By Will Atwater
North Carolina’s struggle with PFAS contamination underscores the unintended consequences that can follow widespread chemical use — even as Congress is considering overhauling the nation’s foremost chemical safety law.
That law, the Toxic Substances Control Act, governs how industrial chemicals are reviewed and regulated in the United States. Passed in 1976 and overhauled by a Republican Congress in 2016, the chemical safety law sets standards for the data companies must provide, the timeline federal regulators have to review new chemicals and whether substances can enter commerce.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Administrator Lee Zeldin has defended proposed changes to TSCA as a way to make chemical reviews more predictable and efficient while maintaining safety standards. In announcing the proposal, Zeldin said the agency aims to provide “a clear, predictable, commonsense approach that’s grounded in the law and the science.” He added that reforms are intended to protect health and the environment while allowing American manufacturing to thrive.
Critics say industry interests are driving the push for changes.
“It’s clear that the chemical industry is engaged in a full court press to try to make some amendments to TSCA,” said Stan Meiburg, former acting deputy administrator of the EPA and retired head of The Sabin Center for Environment and Sustainability at Wake Forest University, in an interview with NC Health News.
In North Carolina, contamination from PFAS and other industrial chemicals evaluated under TSCA brought enforcement of the act into sharp public focus.
Often called “forever chemicals,” PFAS persist in the environment and have been linked to such human health issues as elevated cholesterol, immune suppression, developmental effects and certain cancers. Once contamination is discovered, cleanup can take years and cost utilities — and taxpayers — millions.
Much of the current debate in Washington centers on required environmental review of the law’s fee authority, mandated under the 2016 amendments. The law allows EPA to collect fees from chemical manufacturers to help fund safety reviews, and it requires the agency to periodically reassess whether those fees are sufficient. That authority will expire at the end of fiscal year 2026 unless Congress renews it, which raises broader questions about how federal chemical oversight will be funded.
The disagreement has played out publicly in recent congressional hearings, where lawmakers debated whether the chemical evaluation process should be simplified to accelerate the review process.
Speed vs. safety
That tension surfaced during two January hearings, a Jan. 8 session before the House Committee on Science, Space and Technology and a Jan. 22 hearing before the House Energy and Commerce Subcommittee on Environment, where lawmakers debated whether to move chemical reviews along more quickly or strengthen oversight under TSCA.
The House discussion draft would revise how EPA reviews and regulates chemicals under TSCA, including lowering the evidentiary standard in some cases.
Revise new chemical reviews
Amend timelines and decision standards under Section 5.
Insert “more likely than not” language into certain risk determinations, requiring EPA in some cases to show that harm is more probable than not before acting.
Redefine “conditions of use”
Restrict which foreseeable uses and exposures EPA must evaluate, focusing only on those considered “more likely than not” to occur.
Amend risk evaluations
Change how EPA decides whether existing chemicals are dangerous, including limiting which exposure scenarios must be considered and, in some cases, requiring stronger proof of harm before regulation.
Update testing authority
Revise procedures for requiring testing and gathering data from manufacturers.
Reauthorize user fees
Extend EPA’s authority to collect industry fees.
Adjust elements of the fee program ahead of the 2026 expiration.
Supporters of overhauling the law said the process needs greater efficiency and clearer timelines, while critics argue that speeding reviews without strengthening scientific capacity could weaken protections.
“EPA is required to complete new chemical reviews within 90 days,” Charlotte Bertrand, a senior director at the American Chemistry Council, said during the Jan. 8 House hearing. “Yet more than 90 percent of active reviews exceed that statutory deadline. Over 60 percent remain pending for more than a year — and some for several years.”
Without changes, she added, delays in chemical approvals could put American manufacturers at a global disadvantage, particularly when compared with China.
Meiburg, who testified at the Jan. 8 hearing, warned against prioritizing speed over scientific rigor.
“Quick decisions do not serve the public if they are not based on the best science, are inconsistent with the law, are unduly influenced by interested parties or not transparent,” Meiburg told lawmakers.
His warning comes as the agency’s scientific capacity has faced reductions. Last year, the Trump administration announced plans to reduce the organization’s funding by 65 percent, a proposal that has resulted in substantial cuts to the Office of Research and Development — the agency’s primary science arm and the division responsible for conducting chemical risk evaluations under TSCA.
At the Jan. 22 House Energy and Commerce Subcommittee hearing, Tracey Woodruff, professor at the University of California, San Francisco, and director of its Program on Reproductive Health and the Environment, argued that the proposed reforms would weaken safeguards built into the 2016 amendments.
follow our coverage of EnviRONMENTAL health
“The proposed changes would remove public health guardrails and undermine EPA’s ability to protect people from harmful chemicals,” Woodruff said.
Environmental advocates echoed those concerns, arguing that shortening timelines or narrowing data requirements could increase the risk of overlooking potential health and environmental harms — especially if EPA lacks sufficient scientific staffing and resources.
A looming deadline
Beyond the mechanics of fee renewal, former EPA Administrator Michael Regan said the broader issue is whether the agency has the resources to carry out the law as written. While the statute itself remains strong, Congress has not provided funding to match the expanded responsibilities created under the 2016 overhaul, he said.
“When you reduce government the way it has been done over the last year or so, you are actually reducing the ability for TSCA to work the way Congress intended it,” Regan told NC Health News during an interview.
Under TSCA, companies submitting new chemicals pay review fees, while manufacturers of existing chemicals selected for formal risk evaluations share the cost of those more extensive, multi-year assessments. Those fees, which can range from tens of thousands to millions of dollars depending on the type of review, help fund EPA’s scientific staff and risk evaluation work.
That authority is set to expire at the end of fiscal year 2026 unless Congress renews it, giving lawmakers leverage not only to adjust fee levels but also to revisit broader elements of the law.
For North Carolina communities, the stakes are not abstract. PFAS contamination in the Cape Fear River has required costly treatment upgrades and years of regulatory and legal action. Supporters of strong oversight argue that thorough, well-resourced reviews are far less expensive than responding after widespread contamination occurs.
Meiburg said the lesson from decades of chemical regulation is straightforward.
“Preventing pollution is always cheaper than repairing damage later,” he said.
KEEP UP WITH THE LATEST
Republish our articles for free, online or in print, under a Creative Commons license.
