WASHINGTON—During a U.S. Senate Environment and Public Works (EPW) hearing on the reauthorization of the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA), U.S. Senator John Curtis (R-UT) emphasized the need for a regulatory framework that protects public health while ensuring American industries can innovate and compete globally.
In his remarks, Senator Curtis noted that American companies invest billions annually in research and development to develop materials that improve safety, reduce emissions, and strengthen the nation’s industrial base. However, he warned that regulatory delays and uncertainty in chemical reviews can slow innovation, disrupt supply chains, and push research and production overseas.
The hearing featured testimony from chemical policy experts Dr. Richard Engler (Coalition for Chemical Innovation) and Dr. Michal Freedhoff (Holland & Knight LLP), and Mr. David Isaacs (Semiconductor Industry Association).
A transcript of his opening statement, as well as excerpts from his questioning, can be found below. Video can be found here.
Opening statement:
“I have been looking forward to this hearing to examine the regulatory environment for new and existing chemicals and its impact on innovation, safety, and American competitiveness.
“American companies invest billions of dollars each year in research and development to create materials that reduce emissions, improve safety, and strengthen our industrial base. But when reviews under TSCA are delayed, unpredictable, or disconnected from real-world applications, innovation slows. Research moves overseas. Promising replacements are shelved. American workers lose opportunities.
“There are few industries impacted more than semiconductors, which are critical to American and allied competitiveness. Advanced chips depend on highly specialized chemicals that are essential to nearly every aspect of modern life.
“My wife and I spent several years living and working in Taiwan, and I saw firsthand how a strategic investment in semiconductors transformed its economy from producing Christmas lights to becoming a global semiconductor powerhouse that now invests in advanced facilities here in the United States.
“One anecdote that stayed with me from our Subcommittee hearing in October is that, in some cases, aircraft are required to use an environmentally inferior chemical in the cargo hold even though a safer alternative has been approved for use in the passenger cabin of the same aircraft. That restriction stems not from aviation safety regulators, but from EPA’s TSCA program.
“Even small formulation changes can trigger new reviews, delaying safer or more sustainable alternatives and disrupting entire supply chains.
“As we consider TSCA reauthorization, we should ensure the law allows manufacturers to build world-class products that meet the highest safety standards, while also providing certainty to companies that they can access the chemicals necessary to meet specifications or requirements.
“The question is not whether to regulate chemicals. Most recognize the value and importance of TSCA. The question is how we make domestic chemical manufacturing both predictable and safe.”
On the use of Significant New Use Rules (SNUR):
Curtis: When EPA evaluates Pre-Manufacture Notices, is it necessary to issue a Significant New Use Rule for every new chemical? It seems we’re effectively permitting an innovation and immediately regulating it in a way Congress did not intend. Also, when EPA does determine that a SNUR is appropriate, is there a more effective way to issue it so companies can bring their products to the market without unnecessary delays?
Engler: EPA has been issuing SNURs or some restriction on 85-90% of new chemicals. It’s not every new chemical. Again, if EPA finds it is low, EPA will let it go forward without a restriction. But many of the products that we’ve assisted clients bringing through the new chemicals program, our view [is that] we’ve demonstrated to EPA—mathematically—that it is extraordinarily unlikely that any release or exposure would exceed EPA’s concern threshold. Yet, EPA proceeds with the restriction. So, I think, no, it’s not necessary for EPA to take that level of restriction. But that’s what we’ve been seeing now across four different administrations.
On the TSCA review process:
Curtis: Under the current framework, once a chemical is listed on the TSCA Inventory, EPA’s ability to ensure it is used only under the conditions described in the original submission is limited. As a result, EPA assessors must evaluate risk across a broad range of potential uses, making reviews more time-consuming and resource-intensive.
The stewardship pathway takes a different approach: the chemical is authorized only for the specific conditions of use described in the submission, it is not added to the Inventory, and every entity in the supply chain is bound by an enforceable stewardship plan. Does this structure provide EPA assessors with a stronger basis to evaluate a chemical based on its intended use, knowing that use is legally constrained and enforceable? Would that improve predictability in the review process?
Freedhoff: I appreciate the creativity of this idea, and I agree that by not listing the stewardship chemicals on the inventory, it ensures that EPA would have to review them later if someone else wanted to use the chemical for a different purpose. But I still think that this pathway would be quite difficult for EPA to implement, and would probably divert staff away from reviewing new chemicals while they figured out how to implement the program.
Curtis: Could we agree that it’s a good conversation to have?
Freedhoff: I think that it’s great to think of ways that EPA could protect people while meeting its deadlines.
Curtis: Thank you. I would love to further that conversation with you.
On the semiconductor industry:
Curtis: Have regulatory transitions affected your members’ ability to develop and deploy new technologies and keep pace with semiconductor demand, especially as China continues to expand its capabilities? As EPA’s approach to reviewing new chemistries has evolved, what lessons should Congress draw about the importance of consistency and predictability in the regulatory framework for domestic semiconductor manufacturing?
Isaacs: Yes, this is one factor that is very much a consideration in driving new investment. Our industry is very competitive, and the United States is in a global race for attracting investments in our industry. Having more certainty and predictability with regard to being able to introduce new substances to the most advanced processes, is very important. That’s why we think there should be targeted reforms to streamline the process and improve the process. We’re not looking for open-ended exemptions, rather reviews based on conditions of use that address the specific operating conditions in our industry.
Curtis: I’d like to highlight the words you use: they’re consistency and predictability. It’s not shortcuts. It’s just like, what is the drill? And let’s not change it, and let’s be predictable and consistent.