Weaver NRC Nomination and TSCA Fee Reauthorization and Improvement Hearing

Good morning everyone. I note the presence of a quorum, and now call this business meeting to order. For the information of the members of the committee, ranking member Whitehouse and I will deliver our opening statements. I will be doing so on behalf of uh Chairman Capito who's um unable to be with us this morning. Um And once we have sufficient attendance of senators, we will immediately proceed to vote to report the nomination. After the vote, members who wish to be recognized to speak on the nomination may do so. Wanna thank our colleagues for attending today's business meeting, to vote on the nomination of Doug Weaver to be a member of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. Course, I will be supporting his nomination this morning. In December, Doug Weaver was confirmed with strong bipartisan to be a member of the nr c through june thirtieth of twenty twenty six his confirmation returned the commission to its full complement of five members since commissioner weaver was sworn in the commission has taken promising first steps towards getting the agency on firm footing to deliver on its mission to enable the safe and secure use of nuclear energy the commission approved a reorganization plan to align and prioritize its resources The commission voted to modernize the primary program that oversees our nuclear power reactors. More challenging and consequential decisions are ahead for Commissioner Weaver over the full five year term for which he is nominated to serve. For example, he must work with his colleagues on the commission to diligently implement President Trump's executive order fourteen dash three hundred including a reveal and wholesale revision of the NRC's regulations. To achieve our goal of deploying more nuclear energy faster, without losing sight of safety, we will work with colleagues on both sides of the aisle to hold the Commission accountable. We'll also work to provide new legislative authority to per- further uh improve the NRC's ca- capacity to efficiently license and oversee our nuclear sector. As a member of the Commission, Commissioner Weaver will be integral to the decisions impacting the future of our energy sector, and we have confidence in his expertise and fitness for the role. I urge my colleagues to support Commissioner Weaver's renomination. And with that, I turn to Ranking Member Whitehouse for his opening statement.

Thank you, Chairman. I understand that, uh, Senator Capito is a bit under the weather today, and I wish her well. Uh, Mister Weaver is being re-nominated to serve a full term as Commissioner of the NRC. I supported his nomination last time. He possesses the requisite experience and expertise, including his time spent at the NRC, and he was firmly committed to protecting nuclear safety and the independence of the agency. As Congress and the nuclear industry understand, and as the White House and the Department of Energy better understand, sooner rather than later, America's nuclear leadership rests on public confidence in nuclear safety, and therefore, on an independent regulator. nr c is working to right its ship through the storm of political interference that has weathered in the last year some of these winds seem to be abating we're back to a full commission and some of the most vocal doggy boys have slunk into the background but we do not yet see the sun through the clouds white house and do e infiltrators continue to burrow in at nr c double down on bringing online nascent nuclear designs with inexperienced developers on unprecedented timelines and weakened environmental requirements with the explicit aim of fast-tracking favored companies' future n r c licenses. And n r c is in the throes of implementing the reorganization and comprehensive regulatory review mandated by trump's executive orders which will be decisive for the agency's staff and its credibility, TBD. I've met with now-chairman Ho Nia who has promised that the NRC will maintain its independence and commitment to safety under his leadership. I appreciate his hands-on approach to managing the mischief at the agency, and I hope that his efforts succeed. I do not see a reason at this time to alter my support for Mister Weaver's renomination. but i will continue to keep a close watch on conditions at the agency i hope that mr. weaver will maintain his non-negotiable posture on nrc's independence and its safety mission america's burgeoning nuclear industry depends on it thank you chair kramer

thank you senator whitehouse uh um we are waiting for a couple of more members before we can start the voting but we expect that'll be any minute

it sounds like uh two s's or something three s's so that means we have

three yeses on our side

four guesses on this one yeah three one two three four oh no that's right yeah yeah that that ten total ok that was three two more needed yeah yeah two more needed yeah yeah actually we just need one more member remember

it's been a long time since i've seen such a big crowd you know if Capito was sharing this then the quorum would have showed up

alright uh i note the presence of a quorum i would ask senators to hold their remarks on the nominee have any until after the roll call vote. I now call up presidential nomination number seven eight six dash one one, Douglas Weaver of Maryland, to be a member of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission for the remainder of the term expiring June thirtieth two thousand thirty one. I move to approve and report the nomination favorably. Is there a second?

