[House Hearing, 116 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]


                    MISMANAGING CHEMICAL RISKS: EPA'S FAILURE 
                                TO PROTECT WORKERS

=======================================================================

                                HEARING

                               BEFORE THE

             SUBCOMMITTEE ON ENVIRONMENT AND CLIMATE CHANGE

                                 OF THE

                    COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND COMMERCE
                        HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                     ONE HUNDRED SIXTEENTH CONGRESS

                             FIRST SESSION

                               __________

                             MARCH 13, 2019

                               __________

                           Serial No. 116-18
                           
[GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]                           


      Printed for the use of the Committee on Energy and Commerce
                   govinfo.gov/committee/house-energy
                        energycommerce.house.gov
                        
                                __________

                    U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE                    
38-825 PDF                 WASHINGTON : 2022                     
          
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------                         
                        

                    COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND COMMERCE

                     FRANK PALLONE, Jr., New Jersey
                                 Chairman
BOBBY L. RUSH, Illinois              GREG WALDEN, Oregon
ANNA G. ESHOO, California              Ranking Member
ELIOT L. ENGEL, New York             FRED UPTON, Michigan
DIANA DeGETTE, Colorado              JOHN SHIMKUS, Illinois
MIKE DOYLE, Pennsylvania             MICHAEL C. BURGESS, Texas
JAN SCHAKOWSKY, Illinois             STEVE SCALISE, Louisiana
G. K. BUTTERFIELD, North Carolina    ROBERT E. LATTA, Ohio
DORIS O. MATSUI, California          CATHY McMORRIS RODGERS, Washington
KATHY CASTOR, Florida                BRETT GUTHRIE, Kentucky
JOHN P. SARBANES, Maryland           PETE OLSON, Texas
JERRY McNERNEY, California           DAVID B. McKINLEY, West Virginia
PETER WELCH, Vermont                 ADAM KINZINGER, Illinois
BEN RAY LUJAN, New Mexico            H. MORGAN GRIFFITH, Virginia
PAUL TONKO, New York                 GUS M. BILIRAKIS, Florida
YVETTE D. CLARKE, New York, Vice     BILL JOHNSON, Ohio
    Chair                            BILLY LONG, Missouri
DAVID LOEBSACK, Iowa                 LARRY BUCSHON, Indiana
KURT SCHRADER, Oregon                BILL FLORES, Texas
JOSEPH P. KENNEDY III,               SUSAN W. BROOKS, Indiana
    Massachusetts                    MARKWAYNE MULLIN, Oklahoma
TONY CARDENAS, California            RICHARD HUDSON, North Carolina
RAUL RUIZ, California                TIM WALBERG, Michigan
SCOTT H. PETERS, California          EARL L. ``BUDDY'' CARTER, Georgia
DEBBIE DINGELL, Michigan             JEFF DUNCAN, South Carolina
MARC A. VEASEY, Texas                GREG GIANFORTE, Montana
ANN M. KUSTER, New Hampshire
ROBIN L. KELLY, Illinois
NANETTE DIAZ BARRAGAN, California
A. DONALD McEACHIN, Virginia
LISA BLUNT ROCHESTER, Delaware
DARREN SOTO, Florida
TOM O'HALLERAN, Arizona
                                 ------                                

                           Professional Staff

                   JEFFREY C. CARROLL, Staff Director
                TIFFANY GUARASCIO, Deputy Staff Director
                MIKE BLOOMQUIST, Minority Staff Director
             Subcommittee on Environment and Climate Change

                          PAUL TONKO, New York
                                 Chairman
YVETTE D. CLARKE, New York           JOHN SHIMKUS, Illinois
SCOTT H. PETERS, California            Ranking Member
NANETTE DIAZ BARRAGAN, California    CATHY McMORRIS RODGERS, Washington
A. DONALD McEACHIN, Virginia         DAVID B. McKINLEY, West Virginia
LISA BLUNT ROCHESTER, Delaware       BILL JOHNSON, Ohio
DARREN SOTO, Florida                 BILLY LONG, Missouri
DIANA DeGETTE, Colorado              BILL FLORES, Texas
JAN SCHAKOWSKY, Illinois             MARKWAYNE MULLIN, Oklahoma
DORIS O. MATSUI, California          EARL L. ``BUDDY'' CARTER, Georgia
JERRY McNERNEY, California           JEFF DUNCAN, South Carolina
RAUL RUIZ, California, Vice Chair    GREG WALDEN, Oregon (ex officio)
DEBBIE DINGELL, Michigan
FRANK PALLONE, Jr., New Jersey (ex 
    officio)
                             
