Committee hears calls to protect workers and fence‑line communities as EPA restricts asbestos, methylene chloride and addresses PFAS

Several members and public‑health witnesses emphasized the Lautenberg Act’s role in allowing EPA to address longstanding chemical risks and protect vulnerable workers and fence‑line communities.

Dr. Maria Doa (Environmental Defense Fund) told the subcommittee the Lautenberg Act enabled EPA to take regulatory actions that previously were not possible, citing EPA’s recent risk‑management rules that restrict certain uses of asbestos, methylene chloride and trichloroethylene (TCE). She said these actions protect workers and communities from harms including cancer and birth defects.

Members noted that overburdened communities often experience multiple chemical exposures and said EPA should consider cumulative risks and exposures in its assessments. Witnesses and members discussed environmental‑justice tools in TSCA implementation such as prioritizing chemicals that pose disproportionate risks to susceptible groups including children, pregnant people and workers. Dr. Doa and others recommended EPA use its authority to analyze exposures together where communities face repeated contact with similar toxicants.

Industry witnesses acknowledged serious harms from certain chemicals but warned that overly broad or non‑targeted restrictions could disrupt supply chains and critical manufacturing — for example, chemicals used as feedstocks or catalysts in refining and semiconductor manufacturing. Committee members said the policy choice is not industry versus health, and several Democrats argued cuts to EPA budgets, or rolling back Lautenberg protections, would increase risk to communities already facing high exposures.

Witnesses also discussed PFAS as a class, with disagreement about whether all PFAS should be regulated together. Several witnesses noted many PFAS uses are nonessential and that EPA can review older approvals. The committee heard calls to prioritize production‑phase and point‑of‑release controls to reduce downstream drinking‑water and soil contamination.

Finally, members raised concerns that proposed appropriations cuts and program changes would slow the pace of chemical risk evaluations and weaken protections for communities. Several witnesses said reduced staffing and expertise would directly lengthen review times and reduce EPA’s capacity to identify and manage cumulative risks.