Second.

The clerk will call the roll.

Miss Alsabrooks.

No, by proxy.

Miss Blount-Rochester.

No, by proxy.

mister bozeman yes mister kramer

yes

mister curtis yes mister graham yes mister houston yes mister kelly

aye by proxy

miss lamas aye mister markey

no by proxy

mister merkeley aye mister padilla aye Mister Ricketts.

Aye.

Mister Sanders.

No, by proxy.

Mister Schiff.

Aye, by proxy.

Mister Sullivan.

Aye, by proxy.

Mister Whitehouse.

Aye.

Mister Wicker.

Aye, by proxy.

Chairman Capito.

Aye, by proxy.

Mister Chairman, the yeas are fifteen and the nays are four.

with that the nominee is favorably reported thank you again to all members for being here this morning i now recognize any member who wishes or dares to speak on the nominee uh

hello

with that with that this business uh meeting is adjourned alright Good morning and thank you all for being here today. This morning, we will receive testimony on a legislative discussion draft titled " The Toxic Substances Control Act Fee Reauthorization and Improvement Act of Twenty Twenty Six". This discussion draft would make targeted reforms to the Toxic Substance Control Act, or TSCA, with a straightforward goal. to improve the Environmental Protection Agency's new chemicals review process. Congress set a clear standard when TASCA was signed into law fifty years ago. The EPA was to carry out the law in a reasonable and prudent manner, taking into account environmental, economic, and social impacts. That was the right standard then, remains the right standard today, to guide our efforts to improve and implement these processes. When Congress last amended TSCA ten years ago, we sought to modernize the statute to reflect current needs and technology. Unfortunately, the EPA's implementation of its new chemicals program has drifted from Congress's original mandate. In practice today, it is neither reasonable nor prudent, and ignores the environmental, economic and social impacts from a prolonged and uncertain approval process. In the case when the EPA does approve new, often innovative and safer chemistries, the agency imposes costly, burdensome, or even unnecessary restrictions. In one case, a company manufacturing a new chemical wanted to pursue a zero-waste initiative to recycle all of its wastewater. By any measure, that's a better environmental outcome. The EPA rejected that approach, not because it was unsafe, but because it did not fit the agency's one size fits all rules. Rather than recycle its waste, that company was forced to burn water to comply with EPA's requirements. That is neither reasonable nor prudent. The consequences are real, and they are moving us in the wrong direction. Companies delay or abandoning development, or demand abandon developing after safer, I'm sorry, alternatives in America while shifting investment in production overseas to places like Europe and China. One company now labels its newest innovations as non-Tosca, and meaning they are developed for every market in the world except the United States. This harms our economic competitiveness, and it eliminates American jobs. The outcomes are the predictable result of a program that is no longer functioning in the manner Congress directed, or mindful of real world consequences. This problem also impacts our national security. Throughout our government and across our country, there are coordinated efforts to rebuild domestic semiconductor manufacturing, semiconductors that are required for current and future defense systems. These facilities rely on the use of specialty chemicals, subject to the EPA's new chemical review process. The semiconductor industry reports that bringing a single new chip-making chemical to market in the United States can require up to fifteen years of testing, and millions of dollars. By the time a company recoups that testing investment, the industry has already moved on to newer chemicals. These are extremely low volume chemistries used in tightly controlled clean rooms, which is exactly why Europe and Asia don't require this level of testing and grant approvals in under three months. The EPA's onerous requirements simply mean that leading edge materials are not sent to the United States market. The most advanced manufacturing facilities in the world, facilities that are critical to protect our country, need access to small quantities of highly specialized chemistries to operate, but an inefficient review process is a challenging obstacle to overcome. The two thousand sixteen TASCA amendments prioritize policies that addressed existing chemicals. When a statutory program is up for reauthorization, Congress has an opportunity to review and address problems in the law, and its implementation. Ten years later, it's clear the new chemical program needs the same attention. This discussion draft makes targeted reforms to TASCA designed to do so.

Yeah.