                             C O N T E N T S

                              ----------                              
                                                                   Page
Hon. Paul Tonko, a Representative in Congress from the State of 
  New York, opening statement....................................     1
    Prepared statement...........................................     3
Hon. John Shimkus, a Representative in Congress from the State of 
  Illinois, opening statement....................................     4
    Prepared statement...........................................     5
Hon. Frank Pallone, Jr., a Representative in Congress from the 
  State of New Jersey, opening statement.........................     6
    Prepared statement...........................................     7
Hon. Greg Walden, a Representative in Congress from the State of 
  Oregon, prepared statement.....................................   110

                               Witnesses

Jeaneen McGinnis, Benefits Representative, United Auto Workers...    10
    Prepared statement...........................................    12
    Answers to submitted questions...............................   183
Patrick J. Morrison, Assistant to the General President, 
  International Association of Firefighters......................    14
    Prepared statement...........................................    16
    Answers to submitted questions...............................   194
Wendy Hutchinson, on Behalf of the Baltimore Teachers Union and 
  American Federation of Teachers................................    23
    Prepared statement...........................................    25
    Answers to submitted questions...............................   197
Giev Kashkooli, Vice President, United Farm Workers..............    32
    Prepared statement...........................................    34
    Answers to submitted questions...............................   198
Thomas G. Grumbles, Certified Industrial Hygienist, American 
  Industrial Hygiene Association, and the Product Stewardship 
  Society........................................................    45
    Prepared statement...........................................    47
Mark N. Duvall, Principal, Beveridge and Diamond PC..............    49
    Prepared statement...........................................    51
Adam M. Finkel, D.Sc., Clinical Professor of Environmental Health 
  Sciences, University of Michigan School of Public Health.......    62
    Prepared statement...........................................    65
    Answers to submitted questions...............................   202

                           Submitted Material

Letter of March 12, 2019, from Linda Reinstein, President and Co-
  Founder, Asbestos Disease Awareness, to Organization, Mr. 
  Pallone, et al., submitted by Mr. Tonko........................   111
Statement of Environmental Defense Fund, by Richard Denison, Lead 
  Senior Scientist, March 12, 2019, submitted by Mr. Tonko.......   118
Article of March 2013, ``Human Health Effects of 
  Trichloroethylene: Key Findings and Scientific Issues,'' by 
  Weihsueh A. Chiu, et al., Environmental Health Perspective, 
  submitted by Mr. Tonko.........................................   121
Report of the Government Accountability Office,``Workplace Safety 
  and Health: Multiple Challenges Lengthen OSHA's Standard 
  Setting,'' April 2012, submitted by Mr. Tonko \1\
Statement of International Union, UAW, January 14, 2019, 
  submitted by Mr. Tonko.........................................   130
Statement on ``Accidental Release Prevention Requirements: Risk 
  Management Programs Under the Clean Air Act, Proposed Rule,'' 
  by Brett Fox, Director of Health and Safety, International 
  Union, UAW, submitted by Mr. Tonko.............................   139
Letter of August 23, 2018, from Chlorpyrifos Agricultural 
  Retailers Association, et al., to Hon. Sonny Perdue, Secretary 
  and Hon. Andrew Wheeler, Acting Administrator, submitted by Mr. 
  Tonko..........................................................   150
Fact sheet of January 17, 2017, by Dow Agricultural, 
  ``Chlorpyrifos in Agriculture,'' submitted by Mr. Tonko........   153
Article of March 12, 2019, from Coalition of Pesticide 
  Registration Improvement Act, et al., submitted by Mr. Tonko...   154
Letter of March 12, 2019, from Liz Hitchcock, Acting Director, 
  Safer Chemicals Healthy Families, et al., to Mr. Tonko, et al., 
  submitted by Mr. Tonko,........................................   156
Letter of March 12, 2019, from Alexandra Dapolito Dunn, Assistant 
  Administrator, Environmental Protection Agency, to Mr. Tonko 
  and Shimkus, submitted by Mr. Tonko............................   159
Letter of March 12, 2019, from Kathleen M. Roberts, Toxic 
  Substances Control Act, New Chemicals Coalition, to Mr. Tonko 
  and Mr. Shimkus, submitted by Mr. Tonko........................   161
Statement of March 13, 2019, by Riki Ott, Washington State, 
  submitted by Mr. Tonko.........................................   172
Written evidence ``Trans Mountain Pipeline'', by Riki Ott, 
  submitted by Mr. Tonko \2\
Appendix B--Photo Documentations, by Riki Ott, submitted by Mr. 
  Tonko \3\
Report on A GAP Whistleblower Investation, by Shanna Devine, 
  Investigator and Legislative Director, and Tom Devine, Project, 
  Legal Director, Government Accountability, submitted by Mr. 
  Tonko \4\
Addendum report of April 22, 2015, ``Deadly Dispersants in the 
  Gulf: Are Public Health and Environmental Tragedies the New 
  Norm for Oil Spill Cleanup?'', by Shanna Devine, Investigator 
  and Legislative Director, and Tom Devine, Project, Legal 
  Director, Government Accountability, submitted by Mr. Tonko \5\
Letter of March 12, 2019, from Deepthi K. Weerasinghe Ph.D., 
  Winter Haven, The Gainesville Sun, submitted by Mr. Tonko......   176
Article of ``Florida officials delayed telling residents about 
  tainted water, emails show,'' January 3, 2019, by Samantha J. 
  Gross and Elizabeth Koh, Tampa Bay Times, submitted by Mr. 
  Tonko..........................................................   177

