{"id":610,"date":"2010-06-05T16:09:25","date_gmt":"2010-06-05T21:09:25","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/blogs.edf.org\/nanotechnology\/?p=610"},"modified":"2024-02-12T11:00:57","modified_gmt":"2024-02-12T16:00:57","slug":"side-by-sides-of-tsca-senate-bill-and-house-discussion-draft","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/blogs.edf.org\/health\/2010\/06\/05\/side-by-sides-of-tsca-senate-bill-and-house-discussion-draft\/","title":{"rendered":"Side-by-sides of TSCA, Senate bill and House discussion draft"},"content":{"rendered":"

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

I have updated and made some minor corrections to the summary chart I posted earlier comparing current TSCA to the proposed TSCA reform legislation (Senate bill and House discussion draft) at the 10,000 foot level. It’s displayed below.<\/p>\n

In addition, I have prepared a much more detailed side-by-side of the Senate bill and House discussion draft, which I’m posting here as a PDF<\/a>.<\/p>\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n
Currently under TSCA<\/strong><\/td>\nUnder the Senate and House proposals<\/strong><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
DATA<\/span>:\u00a0 Few data call-ins are issued, even fewer chemicals are required to be tested and no minimum data set is required even for new chemicals.<\/td>\nUp-front data call-ins for all chemicals would be required.\u00a0 A minimum data set (MDS) on all new and existing chemicals sufficient to determine safety would be required to be developed and made public.<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
BURDEN OF PROOF<\/span>:\u00a0 EPA is required to prove harm before it can regulate a chemical.<\/td>\nIndustry would bear the legal burden of proving their chemicals are safe.<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
SAFETY ASSESSMENT<\/span>:\u00a0 No mandate exists to assess the safety of existing chemicals.\u00a0 New chemicals undergo a severely time-limited and highly data-constrained review.<\/td>\nAll chemicals, new and existing, would be subject to safety determinations (in the case of certain new chemicals, at some point after entry into commerce).<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
SCOPE OF ASSESSMENT<\/span>:\u00a0 Where the rare chemical assessment is undertaken, there is no requirement to assess exposure to all sources of exposure to a chemical, or to assess risk to vulnerable populations.<\/td>\nThe safety standard would require the assessment of a chemical to account for aggregate and cumulative exposures to all uses and sources, and to ensure protection of vulnerable populations that may be especially susceptible to chemical effects (e.g., children, the developing fetus) or subject to disproportionately high exposure (e.g., low-income communities living near contaminated site or chemical production facilities).\u00a0 \u201cHot spots\u201d would be specifically identified and addressed.<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
REGULATORY ACTION<\/span>:\u00a0 Even chemicals of highest concern, such as asbestos, have not been able to be regulated under TSCA\u2019s \u201cunreasonable risk\u201d cost-benefit standard.\u00a0 Instead, assessments often drag on indefinitely without conclusion or decision.<\/td>\nChemicals would be assessed against a health-based standard, and deadlines for decisions would be specified.\u00a0 Chemicals of highest concern would be subject to expedited safety determinations and\/or actions to reduce use or exposure to them.<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
INFORMATION ACCESS<\/span>:\u00a0 Companies are free to claim, often without providing any justification, most information they submit to EPA to be confidential business information (CBI), denying access to the public and even to state and local government.\u00a0 EPA is not required to review such claims, and the claims never expire.<\/td>\nAll CBI claims would have to be justified up front.\u00a0 EPA would be required to review them, and only approved claims would stand.\u00a0 Approved claims would expire after a period of time.\u00a0 Other levels of government would have access to CBI.<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
RULEMAKING REQUIREMENTS<\/span>: To require testing or take other actions, EPA must promulgate regulations that take many years and resources to develop.<\/td>\nIn addition to the MDS requirement, EPA would have authority to issue an order rather than a regulation to require reporting of existing data or additional testing.<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

Richard Denison, Ph.D., is a Senior Scientist. I have updated and made some minor corrections to the summary chart I posted earlier comparing current TSCA to the proposed TSCA reform legislation (Senate bill and House discussion draft) at the 10,000 foot level. It’s displayed below. In addition, I have prepared a much more detailed side-by-side …<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":100,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_acf_changed":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[44,114108],"tags":[39155,39153,5017],"coauthors":[],"class_list":["post-610","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-policy","category-tsca","tag-cbi","tag-data-requirements","tag-risk-assessment"],"acf":[],"aioseo_notices":[],"aioseo_head":"\n\t\t\n\t\n\t\n\t\n\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t