The draft recognizes that a one size fits all review model does not reflect reality, and instead prioritizes flexibility and predictability. It would establish review periods to match the complexity and risk profile of each submission. Separate pathways are created so novel or high-risk substances are carefully scrutinized while familiar chemistries with established data can be approved more quickly. It requires EPA to articulate clear expectations from the start, asks manufacturers to meet a higher s- higher standard up front, and provides predictable timelines when they do. The draft recognizes that the EPA requires sufficient resources to efficiently fulfill its statutory obligations and reauthorizes a user fee for new chemical applicants to support the EPA's program. Taken together, the policies in the discussion draft, a system that draft it build a system that protects public health, incentivizes innovation, and benefits the environment by giving the EPA the resources, the structure, and the direction to do its job well. This discussion draft is the starting point for our legislative process. I look forward to working with ranking members of white house and all members of the committee to develop strong bipartisan and durable legislation. Ranking member white house, I now recognize you for your opening statement.

Thank you, uh, chair Kramer, and thank you to our, uh, witnesses. A particular thank you to, uh, chairman Capito and her team for, uh, convening us here today to discuss improving the Toxic Substances Control Act and for ongoing bipartisan conversation on further improvements. There will be differing views on what it means to improve this law. Chair Capito has released her own discussion draft. While I don't much like many of its components, I do appreciate Chair Capito's willingness to engage with Democrats and listen to our perspectives during today's hearing. I am hopeful that we can find common purpose to make the law more effective, while also more protective of public health. The twenty sixteen Lautenberg Chemical Safety Act was a historic achievement. Working together, we strengthened TSCA to better deliver on the law's fundamental purpose, to protect the public. I'm proud to have played a role in those negotiations. That law established a fee to improve program administration. It funds twenty-five percent of the EPA's new chemicals review program. But it will sunset September thirtieth. Loss of these fees will substantially curtail the EPA's ability to conduct independent analyses focused on protecting public health and the environment. A simple reauthorization of the fees provision remains a path forward. But I'm interested in discussing what, if any, room there is for agreement on further improvements to the program. When it comes to chemical safety, the biggest challenge we face is the corporate capture of the EPA since January of twenty twenty five. The EPA has long faced funding and staffing challenges that have impeded it from fully executing its statutory mission. But now things are even worse. High-ranking operatives of the chemical industry run the Innovation and the global competitive competitiveness of American business is important. However, unregulated industry has not proven to be a trustworthy steward, either of public or environmental health. The fossil fuel, tobacco, and pharmaceutical industries demonstrate time and again that profits matter more to them than truth or the public interest. The chemical sector in America has yet to prove itself any better. During a chemical subcommittee hearing last October, we heard how PFAS manufacturers knew about the risks their products pose to human health, and yet suppressed this information for decades. If we're going to pursue a conversation about TSCA, we need to put safeguards into place so that industry perspectives are not determinative. of regulatory outcomes. Closely related to concerns about corporate capture is concern about scientific integrity. The Trump administration has consistently demonstrated a willingness to deform the definition of best available science. The so-called gold standard science executive order gives agency appointees beholden to Trump's industry donors not scientists with objective expertise, authority to correct scientific information. That's not science. That is Zeldin's political team finding the industry-friendly outcome they want and then looking for reasons, real or fabricated, to justify that outcome. Real science entails replicable, iterative methods for answering questions. These methods are not new. They are well established. They have existed for centuries. Those best positioned to carry out these methods are scientists who have been properly trained and who do not have financial conflicts of interest. We have in this committee an obligation to protect science and the scientists from political interference. I want to acknowledge the effort put into developing the discussion draft. It grapples with some of the concerns presented during our hearings. I appreciate the provisions addressing peer review, protecting bipartisan EPA programs, and clarifying data requirements to cut down the back-and-forth between the EPA and industry applicants. But I have serious concerns with other provisions, such as those that may remove dangerous chemicals from EPA review, circumvent proper scientific review, or reflect deference to industry without adequate protection for public health and the environment. I look forward to continue to explore, if there is a package of real improvements, changes that improve public health, that we can report out of this committee. And if not, I'm ready to report a simple fee reauthorization. Thank you very much, Chairman.

Thank you, Reiking member, White House will now turn to our witnesses for their opening statements. Thank you all for being here. Our first witness is Doctor Richard Engler, the Director of Chemistry for Bergeson and Campbell. He's testifying this morning on behalf of the Coalition for Chemical Innovation. Doctor Engler has seventeen years of experience at the EPA and over twenty-five years of experience implementing and engaging with the agency's TSCA program. Welcome, Doctor Engler, you're recognized for five minutes for your opening statement.

