Second in a two-part Blog series
The safety case for fixing TSCA is straightforward. The economic case is just as direct. Chemistry is foundational. It feeds nearly every corner of the economy: medical devices, semiconductors, electronics, energy, food packaging, and cleaning products. When reviews at the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) stall for months or years, the downstream products that depend on chemistry do not wait. They are manufactured somewhere else.
Americans recognize the importance of maintaining a chemical safety program that supports both safety and economic growth. A recent Morning Consult survey on behalf of ACC found that nearly two-thirds of Americans say it is important that updates to TSCA support American manufacturing competitiveness, and a majority support reauthorizing TSCA funding for EPA chemical safety reviews before it expires.
Competitiveness is about WHERE things get made
“Competitiveness” can sound like a boardroom word. Strip it down and it is a question about where things get made, who makes them and under whose environmental rules. More than 500 chemistries go into a single semiconductor chip. When a new chemistry cannot clear review on a predictable schedule, investment and production decisions do not stand still.
For example, one ACC member company developed cooling technology for chips inside AI data centers. But after facing prolonged uncertainty in the EPA review process, the company chose to manufacture the technology in France instead. The innovation was developed here. The investment went elsewhere.
When manufacturing moves elsewhere, the consequences do not stop at the factory gate:
“Competitiveness” can sound like a boardroom word. Strip it down and it is a question about where things get made, who makes them and under whose environmental rules. More than 500 chemistries go into a single semiconductor chip. When a new chemistry cannot clear review on a predictable schedule, investment and production decisions do not stand still.
For example, one ACC member company developed cooling technology for chips inside AI data centers. But after facing prolonged uncertainty in the EPA review process, the company chose to manufacture the technology in France instead. The innovation was developed here. The investment went elsewhere.
When manufacturing moves elsewhere, the consequences do not stop at the factory gate:
- Good jobs are at risk. Chemical manufacturing supports high-wage work, including union jobs, and the domestic supply chains built around it. Capital investments that cannot get a timeline here have a reason to look elsewhere.
- Oversight fades. Production rarely moves to countries with stronger environmental and worker protections than ours. Offshoring a chemical does not erase its footprint. It can move that footprint somewhere with less scrutiny, while the finished product still lands on American shelves.
- Supply chains are more fragile. Shortages during the COVID-19 pandemic showed what happens when pharmaceutical ingredients, battery materials and chip chemistries depend on a handful of overseas suppliers. Resilience means making more of this here.
A functioning TSCA supports domestic innovation and manufacturing.
That is different from waving chemicals through. If EPA needs more information, it should ask early and plainly. If a submitter did not provide it, the clock should show it. And when EPA can identify a protective path forward, it should decide not to let uncertainty become a holding pattern.
The fix is narrow
Let us be clear about what this debate is not. It is not about reopening the Lautenberg Act, weakening EPA’s authority, or relitigating the 2016 compromise. The problem is the gap between what the law promised and how it has operated over the past decade.
The fix is narrow. Keep the affirmative safety review Congress created. Make statutory deadlines meaningful. Ground decisions in real world conditions of use, as the statute directs. Show the public how TSCA dollars are spent and what they deliver. Improve coordination across federal agencies. And keep the user fees that support the program flowing without interruption.
This past spring, ACC and more than one hundred business and manufacturing organizations urged Congress to advance targeted improvements. Across five TSCA hearings this year, lawmakers and witnesses from both parties described the same implementation problems. And in June, a group of 25 House Democrats urged Energy and Commerce Committee leaders to move bipartisan TSCA legislation “without delay,” arguing that a well-run program protects workers and communities and keeps U.S. manufacturers globally competitive.
What is short is the calendar
The Lautenberg Act passed in 2016 because a broad coalition decided chemical safety and American manufacturing were not opposing interests. That premise still holds. But a law that cannot meet its own deadlines eventually stops delivering on either one.
Congress has what it needs: a hearing record, proposals in both chambers and a problem Democrats and Republicans describe the same way. What is short is the calendar. Before December 11, lawmakers should keep the program funded, improve its performance, and reinforce the principle that timely reviews and strong protections go hand in hand. Then EPA can finish the job the Lautenberg Act gave it.
Ten years ago, Congress proved that chemical safety and economic competitiveness could advance together. It can do so again. Durable TSCA reform requires Congress to act.
