{"id":4477,"date":"2015-07-08T06:07:12","date_gmt":"2015-07-08T11:07:12","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/blogs.edf.org\/health\/?p=4477"},"modified":"2024-02-12T11:01:45","modified_gmt":"2024-02-12T16:01:45","slug":"how-the-senate-and-house-tsca-reform-bills-stack-up-against-the-administrations-principles-for-tsca-reform","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/blogs.edf.org\/health\/2015\/07\/08\/how-the-senate-and-house-tsca-reform-bills-stack-up-against-the-administrations-principles-for-tsca-reform\/","title":{"rendered":"How the Senate and House TSCA reform bills stack up against the Administration\u2019s Principles for TSCA Reform"},"content":{"rendered":"

Richard Denison, Ph.D.,\u00a0<\/em>is a Lead Senior Scientist.<\/p>\n

In September 2009, the Obama Administration issued its\u00a0Essential Principles for Reform of Chemicals Management Legislation<\/a>\u00a0\u201cto help inform efforts underway in Congress to reauthorize and significantly strengthen the effectiveness of TSCA.\u201d\u00a0 These principles have guided EPA\u2019s testimony and other statements relating to the Senate and House legislative proposals to reform the Toxic Substances Control Act.<\/p>\n

Now that the TSCA Modernization Act of 2015 (H.R. 2576<\/a>) has passed the House of Representatives, and the Frank R. Lautenberg Chemical Safety for the 21st Century Act (S. 697<\/a>) is expected to come to the Senate floor in the coming weeks, I’ll use this post to take a look at how each bill stacks up against the Administration\u2019s principles. \u00a0<\/p>\n

The Administration has itself weighed in on this question in a couple of instances, although it has not provided much detail.\u00a0 A White House statement issued in response to the House\u2019s passage of H.R. 2576 stated:<\/p>\n

We are pleased with the ongoing, bipartisan efforts in the House and the Senate to reform TSCA, which seek to address the goals spelled out in the Administration\u2019s Principles.\u00a0 There are provisions in each bill that need modification to better align them with the Administration’s principles; as just one example, language in the House bill that could prioritize industry-requested chemical reviews at the expense of EPA\u2019s priorities.<\/p>\n

In recent testimony before a Senate committee, EPA Administrator Gina McCarthy responded as follows to a question as to whether S. 697, as amended by the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee in markup, meets the Administration\u2019s principles (cited in Environment and Energy Daily<\/em><\/a> [subscription required]):<\/p>\n

McCarthy replied that Jim Jones, EPA’s assistant administrator for chemical safety and pollution prevention, had “identified a couple of areas where the bill fell short of the administration’s principles, but I also am pleased that the most recent amendments really addressed those issues, and I am encouraged that we’re moving forward with a bipartisan bill.”<\/p>\n

Below is our take on the extent to which each bill aligns with the Administration principles (also attached as a PDF here<\/a>).\u00a0 For a more detailed comparison of the two bills, see our side-by-sides here<\/a> and here<\/a>.<\/p>\n

While there are six principles, two of them have several pertinent parts, so we have scored each bill against each of 10 reform elements.<\/p>\n

Here\u2019s the overall finding:<\/p>\n

Overall score\u00a0 \u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 <\/strong>Senate bill:\u00a0 8.5\/10\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 House bill: 4.0\/10<\/em><\/strong><\/p>\n

\u00a0<\/em><\/p>\n

Analysis<\/strong><\/span>\u00a0<\/em><\/p>\n

How the Senate and House TSCA reform bills stack up against the Administration\u2019s
\nPrinciples for TSCA Reform<\/strong><\/p>\n

Sources<\/u><\/em>:<\/em><\/p>\n