Thank you very much. Good morning, Chairman Kramer, Ranking Member Whitehouse, Chairman Curtis, Ranking Member Merkley, and members of the committee. Thank you for inviting me to testify about TSCA and opportunities for its improvement. As you've heard, I've h- I have extensive experience with TSCA pre-manufactured notices and low volume exemptions, PMNs and LVEs. I speak today on behalf of the Coalition of Chemical Innova- for Chemical Innovation, CCI, a group that advocates for improvements to TSCA the tosca new chemicals program in the decade since congress amended tosca epa has reviewed thousands of new chemicals including pmns and lves a noteworthy achievement much has been said about review delays delays arise for various reasons including poor submissions epa resource limits epa errors epa interpret and epa interpretation of key terms in tosca contrary to what we have heard in other hearings in our experience delays are primarily not due to the lack of data More and better data on new chemicals is not the magic bullet answer. Part of the problem is statutory ambiguities. In particular, the terms "may present an unreasonable risk" and "intended known and reasonably foreseen circumstances". Despite our advocacy about the meaning of " reasonably foreseen", EPA has been resolute in finding that the vast majority of new chemicals may present an unreasonable risk and restricting them. Only if EPA finds that a substance has low hazard for health in the environment, so-called low-low cases, Will EPA forego a restriction? Let me be clear. There is no way to test out of a restriction unless the testing shows low hazard. In twenty sixteen, Congress considered and rejected an even more protective standard for TSCA, reasonably likelihood of no harm. And yet that is essentially what EPA has done across four administrations now. While it may seem intuitive to want all hazards addressed by a restriction, that is neither desirable nor good federal policy. Not all hazards present actual risk, and as a society we do not insist on or benefit from this level of risk mitigation. In my testimony before the house in twenty twenty five, I used a shark and swimmer analogy to explain the difference between hazard and risk. A shark in the ocean is a hazard to swimmers, but it is not a risk if the shark is not near the swimmer. Staying with that analogy, EPA's approach to new chemicals assumes that because sharks and swimmers are both in the ocean, swimming in the ocean may present an unreasonable risk. EPA then imposes a requirement that every beach owner provide shark cages for all swimmers, require each swimmer to use a cage and keep records documenting that fact. If the owner does not have records, the owner faces fines and reputational harm, even if they did provide cages and whether or not there was a shark nearby. You can also imagine that a swimmer might be reluctant to go to that beach that requires the shark cages. Why deal with the hassle of using the cage and the implication of higher risk when you can just swim in a lake or a pool? EPA is saying that eventually swimmers will get over it. After all, EPA is letting you swim in the ocean, what's the problem? Regulations have cost and add economic friction, and sometimes shark cages are justified, but many times they are not. We're not talking about PFAS with shorter chains that may still pose an unreasonable risk, the equivalent of replacing a megalodon with a great white shark. Without certainty of no risk, EPA is requiring shark cages for nearly every PMN, even for bio-based, biodegradable products among the lowest in this class, low enough to be included on EPA's Safer Choice list of safer ingredients, but still not low-low. Only when EPA finds that a shark cannot bite a person, those rare low-low cases, is EPA forgoing the cages. Consider another example. If chemical burns are an unreasonable risk, as EPA states that they are, one could argue that thermal burns are as well. Nothing in TSCA differentiates the two. That, that means that EPA must issue a restriction for substances that can get hot and cause burns. Nothing in the statute precludes EPA from doing so, and given EPA's view on chemical burns, to be consistent, EPA must issue a restriction to protect against thermal burns. After all, a burn is a burn. If EPA were to review steel under a TOSCA, EPA would have to conclude that the substance presents an unreasonable risk, when hot, because someone might get burned and would prohibit use in ovens, forcing the use of more expensive, non-heat conductive material. Is it not reasonable to think that a person will protect themselves from a hot oven? It makes sense for EPA to use TOSCA to protect against invisible hazards, such as systemic, developmental, and reproductive toxicity. I do not think toxic authority is needed to protect against common everyday hazards, including irritation, corrosion, flammability, and inert dust. It's not that these hazards do not require protection, it's that they're everyday hazards common across thousands of chemicals that reasonable people can and do routinely manage, and are managed by other authorities. Congress must act to clarify key statutory terms, including what is an unreasonable risk and the boundaries of what is reasonably foreseen. Otherwise, EPA will continue to keep excellent, sustainable products from commercial adopt adoption in the in the US. Our health, our environment, and our economy will be poor for it. Thank you again for this opportunity.

