Cal Dooley, ACC President and CEO, said, “In exercising its authority under TSCA, EPA should prioritize chemicals for the CAP program based on scientific criteria that reflect available hazard, use and exposure information provided to the agency. Unfortunately, until today, there has been little transparency, and significant uncertainty, over the scientific basis for the selection of these chemicals. The action plans released today include references to scientific studies that the agency believes make the case for restrictive action, but the agency should maintain their responsibility to review the weight of evidence for all scientific studies, even those that lead to a different conclusion. The chemical industry supports modernizing the way chemicals are managed in commerce, but the CAP process to date provides no evidence of a systematic, science-based approach to chemicals management. It is vital that this be addressed.”

“ACC members are proud of our products. Chemicals are critical in life saving vaccines, solar panels and energy efficient products, clean water, and so many other uses that improve quality of life, safety, and the environment. ACC members will continue to work with consumer, government and scientific organizations to understand the impacts of chemicals on human health and the environment.”

Environmental Defense Fund (EDF), in a blog post said that EPA deserved an “A for effort.” EDF said, in response to ACC's claims that “the initial set of chemicals seem to have been selected based on little more than their current ‘high-profile’ nature; that "back when it [EPA] announced its enhanced program, EPA pretty clearly stated the basis for selecting the first group of chemicals:" EPA said, "The initial chemicals selected for action plan development were chosen on the basis of multiple factors, including chemicals identified as persistent, bioaccumulative, and toxic; high production volume chemicals; chemicals in consumer products; chemicals of particular potential concern for children’s health because of reproductive or developmental toxicity; chemicals subject to review and potential action in international forums; chemicals found in human blood in biomonitoring programs; and chemicals in categories generally identified as being of potential concern in the new chemicals program." EDF said further that, "each individual plan provides substantial documentation as to why EPA selected the chemical, including detailed hazard and exposure data."

Swanson’s brief also expresses concern for Minnesota’s regular fishing industry if Asian carp advance into inland Minnesota lakes through Lake Superior: She indicated, “If they invade the Great Lakes, they will have access to the rivers and tributaries that feed into the Great Lakes, thereby threatening inland waters. This would be extremely destructive to Minnesota’s economy and way of life, where inland fishing is an important recreational and economic pursuit. Indeed, Minnesota is known as ‘The Land of 10,000 Lakes,’ and the recreational fishing in Minnesota alone is a $2.725 billion per year industry.”

The Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC), which lauded the action, issued a release saying the lawsuit re-opens a nearly century-old Supreme Court case against the State of Illinois and the Metropolitan Water Reclamation District of Greater Chicago to force immediate action on the carp issue. Legal and policy experts from NRDC said the suit could "trigger an improvement of the region’s water infrastructure and enhance Great Lakes transportation policy."

    Access a release from the Michigan AG (click here). Access a release from the Minnesota AG (click here). Access a release from NRDC with links to related information (click here). [*GLakes]