EDF Health

A mixed bag: Comparing the preemption provisions of the House and Senate TSCA reform bills

Richard Denison, Ph.D.is a Lead Senior Scientist.

There are some clear similarities, and some clear differences, between the preemption provisions of the TSCA Modernization Act of 2015 (H.R. 2576) and the Frank R. Lautenberg Chemical Safety for the 21st Century Act (S. 697), the House and Senate TSCA reform bills.  Without getting too far into the weeds, I’ll use this post to compare and contrast these controversial and complex aspects of the legislation.   Read More »

Posted in Health Policy, TSCA Reform| Tagged , | Leave a comment

And now the gory details: A deep-dive comparison of the Senate and House TSCA reform legislation

Richard Denison, Ph.D.is a Lead Senior Scientist.

Yesterday I posted a side-by-side providing a 35,000-foot-level comparison of how the House’s TSCA Modernization Act of 2015 (H.R. 2576) and the Senate’s Frank R. Lautenberg Chemical Safety for the 21st Century Act (S. 697), address the key limitations of the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA).

For those left wanting more, available here is a more detailed comparison of the bills relative to TSCA that lines them up on 12 major aspects of reform.

Enjoy!

Posted in Health Policy, TSCA Reform| Tagged , | Leave a comment

Comparing the Senate and House TSCA reform legislation: A side-by-side

Richard Denison, Ph.D.is a Lead Senior Scientist.

[UPDATE 6-30-15: I have also posted a detailed side-by-side  comparison of the bills here.]

Last week, the House of Representatives passed the TSCA Modernization Act of 2015 (H.R. 2576), its bill to reform the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA).  The Senate is poised to consider its own bill, the Frank R. Lautenberg Chemical Safety for the 21st Century Act (S. 697), within the next few weeks.

How would these bills address the key flaws in current TSCA?  The chart below provides a 35,000-foot-level comparison of the two bills.  It's also available as a PDF here.

Side-by-side page 1-4

 

Posted in Health Policy, TSCA Reform| Tagged , | Leave a comment

EDF Statement on House Passage of the TSCA Modernization Act of 2015 (H.R. 2576)

Richard Denison, Ph.D.is a Lead Senior Scientist.

Environmental Defense Fund (EDF) appreciates the continued progress toward badly needed reform of the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) represented by Tuesday’s passage by the U.S. House of Representatives of H.R. 2576, the TSCA Modernization Act of 2015. The House has continued to work in a bipartisan manner on this legislation, essential to developing reform legislation that can be enacted into law. We appreciate the attention Representatives John Shimkus, Paul Tonko, Frank Pallone and Chairman Fred Upton have given to TSCA reform.

While EDF welcomes the progress the House’s action represents toward updating the nearly 40-year-old TSCA, we believe a final bill will need to make considerably stronger and more comprehensive reforms in order to live up to the promise of fixing the key flaws in current law.

EDF looks forward to working with all Members of Congress to ensure that the final legislation the President signs into law establishes a strong overall system of protection from dangerous chemicals, one that: ensures primary attention is given to the chemicals that EPA determines are of concern to health and the environment; provides for timely safety reviews for all new and existing chemicals against a purely health-based standard; gives EPA strong testing authority; broadens transparency and information access; provides adequate resources; and gives EPA robust authority to regulate chemicals presenting risks to the public.

Posted in Health Policy, TSCA Reform| Tagged | Leave a comment

EDF Statement on the House Energy and Commerce Committee Markup of TSCA Modernization Act of 2015 (H.R. 2576)

Richard Denison, Ph.D.is a Lead Senior Scientist.

Environmental Defense Fund (EDF) appreciates the continued progress toward badly needed reform of the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) represented by today’s markup of H.R. 2576, the TSCA Modernization Act of 2015, by the House Energy and Commerce Committee. The Committee has continued to work in a bipartisan manner on this legislation, essential to developing reform legislation that can be enacted into law. We appreciate the attention Representatives John Shimkus, Paul Tonko, Frank Pallone and Chairman Fred Upton have given to TSCA reform.

While EDF welcomes the progress toward passage of H.R. 2576 in the House, we share the concerns expressed by Representative Diana DeGette and other Committee members that the legislation still needs significant work to live up to the promise of fixing the key flaws in current TSCA.