Thank you, Doctor Engler. Next we'll hear from David Isaacs, the Vice President of Intergovernmental Affairs for the Semiconductor Industry Association. Mister Isaacs represents one of the most critical industries for American innovation and national security. And we'll discuss how TSCA implementation can prevent the US semiconductor industry from competing globally. Mister Isaacs, welcome, and we look forward to your testimony.

Thank you, Chairman Kramer, Ranking Member Whitehouse, and members of the committee. Uh, my name is David Isaacs, testifying on behalf of the Semiconductor Industry Association. Uh, I think the committee members know of the importance of the US semiconductor industry to our economy, our technology leadership, and our national security. And that's because chips are the fundamental enabling technology behind, uh, the artificial intelligence revolution and and innovation in sectors across the economy from telecom to healthcare and energy and transportation, and manufacturing and others. And and fortunately our our industry is experiencing significant growth here in the US with six hundred forty billion dollars announced in recent years in new investments in all parts of the supply chain uh in in projects around the country. Semiconductor manufacturing is a highly complex uh process involving very much advanced machinery and capital equipment and extensive infrastructure and controls. And um equipment in a fab uh can cost tens of millions of dollars each and there may be dozens or hundreds of these pieces of equipment in each facility. So a leading edge facility can cost from twenty to twenty five billion dollars for for a single facility. And this high level investment and controls allow us to produce at the molecular level, at the nano scale, uh devices of ever increasing performance and functionality. Our ability to operate and and to innovate and manufacture these devices, and make these huge capital investment depends on advancements in engineering, material science, computer science, physics, and chemistry. And one part of the innovation framework is entails the use of specialized chemicals that that possess specific properties and characteristics, and enable pres- precision manufacturing. And and these chemicals work in conjunction with the advanced machinery in a highly controlled uh process. And as a result, it's important for the US semiconductor industry to have a well-functioning process for reviewing new chemicals that protects the environment and and allows our operations and innovation go to go forward the new chemicals we use are are highly specialized to meet exacting performance requirements and um our use of these chemicals are characterized typically by very low volumes by operations in enclosed systems and automated processes and subject to extensive controls and uh engineering controls and other controls And as a result, fabs are among the most tightly controlled envir- industrial environments on the planet. And these conditions result in minimal risks to uh workers and the environment. And we believe these factors should inform EPA's review of our use of new chemicals. The discussion draft under discussion is a positive step in the right direction, and we believe contains several elements that should inform future discussions so we can achieve a bipartisan agreement on improvements to TSCA. The elements that we believe are most important are are I think are targeted reforms. You know, first, we think it's important to assess the risks associated with the conditions of use in in and the uni- unique conditions in the semiconductor industry that take into account the extensive levels of controls and the low volumes that we use. second we we believe uh a narrow pathway to the use of low volume chemicals in in tightly controlled environments and under uh specific conditions such as those employed in the semiconductor industry is is appropriate we also support the the inclusion of defined timelines to ensure more predictability and certainty in the process and then finally we we support the um ensuring that epa has appropriate resources to implement its

and i will take over as chair while sir kramer is out and i will Now welcome, Doctor Mihal Friedhoff. Welcome back to the committee and thank you for being here. Doctor Friedhoff is a senior policy advisor at Holland and Knight. She previously served as the assistant administrator of the EPA Office of Chemical Safety and Pollution Prevention under the Biden administration and played a key role in drafting and implementing the bipartisan twenty sixteen Lautenberg amendments to TASKA the last time Congress amended the program Doctor Friedhoff please proceed with your opening statement.

