On the recordJune 7, 2016
That is an important question Senator Inhofe and I appreciate the opportunity to clarify. The Lautenberg bill tries to address the concern about forcing paralysis by analysis in several ways. First, the bill establishes that `unreasonable risk under the conditions of use' as the safety standard to be applied by EPA. ``Unreasonable risk'' does not mean no risk; it means that EPA must determine, on a case-by-case basis, whether the risks posed by a specific high priority substance are reasonable in the circumstances of exposure and use. Second, the bill requires EPA to specifically identify the sensitive subpopulations that are relevant to and within the scope of the safety assessment and determination on the substance in question. At the same time, EPA should identify the scientific basis for the susceptibility, to ensure transparency for all stakeholders. In this way, the legislation affords EPA the discretion to identify relevant subpopulations but does not require--or expect--that all hypothetical subpopulations be addressed. While a principle element of this compromise is including protections for potentially susceptible subpopulations to better protect pregnant women and children, a core of the bill since it was first introduced by Senator Lautenberg and I was never to require the national standard to be protective of every identified subpopulation in every instance.…