EDF looks forward to working with all Members of Congress to ensure that the final legislation the President signs into law establishes a strong overall system of protection from dangerous chemicals, one that: ensures primary attention is given to the chemicals that EPA determines are of concern to health and the environment; provides for timely safety reviews for all new and existing chemicals against a purely health-based standard; gives EPA strong testing authority; broadens transparency and information access; provides adequate resources; and gives EPA robust authority to regulate chemicals presenting risks to the public.

Posted in Health Policy, TSCA Reform| Tagged | Comments are closed

TSCA reform legislation: Consideration of costs and other non-risk factors

Richard Denison, Ph.D.is a Lead Senior Scientist.

Part 1              Part 2              Part 3              Part 4              Part 5

[NOTES:  (1) This post reflects the latest versions of TSCA reform legislation:

(2) All of the earlier posts in this series have been updated to reflect these latest versions.]

This is the fifth in a series of blog posts looking at less talked-about, but critically important, elements of bipartisan legislative proposals to reform the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA).  This post deals with how costs and other non-risk considerations factor into safety and regulatory risk management decisions.   Read More »

Posted in EPA, Health Policy, Regulation, TSCA Reform| Tagged | Comments are closed
  • About this blog

    Science, health, and business experts at Environmental Defense Fund comment on chemical and nanotechnology issues of the day.
    Our work: Chemicals

  • Get blog posts by email

    Subscribe via RSS

  • Filter posts by tags

    • aggregate exposure (10)
    • Alternatives assessment (3)
    • American Chemistry Council (ACC) (57)
    • arsenic (3)
    • asthma (3)
    • Australia (1)
    • biomonitoring (9)
    • bipartisan (6)
    • bisphenol A (21)
    • BP Oil Disaster (18)
    • California (1)
    • Canada (7)
    • carbon nanotubes (24)
    • carcinogen (22)
    • Carcinogenic Mutagenic or Toxic for Reproduction (CMR) (12)
    • CDC (6)
    • Chemical Assessment and Management Program (ChAMP) (13)
    • chemical identity (30)
    • chemical testing (2)
    • Chemicals in Commerce Act (3)
    • Chicago Tribune (6)
    • children's safety (23)
    • China (10)
    • computational toxicology (11)
    • Confidential Business Information (CBI) (54)
    • conflict of interest (7)
    • consumer products (49)
    • Consumer Specialty Products Association (CSPA) (4)
    • contamination (4)
    • cumulative exposure (4)
    • data requirements (46)
    • dermal exposure (1)
    • Design for Environment (1)
    • diabetes (4)
    • DNA methylation (4)
    • DuPont (11)
    • endocrine disruption (30)
    • epigenetics (4)
    • exposure and hazard (49)
    • FDA (9)
    • flame retardants (20)
    • formaldehyde (15)
    • front group (13)
    • general interest (22)
    • Globally Harmonized System (GHS) (5)
    • Government Accountability Office (5)
    • hazard (6)
    • High Production Volume (HPV) (23)
    • in vitro (14)
    • in vivo (11)
    • industry tactics (44)
    • informed substitution (1)
    • inhalation (18)
    • IUR/CDR (27)
    • Japan (3)
    • Lautenberg Act (15)
    • lead (6)
    • markets (1)
    • mercury (4)
    • methylmercury (2)
    • microbiome (3)
    • nanosilver (6)
    • National Academy of Sciences (NAS) (20)
    • National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH) (7)
    • National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences (NIEHS) (5)
    • National Nanotechnology Initiative (NNI) (7)
    • National Toxicology Program (1)
    • New chemicals (1)
    • obesity (6)
    • Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) (3)
    • Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA) (4)
    • Office of Management and Budget (OMB) (16)
    • Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics (OPPT) (3)
    • oil dispersant (18)
    • PBDEs (16)
    • Persistent Bioaccumulative and Toxic (PBT) (22)
    • pesticides (7)
    • phthalates (18)
    • polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAH) (5)
    • prenatal (6)
    • prioritization (35)
    • report on carcinogens (1)
    • revised CSIA (4)
    • risk assessment (70)
    • Safe Chemicals Act (24)
    • Safer Chemicals Healthy Families (33)
    • Significant New Use Rule (SNUR) (20)
    • Small business (1)
    • snur (1)
    • South Korea (4)
    • styrene (6)
    • Substances of Very High Concern (SVHC) (15)
    • systematic review (1)
    • test rule (18)
    • tributyltin (3)
    • trichloroethylene (TCE) (4)
    • TSCA Modernization Act (4)
    • Turkey (3)
    • U.S. states (14)
    • vulnerable populations (1)
    • Walmart (2)
    • worker safety (23)
    • WV chemical spill (11)