Chairman Ricketts, Senator Whitehouse, other members of the committee, thanks so much for the invitation to be here today. My name is Michal Friedhoff, and I'm here in a personal capacity, based on my prior work for Senator Markey and with other members of this committee on the twenty sixteen TSKA amendments, and working as the Assistant Administrator of the EPA office that implements TSKA for the entirety of the Biden administration. I also wanna make clear that while hauling in night represents clients related to task of fees authorization. I do not. My views today are my own, informed by my experience as the only person who both played a significant role in negotiating the twenty sixteen law and led its implementation at EPA. This committee played a central role in shaping the law that was almost unanimously enacted almost ten years ago. We knew we were making foundational changes to the inadequate nineteen seventy-six law. We also knew that when the fees expired, Congress would need to reauthorize them, and I'm glad the committee has begun this important work. My written testimony describes four principles. First, safety and speed. That's what Congress wanted for new chemicals in twenty sixteen. I don't think Congress appreciated what it would take for EPA to rem to review every new chemical in twenty sixteen. And I also don't think that Congress knew that in between nineteen seventy-six and eighty percent of new chemicals went into commerce without a formal safety review. Sometimes that was because EPA was reasonably confident about the new com- chemical safety, but other times it was because the ninety day clock ran out before EPA could act. So when I reflect on the decades of policy that led to Superfund sites, contaminated drinking water, cancer clusters caused by improper disposal of toxic chemicals, problems that came at an enormous cost, not just in dollars but to people's lives. I can't help but reflect that if the new the twenty sixteen new chemicals provisions had been there all along we might have been able to ensure that the chemicals we rely on for our daily lives were safe before they got into our air, water, land, and bodies. So I don't believe that Congress should remove the requirement that EPA formally review new chemicals. before they go into commerce. There are some provisions in the draft that result in that outcome. For example, there's language deeming some new chemicals to be equivalent to other chemicals that are already on the TASCA inventory, thus allowing EPA's review to be skipped altogether. Even though most of the chemicals on the inventory have never been reviewed under TASCA. There are also provisions that could be read to mean that EPA might not be able to get information it needs complete its review if EPA wasn't already sure that the chemical was more likely than not to present an unreasonable risk. There are also things in the draft that could help, like reinvigorating the sustainable futures program. And the provisions that call for streamlined ways to review substantially similar chemicals would build on successful efforts that the first Trump and Biden administrations began. Second, Husky fees were modeled after a similar periodically reauthorized pesticide fees program. Every single successful pesticide fees reauthorization has had the same unanimous support that the twenty sixteen TSCA had. These fees provisions are not intended to force rewrites of the entire law, but rather to include only the things that everyone can agree to. Unfortunately, even with fees, in almost ten years, EPA has never had what it needed to meet deadlines for either existing or new chemicals. And my third principle, ensuring EPA has the resources it needs to do the job, dovetails with the fourth, which is making sure any changes to the law are implementable. About twenty-five percent of EPA's staff have left in the last year, including many of its most experienced leaders and a third of the lawyers who supported EPA's chemical safety efforts. The part of EPA that administers TSCA has about forty fewer staff, than the roughly three hundred and sixty people it had at the end of the Biden administration. This draft mandates that EPA stand up new programs, functions, processes, rules, guidance documents, and other requirements generally in one year or less. Quite simply, this isn't implementable and would likely slow things down rather than speed them up. I believe it'll benefit everyone for Congress to be as surgical as possible, to ensure that any changes it makes not only preserve the protective policies in the twenty sixteen law, but also don't unintentionally add to EPA's challenges of protecting people while meeting its deadlines. Thanks again for the invitation.

Thank you, Doctor. I'd li- I'd like to uh yield some time to myself for a few remarks and questions.

Without without objection,

Okay.

