PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Read twice and referred to the Committee on Environment and Public Works.
Congressional Research Service
Version 00 · Introduced in Senate · Mar 12, 2015
Alan Reinstein and Trevor Schaefer Toxic Chemical Protection Act
This bill amends the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) to revise the regulation of chemicals.
A safety standard is established to ensure with reasonable certainty that no harm to human health or the environment will result from exposure to a chemical under the intended or reasonable foreseeable conditions of use. The standard includes the protection of potentially exposed or susceptible populations. The standard does not take cost or other non-risk factors into consideration.
Showing the opening paragraphs of the official summary.
The bill expands the Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA) authority to require the development of new information about a chemical.
By specified deadlines, the EPA must designate a certain number of existing chemicals as high or low priority for safety assessments and determinations and conduct risk-based safety assessments and determinations for high priority chemicals. Low-priority designations are subject to judicial review.
The EPA must prohibit or restrict the manufacture, processing, use, distribution, or disposal of a new chemical, or a significant new use of an existing chemical, if the chemical will not likely meet the safety standard, or additional information is necessary to make a safety determination.
If a chemical does not meet the safety standard, the EPA must impose restrictions to assure that it meets the standard, or ban or phase out the chemical when the safety standard cannot be met with the application of those restrictions.
The EPA may declare a proposed rule effective upon publication to protect the public interest when certain activities involving chemicals are likely to result in a significant risk of serious or widespread injury to health or the environment.
The EPA must: (1) list all forms of asbestos as high-priority chemicals; and (2) expedite identification, assessment, and action on persistent, bio-accumulative, and toxic chemicals.
Confidential business information claims to protect information related to chemicals must be substantiated by manufacturers or processors and reviewed by the EPA. The bill sets forth the types of information that are protected from disclosure and the duration of such protection.
The EPA must require manufacturers of chemical substances to pay fees to defray the cost of administering this bill.
The EPA must operate Regional Disease Cluster Information and Response Centers and Regional Disease Cluster Information and Response Teams and may award grants for technical assistance for the investigation and mitigation of a community-based disease cluster. A "disease cluster" means the occurrence of a greater-than-expected number of cases of a particular disease within a group of individuals, a geographic area, or a period of time.
People & committees
Sen. Boxer, Barbara [D-CA] · D–CA
Legislative record
A procedural vote is different from passage. Passage in one chamber does not establish enactment. Explore the glossary.
Read twice and referred to the Committee on Environment and Public Works.
Introduced in Senate
Primary sources
Text links open the official source. We currently store references to these documents.
Source last updated: Sep 8, 2026. Consult Congress.gov for the current record.
AI Conversation Starters
Choose a perspective, copy a prompt, and paste it into your preferred AI. Each prompt includes the bill version and available official source links, and asks for counterarguments as well as supporting evidence.
Analyze S.725 as objectively as possible. Explain its main provisions, who would be affected, possible benefits and harms, implementation, exceptions, and uncertainties. Present the strongest arguments for and against it, and identify evidence needed to assess its public impact.
Examine S.725 through a progressive lens, focusing on fairness, access, economic inequality, and effects on vulnerable communities. Explain potential benefits, costs, and unintended consequences. Consider the strongest counterarguments and distinguish stated goals from demonstrated outcomes.
Examine S.725 through a conservative lens, focusing on fiscal responsibility, institutional stability, federalism, and the scope of government. Explain potential benefits, costs, and unintended consequences. Consider the strongest counterarguments and any provisions that challenge this perspective.
Examine S.725 through a civil-liberties and limited-government lens. Consider individual rights, privacy, voluntary choice, accountability, and government power. Explain tradeoffs, possible safeguards, and the strongest counterarguments without assuming the proposal is beneficial or harmful.