Industry Calls for Overhaul of Chemical Safety Law, Citing Delays and Inconsistent Science

This analysis is based on reporting from Manufacturing Dive.

WASHINGTON — A decade after a landmark update to the nation's primary chemical safety law, industry leaders are mounting a forceful campaign for another overhaul, arguing that inconsistent implementation and lengthy delays are stifling innovation and creating supply chain vulnerabilities.

The calls for reform dominated discussions at the American Chemistry Council's annual GlobalChem regulatory conference last week. Panelists from major chemical firms and the defense sector detailed frustrations with the Environmental Protection Agency's execution of the Frank R. Lautenberg Chemical Safety for the 21st Century Act, passed with bipartisan fanfare in 2016.

"When TSCA works, American manufacturing can thrive," said Chris Jahn, ACC's president and CEO. "But as we have repeatedly told lawmakers for years now, TSCA is not working as Congress intended."

The core complaints are twofold: reviews of new chemicals routinely blow past the 90-day statutory deadline, creating business uncertainty, and the scientific basis for risk evaluations shifts between administrations. Industry representatives are now pushing lawmakers to mandate the use of the "gold science standard"—a principle from a 2025 executive order requiring agencies to base decisions on the "most credible, reliable, and impartial scientific evidence available."

Kari Mavian, Dow's global director of regulatory advocacy, highlighted the whiplash. "We had expectations that implementation would also be bipartisan, but clearly, that’s not what we're seeing," Mavian said. "We’re seeing flip-flops and policy changes, administration to administration. We’re seeing risk evaluations being redone and amended."

The stakes extend beyond commercial chemistry. Kelsey Hendrixson, a director with the Department of Defense's Chemical and Material Risk Management office, warned that delays and restrictions can threaten national security. While the DOD can obtain exemptions for critical uses, the broader commercial market's shift away from a chemical can leave the military unable to procure it or reliant on foreign sources. "This creates national security vulnerabilities," Hendrixson stated.

EPA officials acknowledged the challenges but pointed to ongoing reforms. Doug Troutman, assistant administrator of the EPA’s Office of Chemical Safety and Pollution Prevention, said the agency is committed to the "gold standard" of science while tackling a massive workload fueled by sectors like semiconductors and AI infrastructure.

To address backlogs, the EPA has reorganized its chemical safety office, added 180 staff, and built a new IT center. The agency received $17 million in 2025 for system upgrades. "We’re committed to commonsense, practical protections that still allow your businesses to thrive," Troutman told the conference.

The legislative push is gaining momentum. A House committee held a hearing on a draft reform bill in January, and the Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works is set to discuss its own proposal, the "Toxic Substances Control Act Fee Reauthorization and Improvement Act of 2026," this week.

Voices from the Field:

Dr. Anya Sharma, Regulatory Consultant, ChemInsight Partners: "The data shows the review timeline issue is real and costly. However, the call for 'gold standard' science must be genuine, not a tool to impose unreasonable burdens of proof that paralyze the protective intent of the law. The goal should be predictability, not impossibility."

Michael Briggs, Plant Manager, Midwestern Petrochemicals: "We've had projects stuck in regulatory limbo for over a year. It's not just about competitiveness; it's about planning and jobs. The constant rule changes between administrations make long-term investment a gamble. Congress needs to provide clarity, and the EPA needs resources to meet its mandate."

Rebecca Cortez, Environmental Health Advocate, Clean Future Now: "This is a transparent attempt to weaken safeguards. 'Delay' is their code for 'we don't like the outcome.' The Lautenberg Act was passed to protect people from toxic chemicals, not to guarantee industry a speedy permit. Every 'flip-flop' they complain about is often the correction of a previous, industry-friendly shortcut that put public health at risk."

David Chen, Supply Chain Analyst, Global Logistics Firm: "The DOD's testimony is the sleeper issue here. It reveals how chemical regulations have direct, downstream effects on national security and critical infrastructure resilience. This isn't just an environmental or business story anymore."