I just wanted to note that Senator

OK. All right. Thank you. Uh, I'm grateful to our our our chair, a person who's not here today and not feeling well for this hearing. I'm grateful to the ranking member. I've really been looking forward to this hearing, uh, 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 to research and development to create materials that reduce emissions, improve safety, and strengthen our industrial base. But when reviews under task are delayed, unpredictable, or disconnected with real-world applications, innovation slows, research moves overseas, promising replacements are shelved, and American work- workers lose opportunities. There are few industries impacted more than semiconductors, which are critical to American and allied competitiveness. Advanced chips developed on highly specialized chemicals that are essential to nearly every aspect of modern life. Interestingly, my wife and I lived in Taiwan in the eighties. And I saw firsthand how a strategic investment in semiconductors transformed its economy from producing Christmas lights to highly productive semiconductor and be- they've become a powerhouse because of that investment. One uh antidote that stayed with me from our subcommittee hearing in October is that, in some cases, aircraft are required to use an environmentally interior inferior chemical in the cargo hold, even though a safer alternative has been approved for the use in the passenger cabin of the same aircraft. That restriction stems from aviation safety, not from safety a regulations, but from EPA's task and program. Even small formulation changes can trigger new reviews, delay safety, or more substantially alternate and disrupt supply chains. As we considered 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 recognized value and importance of TSCA. TSCA, the question is how we make these domestic chemicals manufacturing both predictable and safe. So, Doctor Engler, let me start with you, when EPA evaluates pre-manufactured notices, is it necessary to issue a significant new use rule for every new chemical? It seems we're effectively permitting an inno- permitting an innovation and immediately regulating it in a way Congress did not attend. Also, when EPA does determine what a snur is, when a snur is appropriate, is there a more effective way to issue it so companies can bring their products to the market without necessary delays?

So, um, uh, that's an excellent question. EPA has been issuing snurs, orders and snurs, some restriction on eighty-five to ninety percent of new chemicals. It's not every new chemical, again, if EPA finds it's low-low, EPA will let it go forward without a restriction. Um, but many of the, many of the products that we've assisted clients bringing to to um through the new chemicals program our our view and we've demonstrated to epa mathematically that it there that it is extraordinarily unlikely that any release or exposure would exceed epa's concern threshold and yet epa proceeds with the restriction so i think no it's not necessary um for epa to take that level of uh uh uh of restriction um but that's what we've been seeing now across four different administrations

thank you doctor friedhoff Under the current framework, once a chemical is listed on the TOSCA inventory, EPA's ability to ensure it is used only under the conditions described in the original submission is limited. As a result, EPA assesses much uh evaluates risk across a broad range of potential uses, 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 and the review process?

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.

Could we agree that it's a good conversation to have, And uh that that the creativity is is

I think that I think that it's great to think about, think of ways that EPA could protect people while meeting its deadlines.

Thank you. Would would love to further that conversation with you. Uh, Mister Isaacs, 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?

yes this is one factor that that is very much a consideration in in driving new investment and um you know our industry is very competitive and united states is in a global race for attracting investments in in our industry and um having more certainty and predictability with regard to being able to introduce new new substances into the processes to uh particularly at the leading edge the most advanced um processes is very important and and that's why we think there should be targeted um reforms to uh streamline the process and improve the process we are not looking for open-ended exemptions but but rather um reviews based on conditions of use that that address the specific um operating conditions in our industry

Yeah, I'd like to highlight two of the words you you used there, consistency and predictability. Um, it's not shortcuts, it's just like what is the drill and and and let's not change it, and it be let's be predictable and consistent. Uh, with that, uh, I'll come back to some more questions a little later. I'll yield to, uh, the Senator from California.

Uh, thank you, Mister Acting Chair. Uh, and I think we both shared, uh, the Chair's interest in making TSCA work more efficiently. Um. and uh mister isaacs i'm particularly uh interested in learning more about the semiconductor industry's perspective on tosca however uh i must let it be known for the record that i cannot support the current draft of this legislation now i wanna emphasize how much is at stake here uh tosca is critical to protecting the health of all americans including and maybe especially the most more vulnerable populations including the elderly residents of frontline communities and others now careful reviews of new chemicals by impartial epa staff are essential uh in this effort uh and as a result i don't see how we can undertake any task of reform effort unless we simultaneously restore epa staffing and expertise to levels that existed prior to twenty twenty four i think is just common sense you can try to strike that right balance uh senator curtis but if you don't have the staff to do the work then of course it's not gonna get done on a timely basis uh there is also other specific provisions of the bill that concern me unreviewed new chemicals should not be approved for use simply because a critically understaffed epa couldn't complete its analysis by a certain deadline if you're fully staffed then maybe the deadline can be more of a serious conversation and consideration but that's uh not the case and that artificial deadline combined with understaffing uh is allowed in several circumstances under this bill i'm also seriously concerned that the draft bill would prevent epa from regulating a new chemical unless it is quote more likely than not to create an unreasonable risk of injury to public health or the environment. Now, that may sound innocuous to some. That may may sound a little too vague for some. So let's drill down here. We are considering new chemicals, uh, that have no existing track record. And assembling enough evidence, the data necessary to show that injury is more likely than not to occur, could be very difficult as a result. So this this standard could also block epa from regulating chemicals with significant risks the more likely than not is regularly understood to be fifty one percent chance or greater of something happening right majority more than fifty percent so this means that if epa concludes that a new chemical has say only a forty five percent chance of causing significant cancer let's say to pregnant women as an example um, then the standard is not met, and the EPA cannot regulate that chemical to try to reduce the potential cancer risk. That seems absurd to me. So, I know we want the certainty, we want the specifics, we always want the hard and fast number, but the proper balance is gonna include a little bit of the flexibility, a little bit more of the context to make these important and critical determinations. So, that being said, let me, uh, pose a question to all of you. Uh, do you believe, any of you believe that the EPA's hands should be tied in imposing restrictions on a new chemical and we can use that forty-five percent uh example just for conversation purposes when a significant cancer risk for uh uh pregnant women or other vulnerable population uh has been determined and we'll start with uh, Mister, Doctor Engler.