----------
\1\ GAO Report has been retained in committee files and also is 
  available at https://docs.house.gov/meetings/IF/IF18/20190313/
  109117/HHRG-116-IF18-20190313-SD016.pdf.
\2\ Written evidence has been retained in committee files and 
  also is available at https://docs.house.gov/meetings/IF/IF18/
  20190313/109117/HHRG-116-IF18-20190313-SD021.pdf.
\3\ Appendix B--Photo has been retained in committee files and 
  also is available at https://docs.house.gov/meetings/IF/IF18/
  20190313/109117/HHRG-116-IF18-20190313-SD022.pdf
\4\ Report has been retained in committee files and also is 
  available at https://docs.house.gov/meetings/IF/IF18/20190313/
  109117/HHRG-116-IF18-20190313-SD020.pdf.
\5\ Addendum Report has been retained in committee files and also 
  is available at https://docs.house.gov/meetings/IF/IF18/
  20190313/109117/HHRG-116-IF18-20190313-SD007.pdf.

 
      MISMANAGING CHEMICAL RISKS: EPA'S FAILURE TO PROTECT WORKERS

                              ----------                              


                       WEDNESDAY, MARCH 13, 2019

                  House of Representatives,
    Subcommittee on Environment and Climate Change,
                          Committee on Energy and Commerce,
                                                    Washington, DC.
    The subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 10:30 a.m., in 
room 2322 Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Paul Tonko 
(chairman of the subcommittee) presiding.
    Members present: Representatives Tonko, Peters, Barragan, 
McEachin, Blunt Rochester, Soto, DeGette, Schakowsky, Matsui, 
McNerney, Ruiz, Dingell, Pallone (ex officio), Shimkus 
(subcommittee ranking member), Rodgers, McKinley, Johnson, 
Long, Flores, Mullin, Carter, Duncan, and Walden (ex officio).
    Staff present: Jacqueline Cohen, Chief Environment Counsel; 
Adam Fischer, Policy Analyst; Waverly Gordon, Deputy Chief 
Counsel; Rick Kessler, Senior Advisor and Staff Director, 
Energy and Environment; Brendan Larkin, Policy Coordinator; Mel 
Peffers, Environment Fellow; Teresa Williams, Energy Fellow; 
Mike Bloomquist, Minority Staff Director; Adam Buckalew, 
Minority Director of Coalitions and Deputy Chief Counsel, 
Health; Jerry Couri, Minority Deputy Chief Counsel, Environment 
and Climate Change; Jordan Davis, Minority Senior Advisor; 
Peter Kielty, Minority General Counsel; Mary Martin, Minority 
Chief Counsel, Energy and Environment and Climate Change; 
Brandon Mooney, Minority Deputy Chief Counsel, Energy; Brannon 
Rains, Minority Staff Assistant; and Peter Spencer, Minority 
Senior Professional Staff Member, Environment and Climate 
Change.
    Mr. Tonko. The Subcommittee on Environment and Climate 
Change will now come to order. I recognize myself for five 
minutes for the purpose of an opening statement.

   OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. PAUL TONKO, A REPRESENTATIVE IN 
              CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF NEW YORK

    One of the great recent achievements in Federal 
environmental policy was the passage of the Frank R. Lautenberg 
Chemical Safety for the 21st Century Act to reform the Toxic 
Substances Control Act in 2016.
    I had concerns with that final product, but I would be the 
first to admit it had important provisions to help fix EPA's 
long-broken TSCA program and I commend Mr. Shimkus and Mr. 
Pallone for their work on that historic law to make real 
bipartisan progress that gave EPA the tools necessary to 
protect Americans from toxic exposure risks.
    Unfortunately, EPA has chosen to ignore those tools and 
has, in my view, failed to implement the law as Congress 
intended. One of those important provisions I mentioned was a 
requirement that EPA consider potentially exposed or 
susceptible subpopulations.
    The law explicitly identifies infants, children, pregnant 
women, workers, and the elderly as high-risk groups. I have 
many criticisms of this administration's failure to properly 
implement the law, but its failure to protect these groups is 
near the top of my list.
    Today, we will hear from witnesses representing workers on 
the front lines of toxic exposure risks, including 
firefighters, farm workers, teachers, and industrial workers.
    We will also hear about specific toxic chemicals that put 
working Americans at unnecessary risk on the job. Asbestos is 
killing thousands of Americans each year and, yet, somehow U.S. 
imports of the substance continue to rise.
    EPA has deliberately excluded exposure from legacy asbestos 
and its disposal from the scope of its risk evaluation, leaving 
workers at risk of dangerous exposure.
    PV29 was chosen as the very first risk evaluation under the 
Lautenberg Act. Last year, EPA released its draft risk 
evaluation and found it presented no unreasonable risk.
    Consideration of worker exposures were excluded from its 
evaluation and methylene chloride is a paint stripper which has 
killed dozens of Americans. Safer alternatives exist, but EPA 
still refuses to ban this toxic killer.
    At least four people have died since a proposed rule was 
published in January 2017. At that time, EPA proposed 
restricting its commercial and consumer uses. But as of 
December 2018, EPA appears to have abandoned the ban for 
commercial use, which will leave workers at risk.
    These are just a few substances that we will hear about 
today, and they are not isolated cases. If not corrected, I 
suspect we will see even more examples in the future because 
the TSCA framework rules, which were issued by the Trump 
administration, enable systematic exclusion of risks to workers 
on the job.
    These framework rules include the risk prioritization rule 
used to identify high-priority chemicals, which allows EPA to 
exclude commercial uses and workplace exposures; and the risk 
evaluation rule, used to scope and conduct an evaluation to 
determine whether a chemical presents an unreasonable risk, 
which leaves out legacy uses and leaves open the possibility of 
ignoring worker exposure.
    This dangerous approach is not limited to the TSCA office. 
EPA's treatment of the Risk Management Plan rule under the 
Clean Air Act and the decision to allow the continued use of 
chlorpyrifos--a pesticide tied to impairment in children's 
brain development--raise serious concerns about EPA's broader 
efforts to protect workers.
    Make no mistake, we are seeing a clear pattern--the 
systematic failure of our Environmental Protection Agency to 
protect workers under TSCA and other EPA programs against the 
spirit and letter of the Lautenberg Act and the fundamental 
mission of that agency.
    I have met with families that have lost loved ones from 
exposure to methylene chloride and asbestos. Strong EPA action 
will not bring them back, but it can save others.
    That is the very least we should do for these victims. TSCA 
reform was not easy, but at its core, I believe those families 
are why we did it. EPA needed better tools to protect 
Americans. But today those new tools are being squandered and 
workers will suffer the consequences the worst.
    I hope we can continue to conduct oversight to ensure that 
EPA is protecting workers as was envisioned and required by the 
bipartisan TSCA reform effort.
    I look forward to hearing from each and every one of our 
witnesses. Thank you for joining us today. You will add a voice 
of reason, I hope, to all the work that we do.
    [The prepared statement of Mr. Tonko follows:]

