that reform is needed, and you agree that it must protect public safety, promote American innovation and preserve American jobs, then you agree with the Coalition – irrespective of what group you choose to join.

John Paul Woodley, Jr., former Assistant Secretary of the Army (Civil Works) and former Deputy Attorney General of Virginia for Government Operation.

Courtney Kuester, a mother who discusses the importance of having safe chemicals in the home

Paul Repak, Certified Safety Professional, DuPont Spurance Plant, discusses the Toxic Substances Control Act from the standpoint of the chemical industry.

The video can be viewed here:

Please click here to read the full press release about the hearing from the Coalition for Chemical Safety.

The reasons for this are twofold. First and foremost, like all other industries involved with CCS, we have a stake in chemical safety in order to protect ourselves, our families, our employees, and our customers.  We need the peace of mind knowing that a new law based on the latest research will minimize the threat posed by the chemicals that people in our industry are exposed to on a daily basis. After all, chemicals are used in the production of nearly all office and home furniture, from the butyl acetate-based lacquers and acrylic coatings used to protect wood furniture, to the polyurethane foam used to provide cushioning in chairs.

Secondly, the right approach to chemical safety reform has the potential to strengthen our business.  We will have more credibility with customers if they know that we adhere to modern, nationwide safety standards. Moreover, having one set of rules rather than a patchwork of wholly different, or even conflicting, state safety standards—as we have now—will make manufacturing, shipping and sales between states both safer and more cost effective.  And if the furniture industry is actively involved in the reform process, we can help to ensure that the new standards are conceived and applied fairly, so that a level playing field is maintained in our very competitive marketplace.

Because of the immense value chemicals play in the production and packaging of furniture, the furniture industry must support reform of TSCA so that all manufacturers are held to the same set of federal regulations in regard to safe chemical usage.  If we remain proactive on this issue, we can help inform the process and make certain that the chemicals that we rely on are fairly evaluated based on their proper use and comprehensive testing.  We owe as much to the communities we serve.

(Guest post from Joe Stafford, Vice President of Correlated Products, Inc. Stay tuned for more guest posts from CCS members throughout the country.)

As a Vice President of a chemical distribution and manufacturing business and—more importantly—a father of three children, I agree with much of what is being talked about among CCS members on this blog and elsewhere.

Reform of our chemical safety standards is long overdue; Americans aren’t being protected equally because of wildly different state laws regulating chemicals—a fact that also presents significant obstacles for many businesses like mine that have customers in different states.

For instance, while we’re based in Indiana, we often ship products across America to places like Illinois, Michigan, Ohio, and Pennsylvania.  Without uniform guidelines, chemical standards in Michigan may become more strict.  Yet other states where we have customers could become more lenient, or sometimes control for different safety factors altogether. It seems that every time I have to fill an order out of state, we need to waste countless hours looking up shipping procedures and regulations for its destination.

That’s why it’s not only critical to enact reform now, but also that policymakers involve industry leaders and scientists in putting together new nationwide standards. We need to prioritize child safety and conduct an extensive review of the research about chemicals on the market today.  Reforms should absolutely advocate for the testing of chemicals in order of their potential human exposure and should evaluate these chemicals based upon their proper use.

But, as others on this blog have pointed out, it is essential that a new chemical safety law provides enough flexibility for businesses to thrive and create jobs. This is especially true since 21^st century innovations and green technologies are likely to be chemical-based.

Here is an excerpt, check out David’s article for the full story.

The 1976 Toxic Substances Control Act provides the Environmental Protection Agency’s chemical regulatory framework, while allowing manufacturers to keep many of their chemicals secret. Only a few years ago, most industry leaders maintained that TSCA was working fine. But lately, shifts in the political climate have convinced some people that change is inevitable, and they want to ensure their interests are represented.

“On both ends of the spectrum, from the environmental side to the proponents for the industrial side, there is a general agreement that [current law] is not up to snuff,” says Joe Householder, head of the Coalition for Chemical Safety, a business-backed group pushing for TSCA reform.

Manufacturers want to protect their trade secrets for obvious reasons, and say only “confidential business information” is kept from the public. Only a few EPA officials are privy to the details of many chemicals, and they’re not allowed to share that information with state regulators or even with many other officials in their own agency, critics say. In 2005, the EPA’s top expert on flame retardants reportedly said the contents of a retardant she was researching were kept secret even from her. Even some people in the industry who say TSCA works well concede that a growing slice of the public feels they’re being kept in the dark.

“If you’re just patted on the head and told, ‘Have faith, everything’s taken care of, but we just can’t tell you about it,’ you’re not going to have much confidence in the system,” Householder says.

We’re not going there.

It is our view that TSCA reform done right will address those product specific concerns.  A law that properly prioritizes chemicals that concern the general public, scientists and the regulatory community and then sets out the proper protocol for testing them to see if they are safe to use as intended with an EPA that has the resources and authority to act gets to every chemical that is now a hot button public policy issue.

We do have members with strong opinions about specific chemicals and we respect those opinions. However, CCS is going to focus its advocacy on the quest for comprehensive reform.

There’s a practical political point to this.  Becoming mired in product specific fights draws down resources that could be better spent on what the country really needs – a better law that governs all chemicals and not just one.

While many people across the country are making a similar case, the fact that Jason owns a business called Phanes Solar and Renewables is, in itself, a strong argument for getting it right.  TSCA reform won’t just impact chemical companies, chemical workers and chemical consumers.  It will hit just about every modern business that’s out there. Solar energy, electric cars, semiconductors, you name it.  Chemicals are a big part of all of them so folks like Jason need to be heard.  Read his op-ed in the Billings Gazette here.

Click here to read Senator Frank Lautenberg’s full remarks at a hearing his Senate Subcommittee held delving into chemical issues.