Um, so, uh, I mean the the the difference between not likely and more likely than not is that this is a critical question that we do need to answer I think. as a task of stakeholder community. Right now, the the standard for EPA to proceed without a restriction is not likely. By your math, that would be forty nine percent or or fifty one percent or like, right? It's that same line. It's below that line. Um, but that's not how EPA implements it. EPA to not conclude that it may present is looking for like ninety nine percent confidence that it's not gonna happen and not likely is only like one percent. So, I'm not sure where that line is. um that i suggested more likely than not to help give epa some direction about the uncertainty or the level of certainty that it needs um to make that decision um but i think that is one of the most important um things that we need to discuss as a as you know with this committee

mr. isaacs

yeah our our main priority is that whatever standard is used and we we support epa undertaking a thorough and appropriate review of chemicals that they do so looking at the conditions of use in our industry the the volumes level of controls and such and we believe that their evaluation of risks under those circumstances will result in a um appropriate determination and and so um that's our our highest concern with regard to the draft

i think epa should continue to be required to review the safety of new chemicals and should continue to have the authority to get the information it needs, and impose the requirements that things are necessary.

Thank you. And not to put words in your mouth, but and ensure the staffing and capacity necessary to conduct those those studies and reviews.

Hands shouldn't, their hands should not be tied.

Yeah. So, uh, thank you, Mister Chair, and, uh, thank you, uh, Ranking Member Whitehouse for, uh, allowing me to get my questions in.

So, and Ricketts. Well, thank you to all the witnesses for being here today and sharing your perspectives on the improvements as the committee works to reauthorize this important legislation. We all know that chemicals are essential for modern life. In agriculture, this includes chemicals used in pro- crop protection tools, livestock production, and irrigation systems. These sectors are the economic backbone of my home state of Nebraska. As a matter of fact, Nebraska is a global leader in the production of irrigation systems. Phenyl chloride is a necessary chemistry for the irrigation tubing, hoses, and drip lines. In addition, chemicals and manufacturing inputs like formaldehyde also play a critical role in other key sectors. Obviously, we just discussed the semiconductor industry. Over five hundred chemicals go into making a single chip. Even though these chemistries are known to be safe, the Toscan review process has created more bottlenecks than actual progress to compete across the world. Without reform, innovative chemistries that are safe for the environment are left in R and D pipelines instead of being used by industry and consumers. Frankly, this is kind of contrary to what we want. We want newer, safer chemicals rather than using the older ones that are not as safe. This dynamic undermines, not advances environmental progress, it dampens investment into the industry. Streamlining the approval process for chemistries that have already been verified represents a meaningful uh process improvement reflected in the discussion draft. By creating a more efficient pathway for previous really reviewed substances, the EPA can prioritize resources toward evaluating truly new chemistries. It uh getting the regulatory environment right is critical for food security, energy security, and national security. Uh we need to make sure that we're verifying these alternatives and move forward without unnecessary delay. Doctor Engler and Mister Isaacs, how can we continue to strengthen and ensure industry continues to onshore chemical development in the US rather than industry looking at countries overseas? Doctor Engler, we'll start with you.