                 Prepared Statement of Hon. Paul Tonko

    One of the great recent achievements in Federal 
environmental policy was the passage of the Frank R. Lautenberg 
Chemical Safety for the 21st Century Act to reform the Toxic 
Substances Control Act in 2016.
    I had concerns with that final product, but I would be the 
first to admit it had important provisions to help fix EPA's 
long-broken TSCA program. And I commend Mr. Shimkus and Mr. 
Pallone for their work on that historic law to make real 
bipartisan progress that gave EPA the tools necessary to 
protect Americans from toxic exposure risks.
    Unfortunately, EPA has chosen to ignore those tools, and 
has, in my view, failed to implement the law as Congress 
intended.
    One of those important provisions I mentioned was a 
requirement that EPA consider potentially exposed or 
susceptible subpopulations. The law explicitly identifies 
infants, children, pregnant women, workers, and the elderly as 
high-risk groups.
    I have many criticisms of this Administration's failure to 
properly implement the law, but its failure to protect these 
groups is near the top of my list.
    Today, we will hear from witnesses representing workers on 
the front lines of toxic exposure risks, including 
firefighters, farm workers, teachers, and industrial workers.
    We will also hear about specific toxic chemicals that put 
working Americans at unnecessary risk on the job.
    Asbestos is killing thousands of Americans each year, and 
yet somehow U.S. imports of the substance continue to rise. EPA 
has deliberately excluded exposure from legacy asbestos and its 
disposal from the scope of its risk evaluation, leaving workers 
at risk of dangerous exposure.
    PV-29 was chosen as the very first risk evaluation under 
the Lautenberg Act. Last year, EPA released its draft risk 
evaluation and found it presented no unreasonable risk. 
Consideration of worker exposures were excluded from its 
evaluation.
    And methylene chloride is a paint stripper which has killed 
dozens of Americans. Safer alternatives exist, but EPA still 
refuses to ban this toxic killer. At least four people have 
died since a proposed rule was published in January 2017. At 
that time, EPA proposed restricting its commercial and consumer 
uses, but as of December 2018, EPA appears to have abandoned 
the ban for commercial use, which will leave workers at risk.
    These are just a few substances that we will hear about 
today, and they are not isolated cases.
    If not corrected, I suspect we will see even more examples 
in the future because the TSCA framework rules, which were 
issued by the Trump Administration, enable systematic exclusion 
of risks to workers on the job.
    These framework rules include the risk prioritization rule, 
used to identify high priority chemicals, which allows EPA to 
exclude commercial uses and workplace exposures.
    And the risk evaluation rule, used to scope and conduct an 
evaluation to determine whether a chemical presents an 
unreasonable risk, which leaves out legacy uses and leaves open 
the possibility of ignoring worker exposure.
    This dangerous approach is not limited to the TSCA office. 
EPA's treatment of the Risk Management Plan rule under the 
Clean Air Act and the decision to allow the continued use of 
chlorpyrifos, a pesticide tied to impairment in children's 
brain development, raise serious concerns about EPA's broader 
efforts to protect workers.
    Make no mistake, we are seeing a clear pattern: The 
systematic failure of our Environmental Protection Agency to 
protect workers under TSCA and other EPA programs, against the 
spirit and letter of the Lautenberg Act and the fundamental 
mission of the Agency.
    I have met with families that have lost loved ones from 
exposure to methylene chloride and asbestos. Strong EPA action 
will not bring them back, but it can save others. That is the 
very least we should do for these victims.
    TSCA reform was not easy, but at its core, I believe those 
families are why we did it. EPA needed better tools to protect 
Americans, but today those new tools are being squandered, and 
workers will suffer the consequences the worst.
    I hope we can continue to conduct oversight to ensure that 
EPA is protecting workers as was envisioned--and required--by 
the bipartisan TSCA reform effort. I look forward to hearing 
from our witnesses today, and I yield back.

