Now it’s “The Frank R. Lautenberg Chemical Safety for the 21st Century Act” released by Sen. Udall and Vitter March 10,  2015.  See S. 697 or here.  This builds on the Chemical Safety Improvement Act  they did last year.  ACC likes it.  EDF is OK with it.  Safer Chemicals, Healthy Families doesn't. Sen. Boxer still hates it even though state preemption has been eviscerated.  I still doubt it's going to move soon.

Read what Vitter/Udall describe as the major components here and excerpts below:

Strengthens the Safety Standard
- Mandates that EPA base chemical safety decisions solely on considerations of risk to public health and the environment. The legislation makes clear that costs and benefits may not factor into a chemical safety evaluation.
- Eliminates TSCA’s “least burdensome” requirement for regulating a chemical, which prevented EPA from banning asbestos.  [still requires EPA to consider costs and benefits of regulation to manage risks and keeps "unreasonable" risk concept. One hopes some rationality will prevail.]

Mandates safety reviews for new and existing chemicals
- Requires that all chemicals in commerce, including those "grandfathered" under TSCA, undergo safety reviews.
- Requires a safety finding for new chemicals before they can enter the market.  [safety standard "ensures, without taking into consideration cost or other nonrisk factors, that no unreasonable risk of harm to health or the environment will result from exposure to a chemical substance under the conditions of use"]

Strengthens Protections for the Most Vulnerable
- Places greater emphasis on and requires protection of those who may be more exposed or particularly vulnerable to the effects of exposure to chemicals, and clearly defines them for the first time as including infants, children, pregnant women, workers and the elderly.

Sets Aggressive and Attainable Deadlines
- Imposes at least 15 deadlines for EPA action, developed with input from the Agency. [pretty low # of chemicals per year]

Creates additional requirements and sets reasonable limits on Confidential Business Information claims
- Requires that confidentiality claims be substantiated up front and imposes a 10-year, renewable time limit on such claims.
- Requires EPA to review claims that protect the identities of chemicals in commerce.

Balances State and Federal Regulations
- Grandfathers in State regulations on chemicals enacted prior to January 1, 2015. [Prop 65 is protected]
- States can act to restrict a chemical until and unless EPA takes up that same chemical and addresses the same uses.
- State actions that do not restrict a chemical or are taken to address a different problem are not affected. [EPA's slow pace can frustrate state action]
- Includes a waiver process for States to set different regulations than EPA during the safety assessment and after a final rule.
- Once EPA acts on a chemical substance, a uniform federal standard is applied across the nation, which creates more regulatory certainty and equally protects citizens across the country

There will also be fees on industry, which might be a chip to preserve some state preemption, but who knows?

So what will the handle be on this one - LCS21?

Bergeson & Campbell calls it the "Lautenberg" bill.  Whatever...  B&C has done an in depth review here.

Mar 12 Sen. Boxer released the "Alan Reinstein and Trevor Schaefer Toxic Chemical Protection Act" named after one person who died from mesothelioma and another who got brain cancer as a child. Sheesh!

Let the griping begin anew.....

Leave a reply