Senator Lautenberg (D-NJ) and Senator Vitter (R-LA) just announced they’ve co-sponsored a new bill, the Chemical Safety Improvement Act of 2013 (CSIA), set on reforming the Toxic Substances Control Act of 1976 (TSCA) which “…granted EPA authority to create a regulatory framework to collect data on chemicals in order to evaluate, assess, mitigate, and control risks that may be posed by their manufacture, processing, and use. TSCA provides a variety of control methods to prevent chemicals from posing unreasonable risk.” The bill would require new and existing chemicals to be screened for safety, both in the general public and in vulnerable populations such as children; the bill would also give the EPA authority to restrict or ban the use of chemicals found to be unsafe while providing a mechanism to protect trade secrets and intellectual property.
You may remember when Senator Lautenberg introduced the Safe Chemicals Act of 2011…and the Safe Chemicals Act of 2013 (SCA). Truth be told, Lautenberg has been introducing versions of this legislation since 2005. It seems everyone (Democrats, Republicans, non-profits, and industry and others) agrees that our 36-year old piece of legislation needs to be modernized; however, agreeing on the specifics of that modernization seem to be holding us up…Thus, Lautenberg’s history of introducing bills that attempt to offer a solution. Here’s a timeline of Lautenberg’s efforts at introducing legislation that would reform the Toxic Substances Control Act…
July 2005 – Senator Lautenberg introduced the Kid-Safe Chemical Act for the first time.
May 2008 – Senators Lautenberg, Hilda Solis (D-CA), and Henry Waxman (D-CA) introduced “Kid-Safe Chemical Act”
April 2010 – Senator Lautenberg introduced the Safe Chemicals Act of 2010
April 2011 – Senator Lautenberg introduced the Safe Chemicals Act of 2011
July 2012 – Safe Chemicals Act (2011 version) voted on for the first time ever and passed the Senate Environment & Public Works Committee
April 2013 – Senator Lautenberg reintroduces the Safe Chemicals Act with Senator Kirsten Gillibrand (D-NY)
May 2013 – Senators Lautenberg and David Vitter announce bipartisan effort to modernize TSCA, “Chemical Safety Improvement Act of 2013”
Why the new bill?
Lautenberg will be retiring next year and the Safe Chemicals Act hasn’t had any luck bringing about the much needed TSCA reform, despite the American Chemistry Council and others agreeing that reform is necessary – so what is special about the Chemical Safety Improvement Act? Well for starters, the bill is bipartisan, co-sponsored by the following US Senators, including seven Republicans and seven Democrats:
- Kirsten Gillibrand (D-NY),
- Mike Crapo (R-ID),
- Richard Durbin (D-IL),
- Lamar Alexander (R-TN),
- Charles Schumer (D-NY),
- James Inhofe (R-OK),
- Tom Udall (D-NM),
- Susan Collins (R-ME),
- Mary Landrieu (D-LA),
- Marco Rubio (R-FL),
- Joe Manchin (D-WV),
- John Boozman (R-AR),
- Robert Menendez (D-NJ), and
- John Hoeven (R-ND).
The bill also has the official endorsement of DuPont: “…this bill reflects many of the thoughtful ideas we have heard in those discussions. The Chemical Safety Improvement Act provides a sound basis for legislation that can pass the U.S. Senate and bring needed change to the U.S. chemicals management regime”. But its compromises have also alienated many of Lautenberg’s original backers.
According to the Chicago Tribune, Lautenberg’s 2011 version of the bill lacked several of its toughest provisions in an effort to gain bipartisan support and make it both through the Senate committee and to the floor. With its unsuccessful outcome on the Senate floor, Lautenberg began work on another iteration of the bill while Vitter (who became the Environment and Public Works committee’s ranking Republican this year) was working on his own. Reports indicate that the two Senators were in pretty strong opposition to each other until Vitter’s office reached out to Lautenberg and the two began negotiations to draft a truly bipartisan bill.
According to Senator Vitter, the bill “…strikes the right balance between strengthening consumer confidence in the safety of chemicals, while also promoting innovation and the growth of an important sector of our economy.”
“Once Vitter’s office reached out and encouraged Lautenberg’s staff to review draft legislation, they realized the two measures contained core areas of overlap. Through negotiations over several weeks, the scope of Lautenberg’s bill was narrowed to focus on areas of agreement, bringing the two sides together… Among the issues of agreement: EPA needed more authority to review existing chemicals, new chemicals needed to be tested before they reached market and the government needed more authority to restrict chemicals found to be harmful.” (http://www.eenews.net/eedaily/stories/1059981681)
What’s this mean?
There is pretty broad support for the CSIA, including both industry and NGOs like the Environmental Defense Fund, but there are also concerns over this bipartisan bill that seeks to reform current regulations on toxic substances…Some of those who supported Lautenberg’s Safe Chemicals Act argue that compromise has resulted in a bill that doesn’t do enough to strengthen EPA’s power to mandate power, doesn’t focus on “hot spot” communities, and doesn’t specify the scientific guidelines EPA should follow in the process. According to an article published by the National Law Review, the SCA and CSIA address similar aspects of TSCA, but the SCA proposes more complex approaches. (The National Law Review article and this one by another law group also provide an overview of the article and explain the various provisions of the CSIA.)
On the flip side, industry has wanted a bill that provided for and encouraged innovation and trade protection. The American Chemistry Council (ACC) hadn’t endorsed Lautenberg’s earlier bills; however, the ACC will be helping to push the new bill through the Senate and the House.
The Chemical Safety Improvement Act was just announced, meaning everyone is still reading through the legislation to fully understand what it includes – and what it excludes.
