A new budget proposal for fiscal year 2026 seeks to eliminate federal funding for the U.S. Chemical Safety and Hazard Investigation Board (CSB), an independent agency responsible for investigating major chemical accidents at industrial facilities. The proposed defunding would lead to the eventual closure of the board, transferring its responsibilities to other government bodies and raising significant questions about the future of specialized, independent safety oversight in the chemical industry.
The administration’s plan aims to enhance fiscal responsibility by cutting what it deems a redundant federal entity. Since its inception, the CSB has investigated hundreds of incidents, including refinery fires and chemical plant explosions, to determine their root causes and issue safety recommendations to prevent recurrences. The proposal to shutter the agency has ignited a debate between those who see it as a duplicative government expense and those who view its independent, non-regulatory role as essential for ensuring public and worker safety. Supporters of the board argue that its closure would create a critical gap in chemical safety, potentially leaving industries and communities more vulnerable to catastrophic events.
Details of the Budget Proposal
The administration’s budget request for fiscal year 2026 formally proposes zero funding for the CSB. According to supplemental documents accompanying the proposal, the move is part of a broader strategy to “redefine the proper role of the Federal Government” and achieve fiscal savings. If Congress approves the request, the CSB would be expected to begin shutdown procedures within the current fiscal year. The agency currently operates on a modest annual budget of approximately $14.4 million and employs fewer than 50 people. This is not the first attempt to eliminate the agency; a similar proposal was made during the president’s previous term but was ultimately rejected by Congress, which continued to allocate funds for its operations. However, observers suggest the current political climate may be more receptive to the administration’s priorities.
Justification for Elimination
The primary argument for dissolving the CSB is the assertion that its functions overlap with those of other federal agencies, specifically the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA). The budget proposal contends that the CSB “duplicates substantial capabilities” within these larger regulatory bodies. It further characterizes the board’s work as generating “unprompted studies” and recommending policies that it has no authority to enforce, a function the administration believes should reside exclusively with agencies that can issue and enforce regulations. Proponents of the cut argue that consolidating investigative duties within OSHA and the EPA would streamline government operations and reduce federal spending. In the event of a workplace chemical incident, OSHA already conducts its own review, often in parallel with a CSB investigation. The administration’s position is that this parallel effort represents an unnecessary expenditure of taxpayer money.
The Role and History of the CSB
The U.S. Chemical Safety Board was authorized by the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990 and became fully operational in 1998. Congress modeled the CSB after the National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB), intending for it to be an independent, non-regulatory body. Its sole mission is to investigate the root causes of chemical accidents, issue public reports, and make safety recommendations to companies, industry groups, and regulatory agencies. Because the CSB does not have the authority to issue fines or penalties, its investigations are often welcomed by companies seeking to understand and rectify the factors that led to an accident.
Since it began its work, the CSB has investigated nearly 180 chemical incidents that have resulted in more than 200 fatalities and over 1,300 serious injuries. The board has also issued more than 1,000 safety recommendations based on its findings, which are relied upon by corporations, trade associations, and educational institutions to improve process safety. These recommendations have led to significant changes in safety standards and practices across the chemical and energy sectors, addressing hazards that were not adequately covered by existing regulations.
Defense of the Agency’s Mission
Advocacy for Independence
Supporters of the CSB strongly contest the claim that its work is redundant, emphasizing that its independence is its most critical feature. The legislative history of the board’s creation highlights the concern that agencies with both investigative and rulemaking powers, like OSHA and the EPA, might be reluctant to identify deficiencies in their own regulations as a contributing cause of an accident. Such agencies, it was argued, tend to focus investigations on violations of existing rules, potentially overlooking systemic flaws or other factors for which no enforcement action can be taken. The CSB’s independence allows it to conduct impartial, science-based root cause analyses without the conflict of interest inherent in a regulatory body evaluating its own effectiveness.
Economic and Safety Impact
The agency’s defenders also point to its economic value. CSB Chairperson Steve Owens has stated that if the board’s safety lessons have prevented even one catastrophic chemical incident, the savings in lives, property damage, and litigation costs would far exceed the CSB’s “modest annual budget.” He asserts that the agency “more than pays for itself” by preventing costly disasters. Professional organizations, including the American Chemical Society (ACS), have also voiced strong support, urging Congress to provide robust funding for the board. The ACS highlights the CSB’s essential role in driving chemical safety change and providing a vital resource for the entire scientific and industrial community.
Potential Consequences of Closure
The elimination of the CSB would leave a significant void in the nation’s industrial safety framework. Without a dedicated, independent body for root cause analysis, the responsibility for in-depth investigations would fall entirely to regulatory agencies like OSHA and the EPA. Critics of the proposal fear these agencies lack the specific mandate, resources, and independent perspective to replicate the CSB’s work effectively. While OSHA investigates workplace safety compliance, its focus is narrower than the CSB’s comprehensive, systemic approach.
Furthermore, the public-facing nature of the CSB’s work would be lost. The board’s detailed reports and animated safety videos are widely used for training and education, helping to disseminate critical safety lessons to a broad audience of workers, engineers, and safety managers. If the CSB is dissolved, companies might need to devote more of their own resources to investigating incidents, but the resulting findings would likely not be shared publicly, limiting the potential for industry-wide learning and prevention. The ultimate outcome, warn safety advocates, could be an increase in the frequency and severity of chemical disasters, posing a greater risk to workers, communities, and the environment.
