Sound Science Act of 2026
- Sponsor
- Sen. Ricketts, Pete [R-NE]
- Committees
- Environment and Public Works Committee (primary)
- Last action
- Apr 27, 2026
Bottom line
The "Sound Science Act of 2026" aims to increase transparency and interagency coordination in TSCA implementation while potentially narrowing EPA's discretion and introducing new feasibility and cost-effectiveness considerations into chemical regulation.
What it actually does
This bill amends the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) to revise how the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) conducts chemical testing and risk evaluations. It introduces requirements for EPA to consider "technically feasible methodologies" for testing, factor in costs and other non-risk factors in certain decisions, and coordinate more extensively with other federal agencies like OSHA, DoD, and DoE. The bill also modifies the scope of regulatory actions, shifting from eliminating risk to minimizing it "to the extent reasonably feasible," and mandates more rigorous, in-person peer review for EPA's scientific assessments.
Proponents argue
Proponents argue that the bill will improve the scientific rigor and transparency of EPA's chemical regulations by ensuring that decisions are based on "sound science" and consider real-world conditions, including economic impacts and existing workplace safety standards. They contend that greater interagency coordination will prevent duplicative efforts and ensure a holistic approach to chemical safety, ultimately leading to more effective and less burdensome regulations.
Opponents contend
Opponents might argue that the bill introduces unnecessary procedural hurdles and new loopholes that could weaken EPA's ability to protect public health and the environment from toxic substances. They may contend that introducing cost-effectiveness and "reasonable feasibility" standards could prioritize industry profits over safety, and that requiring extensive interagency review and in-person peer review could significantly slow down the regulatory process, leaving dangerous chemicals on the market longer.
The bill is relatively short, making it accessible for a quick read, but its technical amendments to TSCA require a deeper understanding of existing law to fully grasp its implications.
Section 2(a), amending 15 U.S.C. 2603(b)(1)(B)
Modifying Testing Methodologies and Scope
This provision changes the language in TSCA regarding chemical testing requirements. It specifies that EPA must use "technically feasible methodologies" for testing and that the information developed from testing should be tied to the "intended and known purposes" of the chemical substance. This means EPA cannot demand testing using methods that are not yet technically viable, and the scope of testing must be relevant to how the chemical is actually used or disposed of.
Supporters argue
Supporters argue this ensures testing is practical and relevant to real-world applications, preventing EPA from imposing overly burdensome or scientifically unproven testing demands on industry.
Critics contend
Critics might contend that limiting testing to "technically feasible" methods and "intended purposes" could create loopholes, allowing manufacturers to avoid testing for potential risks that are not immediately obvious or for which advanced testing methods are still under development.
Tradeoffs
Balances the desire for comprehensive chemical safety data against the practical and economic feasibility of generating such data.
Section 2(b), amending 15 U.S.C. 2603(f)
Allowing Consideration of Costs in Required Actions
This provision removes a clause from TSCA that previously prohibited EPA from considering costs or other non-risk factors when determining required actions for chemical substances that present an unreasonable risk. With this amendment, EPA would be able to factor in economic costs and other non-risk considerations when deciding what actions to take to address an unreasonable risk identified under TSCA Section 4(f).
Section 3(a), amending 15 U.S.C. 2605(a)
Revising the Scope of Regulatory Action to "Minimize, to the Extent Reasonably Feasible"
This amendment changes the standard for regulatory action under TSCA Section 6(a). Instead of applying requirements "to the extent necessary so that the chemical substance or mixture no longer presents such risk," EPA would now apply requirements "to the extent necessary... to minimize, to the extent reasonably feasible, such risk of injury to health or the environment." This introduces a "reasonably feasible" standard for risk minimization, which is a less stringent goal than eliminating the risk.
Section 3(b), amending 15 U.S.C. 2605(b)(4)
Modifying Risk Evaluation Standards and Interagency Review
This section makes several significant changes to how EPA conducts risk evaluations. It directs EPA to consider "only hazards and exposures that are more likely than not to result in an unreasonable risk," to consider "sentinel exposures," and to consider "aggregate exposures only if" a written determination is made. It also requires EPA to consider exposure limits from other federal agencies and prohibits assuming noncompliance with existing laws like OSHA standards. Furthermore, it extends the public comment period for draft risk evaluations to 60 days and mandates a new 30-day interagency review process before public notice, allowing agencies like DoD, DoE, and OSHA to provide feedback.
Section 3(c), amending 15 U.S.C. 2605(c)(2)
Incorporating Cost-Effectiveness and Comparative Risk in Rule Selection
This provision mandates that when EPA selects requirements to regulate a chemical substance, it must factor in OSHA standards and choose requirements that are "cost-effective in relation to the minimization of the unreasonable risk" and "do not result in the creation of greater risks for health or the environment." This means EPA must explicitly consider the economic efficiency of its chosen regulatory actions and ensure they don't inadvertently create new or worse risks.
Section 5, amending 15 U.S.C. 2625
Strengthening Scientific Standards and Peer Review
This section adds new requirements for EPA's public statements regarding scientific standards and mandates a more rigorous peer review process. It requires EPA to state the consistency of its assessments with scientific standards, consult with other federal agencies and experts for worker protection standards, and consider interagency comments. Crucially, it mandates a "complete in-person peer review" by the Science Advisory Committee on Chemicals (SACC) for risk evaluations, providing a minimum of 30 days for reviewers to thoroughly examine the risk evaluation, underlying science, and Administrator's determinations.
Expanding "Reasonably Available Information" to Include OSHA Standards
Section 3(d), amending 15 U.S.C. 2625(k)
Why it matters:This is standard legislative practice for amending definitions within existing statutes.
Case for: Proponents would argue that explicitly including OSHA standards in "reasonably available information" ensures EPA considers all relevant existing federal regulations, promoting consistency and preventing redundant or conflicting requirements.
Case against: Opponents might argue that while seemingly innocuous, this could be used to justify less stringent EPA regulations by pointing to existing OSHA standards, even if those standards are deemed insufficient for broader environmental or public health protection.
Estimated impact: This provision could subtly but significantly influence the data and context EPA considers when making regulatory decisions, potentially leading to a greater emphasis on occupational safety standards in broader risk assessments.
Requiring Scientific Assessments to be Part of the Administrative Record for Judicial Review
Section 4, amending 15 U.S.C. 2605(i)(2)
Why it matters:This is a precise legal amendment to an existing statutory provision governing judicial review, typical for legislative drafting.
Case for: Proponents would argue that this enhances transparency and accountability, ensuring that the scientific basis for EPA's decisions is fully reviewable by courts, thereby promoting sounder science and preventing arbitrary actions.
Case against: Opponents might contend that this could open EPA's scientific work to excessive litigation, potentially bogging down the regulatory process and discouraging robust scientific exploration if every underlying assessment is subject to intense legal challenge.
Estimated impact: This could significantly increase the legal scrutiny of EPA's scientific methodologies and findings, potentially leading to more challenges to risk evaluations and regulatory rules in court.