EPA Facing Backlog of New Chemical Approvals
As the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) grapples with a significant backlog, manufacturers are expressing concerns that prolonged delays are driving production overseas. On September 1, the EPA had 421 new chemical notifications waiting for approval, with a mandate to review each within a 90-day timeframe, according to their own statistics. Recently, Congress extended the EPA’s authority to collect fees from chemical manufacturers until December 11, as specified in the spending law signed by former President Donald Trump on September 2.
The EPA has acknowledged receiving 11 submissions related to battery components or materials, which are in the review process. These updates were published in Federal Register notices on July 28 and August 27. Additional requests noted in these documents include two heat transfer fluids, a chemical for manufacturing electronic components, and an ingredient used in making photoresist for computer chips.
One company has opted to produce a cooling chemical for semiconductor chips in France, attributing this decision to the slow review process in the U.S., according to a statement from the American Chemistry Council (ACC). Although the specific company was not named, this highlights the frustrations manufacturers face.
“When a new chemical lingers under EPA review for more than a year past its deadline, manufacturers can’t confidently move forward with commercialization or large-scale production,” the ACC commented. “As a result, their clients are forced to stick with existing materials or wait even longer for alternatives.”
Current proposals in Congress aimed at reforming the review process are still in draft form. Both the House Energy and Commerce Committee and the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee issued discussion drafts this year to reauthorize the fees, but neither has been officially introduced as of March.
The ACC advocates for reauthorizing the fees while also pushing for reforms that would make the review process “more timely, transparent, predictable, and rooted in the best available science.” In their remarks, the ACC emphasized that this stance doesn’t imply a push for weaker reviews. Instead, they believe safety and prompt, science-based decisions should coexist.
Most companies behind the new battery submissions have claimed their identities as confidential business information, with one exception: Quino Energy, which is pursuing approval for an electrical energy storage electrolyte.
A survey conducted by the Society of Chemical Manufacturers and Affiliates (SOCMA) found that over 60% of chemical manufacturers experienced EPA review times extending beyond one year. Many reported that these delays hinder their business—82% stated they lost opportunities, while 70% had to cancel projects. Furthermore, two-thirds indicated that prolonged reviews impacted their decisions on manufacturing location in the U.S. An impressive 93% stated that a quicker and more predictable process would encourage them to consider relocating production back to the country.
“Revising the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) would also enable the U.S. to compete more effectively against foreign rivals, like China, in advanced manufacturing,” the ACC asserted.
TC Energy, a major player in natural gas pipeline operations across 36 states, referred inquiries to a company statement from December 3, 2025. In that statement, President and CEO François Poirier highlighted the importance of predictable permitting for American competitiveness. He chaired a report by the National Petroleum Council that urged for limitations on litigation and greater use of fast-tracked permits.
The EPA has requested until September 21 to respond to inquiries made by the DCNF and had not provided comments at the time of publication.
Meanwhile, Republican Senator Pete Ricketts from Nebraska introduced the Sound Science Act (S. 4397) on April 27, which was referred to the Environment and Public Works Committee that same day. The bill specifically focuses on the scientific methods the EPA uses in evaluating chemical risks.
The ACC has reported that out of 446 new chemicals under review, 409 have surpassed the 90-day evaluation period, with 307 pending for over a year. The median wait for these reviews was 469 days in the first quarter of 2026, a slight improvement from the 520-day median in 2025.
Before manufacturing or importing any chemicals not listed in the federal inventory, companies must notify the EPA, as outlined in the agency’s Federal Register notices.
Of the 421 pending notices as of September 1, 267 were with the EPA, while 154 remained with the companies that submitted them. Notably, only 19 new chemicals were approved for unrestricted sale in fiscal 2026 up to September 1, a significant decline from 267 in fiscal 2019. Yet, during the same timeframe, the EPA completed 151 notice reviews, marginally surpassing the 148 completed in all of fiscal 2025.
On September 18, 2025, EPA Administrator Lee Zeldin announced that the agency would prioritize new chemicals meant for data center projects.
The Alliance for Health and Safe Chemicals, a coalition focused on health and environmental issues, raised concerns that the Senate draft could facilitate the entry of toxic chemicals into homes, schools, and workplaces. Democratic Senator Sheldon Whitehouse of Rhode Island, the ranking member of the Senate committee, also highlighted potential weaknesses that could arise in the EPA’s new chemical authority without sufficient data to assess risks.
According to testimony from Michal Freedhoff, a former assistant administrator in the EPA’s chemical office, about 25% of EPA staff have left within the past year. It’s noted that the fees collected cover roughly a quarter of the costs associated with the new chemicals program.
The EPA is currently accepting public comments regarding its August 27 notice until September 28.
