Senate Committee Passes S. 697 TSCA Reform

The Senate Environment & Public Works Committee voted 15-5 to send an amended Vitter-Udall TSCA reform bill to the full Senate S 697 – Substitute Amendment

Naturally, Boxer vows she will filibuster the bill since it doesn't allow California to do whatever it wants to. Hard core NGO groups say it's inadequate to ban most manmade chemicals (their cherished goal). Surprisingly both EDF and NRDC support it. Vitter's press release emphasized state preemption changes that didn't satisfy Boxer:

• The substitute strikes a compromise on one of if not the most controversial issue, and that is the high priority preemption. Not only did the bill as originally introduced remove the preemptive effect of low priority decisions, but this amendment today goes further to balance the need for maintain business certainty while allowing states to play an important role in protecting public health and the environment.

• The substitute strikes a compromise on one of if not the most controversial issue, and that is the high priority preemption. Not only did the bill as originally introduced remove the preemptive effect of low priority decisions, but this amendment today goes further to balance the need for maintain business certainty while allowing states to play an important role in protecting public health and the environment.

• It allows for state co-enforcement of regulations at a state level for regulations that are consistent with current TSCA.
• Requires that, for the purposes of TSCA submissions to EPA, industry look at available alternatives to animal testing.
• Provides clarification that State clean air and water laws are not pre-empted.

Some first gasps at first glance:

• New focus on PBTs for new chemicals and SNURs, requiring "maximum extent practicable" restrictions be used in reducing "potential" exposures to PBTs - i.e., ban 'em.
• Whacking out "unreasonable" risk in lots of places, including section 6 that would seem to undermine the "consideration" of costs in deciding restrictions (or bans) that would ensure the "safety standard" is met.  Not sure what the term means anymore if it doesn't include costs.  On the other hand, politically, EPA can't get away with ignoring economic impacts of its rules (even Obama hasn't gotten rid of OMB - yet). Regardless, there will be lawsuits galore on this law if EPA gets too carried away.

Everything hinges on what the "safety standards" will be.  The definition as it stands now (not sure why they didn't strike the "unreasonable" in this):

"The term ‘safety standard’ means a standard that ensures, without taking into consideration cost or other non-risk factors, that no unreasonable risk of injury to health or the environment will result from exposure to a chemical substance under the conditions of use, including no unreasonable risk of injury to (A) the general population; or (B) any potentially exposed or susceptible population that the Administrator has identified as relevant to the safety assessment and safety determination for a chemical substance.”

I encourage you to check out Bergeson and Campbell's site for the latest deep analysis here and stay tuned for updates on this site.