During a recent hearing of the U.S. Senate Environment and Public Works Committee, Senator John Curtis (R-UT) discussed the importance of having a predictable regulatory framework for chemicals that both protects public health and allows American industries to innovate.
Senator Curtis pointed out that U.S. companies spend billions on research and development to create safer materials, reduce emissions, and strengthen the country’s industrial base. He cautioned that delays or uncertainty in chemical reviews under the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) can hinder innovation, disrupt supply chains, and move research overseas.
The session included testimony from Dr. Richard Engler of the Coalition for Chemical Innovation, Dr. Michal Freedhoff from Holland & Knight LLP, and David Isaacs representing the Semiconductor Industry Association.
In his opening statement, Curtis said: “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.”
During questioning about Significant New Use Rules (SNUR), Curtis asked if it was necessary for EPA to issue such rules for every new chemical reviewed under Pre-Manufacture Notices:
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 market without unnecessary delays?
Engler responded: “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 improving predictability through stewardship pathways instead of listing all substances on TSCA Inventory:
Curtis: Under the current framework once a chemical is listed on the TSCA Inventory EPA’s ability to ensure it is used only under conditions described in original submission is limited… Does this structure provide EPA assessors with a stronger basis… Would that improve predictability?
Freedhoff replied: “I appreciate the creativity of this idea… by not listing stewardship chemicals on inventory it ensures … review them later if someone else wanted … different purpose … But I still think this pathway would be quite difficult … would probably divert staff away from reviewing new chemicals while they figured out how … implement program.”
Curtis continued: Could we agree it’s good conversation?
Freedhoff answered: “I think it’s great to think of ways … protect people while meeting deadlines.”
Curtis concluded: Thank you I would love further conversation with you.
When discussing impacts on semiconductor manufacturing amid competition with China:
Curtis asked Isaacs about regulatory transitions affecting industry competitiveness:
Isaacs said: “Yes this is one factor … consideration driving new investment … Our industry very competitive United States global race attracting investments… Having more certainty predictability regarding introducing new substances most advanced processes very important… targeted reforms streamline process improve process… We’re not looking open-ended exemptions rather reviews based conditions address specific operating conditions our industry.”
Curtis summarized by saying: “I’d like highlight words you use they’re consistency predictability It’s not shortcuts It’s just like what is drill And let’s not change it let’s be predictable consistent.”
The discussion reflects ongoing debates over balancing regulatory oversight with economic growth as Congress considers updates for TSCA.
