Sorry for the delay. We had a tech hiccup.
3rd Witness -
Managing Director, Boron Specialties
On behalf of Society of Chemical Manufacturers & Affiliates
We need protective chemical regulation, but it must be well-informed regulation, so that we maximize the improvement in our quality of life and minimize damage to US industry’s competitiveness."
"Many TSCA critics point to the REACh legislation as a model for the United States. The REACh system is an overly burdensome regulation that, by most estimations, will cost jobs within the EU. REACh is fundamentally flawed in that there was no risk prioritization prior to commencing the initiative."
Her basic premise is that REACh is bad for business. The Canadian model would be much better to emulate. She is worried about losing jobs if we try to "regulate" too much. She seems pretty grouchy. I think she knows she is going to get grilled later.
4th Witness -
Vice President, EH&S and Sustainability
The Dow Chemical Company
"The United States needs a strong and effective federal program for ensuring that
chemicals in commerce are safe for their intended uses."
"Emerging consensus that TSCA needs reformed"
He seems pretty good. Sharp.
"An ideal chemical safety program would ensure a role for cost/benefit analysis in risk
management decisions. If warranted, substitution should be considered only after a
comparison of substances based on performance, health, environmental and socioeconomic aspects in the relevant applications."
He gives the impression that DOW is on board and working proactively to do follow best practices. He seems most concerned with actually knowing what the regs are. Not knowing is bad for business.
Add Comment
Subscribe to Comments
Log In 
