{"id":13697,"date":"2026-04-08T12:09:20","date_gmt":"2026-04-08T17:09:20","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/blogs.edf.org\/health\/?p=13697"},"modified":"2026-04-08T12:09:22","modified_gmt":"2026-04-08T17:09:22","slug":"keeping-workers-safe-under-the-toxic-substances-control-act","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/blogs.edf.org\/health\/2026\/04\/08\/keeping-workers-safe-under-the-toxic-substances-control-act\/","title":{"rendered":"Keeping workers safe under the Toxic Substances Control Act"},"content":{"rendered":"\n

In case you missed it, an <\/em>out-of-touch, industry-first proposal<\/em><\/a> from Republicans in the U.S. House of Representatives threatens to significantly weaken the Toxic Substances Control Act, a <\/em>popular<\/em><\/a> chemical safety law that helps keep dangerous chemicals out of our homes, workplaces and schools. A similar proposal from the U.S. Senate would also <\/em>roll back these essential public health protections<\/em><\/a>.<\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Why does this matter? The Toxic Substances Control Act gives EPA the authority and responsibility to review chemicals more effectively \u2013 before and after they enter the market. The law underwent a critical reform 10 years ago because it was not sufficiently protecting millions of Americans. Now, the Toxic Substances Control Act is working, and it\u2019s keeping the most dangerous chemicals out of our lives.<\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Here are some ways our bedrock chemical safety law is working to protect us, and what\u2019s at stake if Republicans in Congress weaken it. Over the next few weeks, we\u2019ll dive deeper on how industry-first Republican proposals in Congress would put profits over health, and how the Toxic Substances Control Act keeps us safe \u2013 and is worth fighting for.<\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Note: this is the fourth in a series about how the House Republicans\u2019 proposal would undermine EPA\u2019s ability to protect public health and the environment from toxic chemicals.<\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n

The Toxic Substances Control Act keeps workers safe<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

The Toxic Substances Control Act gives EPA the authority to comprehensively evaluate the risks of a chemical and requires the agency to do so without consideration of costs or other non-risk factors, like engineering controls or personal protective equipment. Consistent with the requirement to use the best available science, risks to workers should be assessed without assumptions that on-site worker protections are in place. That assumption would prevent EPA from having a comprehensive, science-based understanding of the risks facing workers.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Worker protections should be considered later in the process, at the risk management stage \u2013 not when EPA is determining whether a chemical presents an unreasonable risk, as the law requires. Risk mitigation should involve a hierarchy of controls<\/a>, not a false assumption that the best way to protect workers is to hand them respirators.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

No two workplaces are exactly alike<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

The law also directs EPA to base its risk evaluations on the best available science and on actual exposures, not assumptions about existing protections. This approach recognizes the basic reality that every workplace is different: risk mitigation activities, such as a particular engineering control, that work in one facility may not work in another, and the fact that some employers have mitigation measures in place does not mean that all \u2013 or even most \u2013 of them do.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

This is especially important because even if a chemical is regulated by the Occupational Safety and Health Administration, EPA cannot simply assume the unreasonable risks to workers are mitigated. OSHA itself acknowledges that many of its occupational permissible exposure levels are outdated and often inadequate<\/a>, and the agency recommends relying on other standards and guidance to keep workers meaningfully protected.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Going beyond what OSHA can do<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

The Toxic Substances Control Act has always played a role in worker protections against toxic chemicals. EPA\u2019s role goes beyond what OSHA can do in several ways. The law requires that EPA evaluate risk without consideration of cost or other non-risk factors, including feasibility, when determining whether a chemical presents unreasonable risk. It gives EPA authority to set exposure limits for both new and existing chemicals, going beyond OSHA\u2019s focus on existing chemicals. And it calls on EPA to regulate a chemical \u201cto the extent necessary so that the chemical substance no longer presents such a risk,\u201d equipping the agency with a broad set of tools to protect people. This includes, but is not limited to, the authority to restrict or prohibit specific uses, limit how much of a chemical can be manufactured or imported, require warning labels and safety instructions, mandate testing to fill data gaps and regulate disposal.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The House Republicans\u2019 proposal would fundamentally undermine EPA\u2019s ability to protect workers<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Instead of requiring EPA to regulate a chemical to the extent that it no longer presents an unreasonable risk, the proposal calls for EPA to minimize the risk \u201cto the extent reasonably feasible.\u201d Under this new standard, a company could reduce a worker\u2019s exposure to a highly toxic chemical by only a small amount and still claim it has met the law\u2019s requirements. This change would allow harmful worker exposures to continue when more effective regulations are deemed too costly or burdensome for industry.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

It would also put outsize importance on personal protective equipment, like respirators or gloves \u2013 the least effective way to protect workers. This must be the last line of defense, not the primary method of protecting people. Prioritizing outdated exposure limits and defaulting to personal protective equipment is another way this proposal puts industry profits over people\u2019s health, forcing workers to take on the risk of toxic chemical exposures so that companies can avoid the costs of more effective and safer practices.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The proposal would also require EPA to assume workers are already protected by and fully compliant with weak, inadequate OSHA occupational permissible exposure levels. That is not a science-based approach to risk evaluation. It is a way of writing worker risk out of the analysis before it begins.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Go deeper: <\/strong>Dive into our analysis<\/a> of the House Republicans\u2019 proposal to gut the Toxic Substances Control Act, and read more<\/a> about a similarly harmful proposal from Senate Republicans. ICYMI, our other pieces in this series are here:<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The Toxic Substances Control Act is working to protect millions of Americans. So why do Congressional Republicans want to weaken it?<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n

This is how the House Republicans\u2019 proposal to weaken the Toxic Substances Control Act hamstrings EPA\u2019s ability to protect us from the worst toxic chemicals already on the market<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n

The Toxic Substances Control Act is working to keep potentially dangerous new chemicals off the market and out of our lives<\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

The Toxic Substances Control Act keeps workers safe<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":151199,"featured_media":13698,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_acf_changed":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[114078,114054,114074,44,39263,114033],"tags":[68],"coauthors":[114042],"class_list":["post-13697","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-chemical-regulation","category-congress","category-cumulative-impact","category-policy","category-public-health","category-tsca-2","tag-epa"],"acf":[],"aioseo_notices":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/blogs.edf.org\/health\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/13697","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/blogs.edf.org\/health\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/blogs.edf.org\/health\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.edf.org\/health\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/151199"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.edf.org\/health\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=13697"}],"version-history":[{"count":1,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.edf.org\/health\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/13697\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":13699,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.edf.org\/health\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/13697\/revisions\/13699"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.edf.org\/health\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/13698"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/blogs.edf.org\/health\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=13697"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.edf.org\/health\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=13697"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.edf.org\/health\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=13697"},{"taxonomy":"author","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.edf.org\/health\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/coauthors?post=13697"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}