ERROR 1
ERROR 1
ERROR 2
ERROR 2
ERROR 2
ERROR 2
ERROR 2
Password and Confirm password must match.
If you have an ACS member number, please enter it here so we can link this account to your membership. (optional)
ERROR 2
ACS values your privacy. By submitting your information, you are gaining access to C&EN and subscribing to our weekly newsletter. We use the information you provide to make your reading experience better, and we will never sell your data to third party members.
Chemical manufacturers kept a close eye on Congress this year as efforts to overhaul the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA)—a nearly 40-year-old U.S. chemical safety law—got off to a promising start. In March, Sens. Tom Udall (D-N.M.) and David Vitter (R-La.) introduced S. 697, which garnered widespread attention and support. The bill cleared a key Senate committee in April and was passed by the full Senate on Dec. 17.
Initially, many Democrats and environmental groups opposed S. 697 because of provisions that would override state chemical safety laws. But Sens. Jeff A. Merkley (D-Ore.), Sheldon Whitehouse (D-R.I.), and Cory A. Booker (D-N.J.) negotiated a compromise with Republicans that addressed a number of the concerns related to state laws on chemicals. The bill currently has the support of at least 60 senators.
The chemical industry and some environmental, public health, animal welfare, wildlife, and labor organizations also support S. 697, which represents more than two years of negotiations.
But a political tussle between two Republican senators brought S. 697 to a standstill in October. Sen. Richard Burr (R-N.C.) placed a hold on the bill until the Senate votes on reauthorizing the Land & Water Conservation Fund, an unrelated bill that expired at the end of September. Sen. Mike Lee (R-Utah) objected to that vote. As the disagreement between the senators continued, prospects of S. 697 passing this year grew dim.
The House of Representatives passed its own slimmed-down version of a TSCA reform bill (H.R. 2576) in June. The Senate cleared S. 697 in December. Now, the two chambers must hash out the differences between the two bills.
C&EN's YEAR IN REVIEW
Top Headlines of 2015
Top Research of 2015
Revisiting Research of 2005
Join the conversation
Contact the reporter
Submit a Letter to the Editor for publication
Engage with us on X