The Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works (EPW) held a hearing on a discussion draft of S.__, the Toxic Substances Control Act Fee Reauthorization and Improvement Act of 2026 (Discussion Draft) on March 4, 2026. The Committee’s one pager on the Discussion Draft notes that since the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) was enacted 50 years ago, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) “approval process for new chemicals has not been substantively improved. The current process is both uncertain and costly, hindering America’s economic competitiveness by discouraging the development and commercialization of new, innovative chemicals.” The bill would make targeted reforms to EPA’s new chemical approval process to establish clear rules to make EPA’s chemical review process safe and efficient; prioritize resources where the science is hardest; make the chemical review process more predictable; and enable key sectors to compete in the global marketplace. A transcript of the hearing is available.
Opening Statements from Committee Witnesses
The Committee heard from the following witnesses:
- Richard E. Engler, Ph.D., Director of Chemistry, Bergeson & Campbell, P.C. (B&C®), on behalf of the Coalition for Chemical Innovation (witness testimony);
- David Isaacs, Vice President, Government Affairs, Semiconductor Industry Association (witness testimony); and
- Michal Freedhoff, Ph.D., Senior Policy Advisor, Holland & Knight (witness testimony).
According to Engler, delays in new chemical reviews are not due to a lack of data. Instead, since passage of the Frank R. Lautenberg Chemical Safety for the 21st Century Act (Lautenberg Act) in 2016, statutory ambiguities in the terms “may present unreasonable risk” and “intended, known, and reasonably foreseen” circumstances have led EPA to find that the vast majority of new chemicals may present an unreasonable risk and restrict them. Engler noted that EPA requires restrictions even for biobased, biodegradable substances that are low risk enough to be included on EPA’s Safer Choice Program list of safer ingredients.
Isaacs testified about the importance of new chemicals to the semiconductor industry, noting the typically low volumes used within the sector. Isaacs stressed the importance of a risk-based approach that considers factors such as the specific conditions of use and actual exposure scenarios in the semiconductor industry. Isaacs expressed support for amending TSCA to include defined timelines to ensure more predictability and certainty in the review process.
Freedhoff, Assistant Administrator of the Office of Chemical Safety and Pollution Prevention (OCSPP) under the Biden EPA, stated certain provisions of the Discussion Draft could help EPA’s new chemicals review program, such as support for the Sustainable Futures Program and streamlining the review of substantially similar chemicals. According to Freedhoff, the Discussion Draft also includes language that could prevent EPA from obtaining data needed to complete its review. Freedhoff noted that approximately 25 percent of EPA staff have left in the past year, and that EPA will not be able to implement change without additional resources.
Commentary
The thick layers of ice and snow covering Washington, D.C. have finally all but disappeared, giving way to the welcoming warmth of spring and an eager anticipation for the emergence of the area’s famous cherry blossoms next month. Meanwhile, on Capitol Hill, the conversation on TSCA reform is experiencing a much more subtle thaw: previously frozen attitudes of Democratic lawmakers appear to be gently warming to the idea of TSCA legislative changes that could make the law more effective, giving EPA the resources it needs while ensuring protections for health and the environment.
No Democrat voiced full support for the Discussion Draft text released by Senator Shelley Moore Capito’s (R-WV) office last week. Indeed, many provisions were criticized as undermining EPA’s authority to review new chemicals, circumventing the science, and requiring broad EPA deference to industry. But there were a few notable areas of potential agreement, and — importantly — a recognition that TSCA is still not working as Congress intended. It would have been relatively easy for Senate Democrats to “just say no,” as many in the public health and environmental community seem to prefer. For those who attended or listened to the hearing on Wednesday, Democrats decidedly left the door open for these important conversations to continue.
The congressional interest in tackling this problem is undeniable. There have now been two legislative hearings on TSCA in less than six weeks — first in the House Committee on Energy and Commerce in January, as reported in our January 27, 2026, memorandum, and then another on March 4, 2026, in the Committee on EPW. Both Committees have floated their own legislative proposals for discussion, reflecting both an appreciation by members and their staffs of the significant and complex issues at hand and creativity in finding solutions. EPW’s hearing was also quite well attended; nearly all members of the Committee made time during an otherwise busy day to participate, and a diverse group of stakeholders filled the seats.
Substantively, the Senate’s Discussion Draft is more narrowly focused on improvements to TSCA Section 5 and the new chemicals program, with a few noted exceptions. The contemplated changes are quite ambitious, however, creating new and revised responsibilities for how EPA must operate the TSCA new chemicals program, including: a tiered review process and criteria that put submissions on faster or slower review tracks depending on their novelty and complexity; an expedited pathway to market for limited/intended uses; an opportunity for EPA-accredited third-parties to facilitate certain aspects of EPA’s reviews; and clarifications of key statutory terms that underpin assessments and risk management action.
Overall, Republican members of the Committee supported the Discussion Draft. In their view, the TSCA process is “delayed and unpredictable,” slowing innovation, shelving promising and safer replacement chemistries, and missing opportunities for American workers. As Engler noted in his testimony, unless Congress acts to address these core issues, “our health, our environment and our economy will be poorer for it.” Democrats remained a bit frosty. Many seemed skeptical that the changes contemplated in the Discussion Draft were necessary or appropriate. Senator Sheldon Whitehouse (D-RI), for example, in his opening statement noted that “there will be differing views on what it means to improve” TSCA, while supporting efforts “to continue to explore if there is a package of real improvements” that could be reported out of the Committee. Senator Alex Padilla (D-CA) expressed concern that provisions in the Discussion Draft would allow approval of new chemicals when “a critically understaffed EPA couldn’t complete its analysis by a certain deadline.” Freedhoff testified that such an outcome was akin to a return to the 1976 law, where chemicals could enter commerce without restriction if EPA failed to act. Other than the stewardship pathway, we do not see a “go-to-market” path if EPA fails to complete its review.
Members and witnesses were able to find some common ground, however, in a shared desire to increase the efficiency of TSCA reviews without compromising protections for public health and the environment. Democrats and Republicans alike both acknowledged that ensuring adequate resources for EPA was a necessary predicate for, as Freedhoff described, both “safety and speed.” Both parties seemed to support the re-establishment of EPA’s Sustainable Futures program to facilitate transparent EPA policies and procedures, better educate submitters, and improve the quality of submissions. Further encouraging EPA’s work on standardized risk assessment and risk management approaches for similar groups of chemistries was another area of bipartisan agreement. While several Democrats expressed some hesitancy about diverting too many EPA resources to establish the new guidances and regulatory frameworks required in the Discussion Draft, one could have a legitimate conversation about the trade-offs between these kinds of upfront administrative burdens and the long-term improvements they could offer for program efficiency and effectiveness.
Likewise, B&C would strongly argue that improved clarity in key statutory terms and phrases is essential and something everyone could consider supporting. It can reduce challenges for EPA staff tasked with implementation, minimize policy swings between administrations, and lessen the probability for future litigation — all of which could improve predictability and timeliness for the regulated community and allow EPA to focus more on its core responsibilities to protect human health and the environment.
Is there enough bipartisan common ground for these early proposals to take root? It may be too soon to tell. But B&C is pleased that signs of life continue to emerge, and we will continue to monitor closely any budding developments. We remain hopeful that Congress’ sustained efforts on these bills will grow into some meaningful legislative improvements. A narrower, more targeted set of changes, however, may offer the best chance for peak bloom.