    Mr. Tonko. And with that, I yield back and will now 
recognize the Republican Leader of this subcommittee, 
Representative Shimkus, for an opening statement.

  OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. JOHN SHIMKUS, A REPRESENTATIVE IN 
              CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF ILLINOIS

    Mr. Shimkus. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate that you 
are having this hearing on chemical management and I want to 
congratulate you on calling this hearing.
    You know, the Lautenberg Act passed in 2016, as the 
chairman had mentioned. Then you've got the rules. Then you've 
got to start going through the process, and now it is time to 
do a look and see the good and the bad and the ugly that still 
pervades through the system and to make corrective action.
    As one of the authors and supporters of the TSCA reform 
bill, we want it to work because we want it to protect--we want 
the EPA to do due diligence on the science of the chemicals.
    I think what I have learned by the process of this hearing 
and doing work is that there is a couple agencies that have 
responsibilities here and there seems to be, especially with 
the Lautenberg Chemical Safety Act--TSCA Reform Act--there 
seems to be, Mr. Chairman, some overlap that maybe we need to 
keep looking at and start talking about because, we have an 
agency that is supposed to be in the workplace to protect and 
observe how chemicals are used in that processes to protect 
workers, and that is one we know as OSHA--the Occupational 
Safety Health Administration--and it is hundreds of 
professionals.
    And sometimes they are trained to do the same thing that we 
have asked EPA to look at, especially under the TSCA reform. In 
fact, they might--OSHA may have even more people in the agency 
on a particular process to protect workers.
    So, we are not on the Workforce or Labor Committee. So my 
expertise in that area is not as much as in what we tried to do 
under the Frank Lautenberg Chemical Safety Act, which was 
focused on the EPA.
    We need to find out why this takes so long, make sure that 
they focus on defining whether a chemical is safe or not safe, 
and if there are, because of the use in our society, how do the 
people who--if it is deemed that it is still needed for 
production how do you--what do you tell OSHA and the people who 
are going to use it what they need to do to make sure they 
protect the workers in and around these chemicals?
    Ninety-eight percent of all things touched in this room 
were--are touched by the chemical manufacturing sector whether 
it is paints or acrylics or metal and furnishings and the like.
    So understanding that chemical use is pervasive, I think 
what brought us together--and it is good to see Chairman 
Pallone enter--I think what brought us together was to say let 
us do this right because the system was delayed.
    We had old chemicals that weren't being evaluated. I am 
particularly concerned about making sure we have new chemicals 
vetted quickly because they may be more effective and efficient 
and safe.
    So if the EPA is not dealing with the new chemicals and we 
may have some chemicals needed in the manufacturing sector that 
might pose some risk, wouldn't it be better to get the new 
chemicals onto the market?
    So, as my colleagues on the other side know, I have been 
wanting to have a hearing like this since passage. You have to 
allow the EPA to at least set up and develop their rules. But 
this is the right time to do it and I am glad you called the 
hearing and I look forward--hopefully, we can have more and 
some more in-depth and maybe also vet out this merging of the 
agency's responsibilities and who is supposed to do what 
because if you don't have clear definitive--you all know 
especially if you don't have clear definitive rules then you 
don't know who is supposed to do what and who to hold 
accountable.
    So with that, again, I appreciate the hearing and I yield 
back my time.
    [The prepared statement of Mr. Shimkus follows:]

