Richard Denison, Ph.D., is a Senior Scientist.
The House’s discussion draft of the Chemicals in Commerce Act (CICA) issued last week was accompanied by statements from both its sponsor and the American Chemistry Council (ACC) claiming that it represents a “balanced” approached to reform of the Toxic Substances Control ACT (TSCA).
Despite the rhetoric, however, the draft is anything but balanced, and instead pegs the needle far to one side of the dial. My earlier post describes the massive requirements EPA must meet in order to regulate a dangerous chemical and how far out of kilter those requirements are compared both to current TSCA and to the Chemical Safety Improvement Act (CSIA), especially as the latter is being revised via ongoing negotiations.
This post focuses on another area in which the CICA draft takes an extreme position: its preemption of state authority, which is far more sweeping than under current TSCA or even CSIA as introduced. But first let me start by arguing that any preemption needs to follow – not precede – final EPA actions that are based on robust information. Read More