Richard Denison, Ph.D., is a Lead Senior Scientist.
In my first post of this series, I described in some detail how the Udall-Vitter major redraft of the Chemical Safety Improvement Act (CSIA) both dramatically improves that bill and would be much better than current law (preemption aside). In this second post, I’ll examine some specific concerns being raised and claims being made about the Udall-Vitter proposal.
Some of the claims and concerns suggest a huge underlying policy difference between the Udall-Vitter and Boxer proposals, when in fact the differences in the actual language or positions on those points are far smaller. Others relate to an issue Senators Udall and Vitter have acknowledged remains to be resolved. And at least one suggests a departure from provisions that were included in earlier Democratic TSCA reform bills.
I already addressed in my first post the most prominent concern raised about the Udall-Vitter proposal: that it would restrict states’ authority to regulate chemicals. I noted that this issue of preemption of state authority was excluded from the scope of the Udall-Vitter negotiations, and that it is a critical issue that remains to be resolved.
Let’s look at the other claims being made about the Udall-Vitter proposal. Read More