Listen to the audio version of this article (generated by AI).
Senate Republicans said in a hearing Wednesday that the changes to the nation’s main chemical safety law are necessary for America’s competitiveness, as Democrats warn that the changes would harm public health.
The hearing comes a week after Republicans weighed in on the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee. Announced draft bill for deliberation It aims to relax the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) in order to speed up federal chemical reviews.
The Senate bill comes a little more than a month after House Republicans released their draft version. Deliberation bill Similarly, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is seeking to repeal several provisions of TSCA, the federal law that evaluates chemicals to ensure that human and environmental health are protected before they are put on the market. TSCA was updated in 2016 with bipartisan support and has since drawn the ire of the chemical industry.
Republican Sen. Kevin Cramer of North Dakota gave opening remarks at Wednesday’s hearing. (Credit: Senate.gov)
“Companies are slowing or abandoning the development of safer alternatives in the United States, while shifting investment and production overseas to places like Europe and China,” said Republican Sen. Kevin Cramer of North Dakota. “EPA’s onerous requirements simply mean that cutting-edge materials are not sent to the U.S. market.”
Richard Engler, director of chemistry at Bergeson & Campbell and a witness at the hearing, said a predictable schedule for chemical reviews is critical to bringing manufacturing of these chemicals back to the United States.
“While it may seem intuitive to want to address all risks with restrictions, that is not desirable federal policy, nor is it good policy,” Engler said. “Not all hazards involve real risk, and as a society we do not advocate for or benefit from this level of risk reduction.”
“Companies are moving investment and production overseas, to Europe and China, while delaying or abandoning the development of safer alternatives in the United States.” – Sen. Kevin Cramer, Republican from North Dakota
The Senate bill targets the EPA’s new chemical programs, often changing definitions and language to reduce the evidentiary burden on chemical manufacturers to prove their chemicals do not harm humans.
For example, in addition to changing the requirement that a chemical “does not present an unreasonable risk” to “not likely to present an unreasonable risk,” the bill narrows what is considered a “condition of use” for a chemical, which critics say would prevent the EPA from considering a chemical’s potential unintended effects.
The bill would also create a tiered approval system for seemingly faster processing of certain chemicals, but the draft does not provide an update schedule for each tier. We also provide exemptions for chemicals that are produced in smaller quantities, are expected to be released into the environment in lower quantities, or have even slightly lower toxicity than chemicals currently on the market.
Several Democratic lawmakers expressed a desire to find ways to make chemical reviews more efficient and predictable, but said the current bill would allow industry to override the EPA’s authority.
“The fossil fuel, tobacco and pharmaceutical industries have shown time and time again that profits are more important than truth and the public interest,” Democratic Rep. Sheldon Whitehouse of Rhode Island said at the hearing. “The American chemistry sector has not yet established itself further.”
“The fossil fuel, tobacco, and pharmaceutical industries have shown time and time again that profit is more important than truth and the public interest. America’s chemical sector has yet to prove it is any better than that.” -Sheldon Whitehouse, Democrat of Rhode Island
Hearing witness Michal Friedhoff, senior policy advisor at Holland & Knight LLP and former EPA assistant administrator for chemical safety, said the change would allow some chemicals to enter the market without EPA review.
Hearing witness Michal Friedhoff is a senior policy advisor at Holland & Knight LLP and a former EPA Assistant Administrator for Chemical Safety. (Credit: Senate.gov)
“I do not believe that Congress should remove the requirement that new chemicals be formally reviewed by the EPA before they are placed in commerce,” Friedhoff said during the hearing. “There are several provisions in the draft that will have that effect.”
He added that EPA remains understaffed and the proposed changes would require “EPA to develop new programs, functions, processes, regulations, guidance documents, and other requirements, typically within one year.”
“This is not viable and would probably slow things down rather than speed them up,” he added, adding that if Congress wants to speed up the review, the “biggest thing” it can do is “provide sufficient EPA resources to accomplish the task.”
The White House echoed Friedhoff’s concerns about EPA staffing, adding that under President Trump, the agency has been “captured” by the chemical industry and politicized science.
“Senior officials from the chemical industry run the chemical division,” the White House said.
“And[the Trump administration’s]so-called gold standard science executive order leaves government appointees beholden to President Trump’s industry donors rather than to scientists with objective expertise.”
EPA’s Office of Chemical Safety and Pollution Prevention has a number of former chemical lobbyists in leadership positions. Nancy Beck, a former chemical industry executive at the American Chemistry Council (ACC), serves as principal assistant administrator. Lynn Ann Dekleva is a former assistant deputy administrator for emerging chemicals at DuPont and ACC. Kyle Kankler most recently served as Deputy Director for Pesticide Management at the American Soybean Association. Douglas Troutman, a lobbyist and former CEO of the American Cleaning Industry Association, has been named deputy administrator of the firm.
In a keynote speech to chemical industry executives last weekTrautman placed the blame for the chemical backlog on the Biden administration, saying, “We are going to build a chemical safety program that will support America’s great comeback.”
Environmental and health groups are urging Congress not to weaken TSCA, saying the proposed changes in both bills would create loopholes and speed the disposal of potentially dangerous chemicals.
“Instead of creating a runway for more toxic pollution, the Senate should reject the chemical industry’s efforts to further pollute America and line its own pockets even more,” said Avi Carr, director of toxic substances at the Natural Resources Defense Council. statement.
Senators have until March 18 to submit questions and make further comments on the bill.
Featured image: Sen. Shelley Moore Capito, who chairs the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee and has led the TSCA reform effort, at an October 2025 event. (Credit: McConnell Center/flickr)
-
Brian Bienkowski is the editor-in-chief of The New Lede. He is a veteran journalist with over 15 years of experience covering the environment and human health. Prior to joining TNL, he was a senior editor at Environmental Health News for nearly a decade, overseeing the newsroom and two local bureaus. He was also the founder, producer, and host of the EJ podcast Agents of Change from 2020 to 2024.
Bienkowski has received multiple awards for her editing and reporting, including honors from the Healthcare Journalists Association, Columbia School of Journalism, Hunter College, and the Environmental Journalists Association. He has a master’s degree in environmental journalism from Michigan State University and lives in northern Michigan.