                Prepared Statement of Hon. John Shimkus

    Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate that we are having a 
hearing on chemical management and I want to congratulate you 
for calling this hearing.
    Not too long ago, when I had your chair, I stated my 
sincere interested in doing oversight of this area--
particularly as it related to EPA's implementation of reforms 
this committee made to Title I of the Toxic Substances Control 
Act.
    Regrettably, within the confines of such factors as witness 
availability and the committee schedule, there simply was not 
time. I know that you now control the agenda, but I hope that 
you will convene a future hearing to give this committee time 
to more thoroughly inspect what is happening to new chemicals 
under TSCA.
    The GAO's recent report indicating a tripling of new 
chemicals submissions being withdrawn, the persistent backlog 
of applications and untimely completion of reviews, and the 
significant drop in the rate of commenced cases are troubling 
pieces of information. Together, this suggests to me that the 
current new chemicals process is adversely effecting innovation 
in new chemicals--resulting in a de facto favoring of existing 
and more problematic chemicals.
    Moving to the subject of today's hearing, I think it is 
important that workers are protected in their workplace. 
Whether an accident is related to a structural hazard or a 
chemical hazard, workers--union and non-union--should be 
protected through Federal or State law, industrial hygiene 
standards, or collective bargaining agreements.
    That said, and I say this with great respect for you, Mr. 
Chairman, I am a bit perplexed by this hearing.
    From a Federal perspective, the main thrust of worker 
safety has been given to the Occupational Safety and Health 
Administration (OSHA) and its hundreds of professionals. Yet 
today's hearing is claiming EPA is letting workers down?
    From my perspective, this hearing feels more like an airing 
of grievances along the lines of a civil court proceeding 
rather than a fact-finding mission. Neither OSHA nor EPA is 
here to testify on the work they have done or to confront the 
accusations of our panelists. Truth be told, I don't know if 
they were even asked to appear.
    From my perspective EPA and OSHA have different missions 
but should work together and share information and expertise 
rather than seek out ways to do each other's jobs. If any 
member of this subcommittee sees that relationship 
differently--as much as it pains me to suggest something is not 
jurisdictional to our committee--they should contact the House 
Education and Labor Committee about beginning to evaluate what 
statutory changes need to occur and are warranted to the OSH 
Act.
    I want to thank our witnesses for being with us today. I do 
appreciate your time and hope you understand that a difference 
in means is not a dispute on the ends.
    I thank the Chairman for this time and want to let him know 
how much I have appreciated his friendship in the past. I am 
glad we are looking at chemicals management and I look forward 
to hopefully more oversight of specific aspects of TSCA.
    If no one else wants my remaining time, I will yield back.

    Mr. Tonko. Thank you very much, and the gentleman yields 
back.
    I now recognizes Mr. Pallone, chair of the full committee, 
for five minutes for his opening statement.

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. FRANK PALLONE, Jr., A REPRESENTATIVE 
            IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF NEW JERSEY

    Mr. Pallone. Thank you, Chairman Tonko.
    Today, we are here to continue this committee's critical 
oversight work of the Trump administration by reviewing the 
Environmental Protection Agency's mismanagement of chemical 
risks and its harmful impacts on America's workers.
    Two years ago, this committee came together after years of 
work to pass the Frank R. Lautenberg Chemical Safety for the 
21st Century Act to finally reform the Toxic Substances Control 
Act, commonly known as TSCA.
    One of the most important protections included in that 
bill, from my perspective, was the new requirement that EPA 
ensure protection for vulnerable populations, including 
infants, pregnant women, environmental justice communities, and 
workers.
    Explicit worker protections are so essential because 
workers bear the brunt of chemical exposures and harm. In fact, 
according to the National Institutes of Environmental Health 
Sciences, occupational diseases kill more than 50,000 workers 
in our nation every year.
    About a third of those cases are cancer. Globally, the U.N. 
reported last year that toxic exposures at work kill one worker 
every 15 seconds. To put that in perspective, by the time my 
five minutes are up, toxic exposures will have killed 20 
workers worldwide.
    Clearly, our track record of protecting workers is 
appalling. Many of us who worked to update TSCA hoped it would 
help. But, unfortunately, I fear EPA's implementation of the 
act is moving us in the wrong direction.
    Methylene chloride is a prime example. EPA began a risk 
assessment on methylene chloride before we completed action on 
TSCA reform and that assessment looked at workplace exposures, 
including numerous worker deaths.
    Based on that assessment, the Obama EPA proposed a complete 
ban on methylene chloride and now the Trump EPA is trying to 
keep commercial uses in place, leaving workers at unacceptable 
risk.
    Asbestos is another serious example. Studies documenting 
worker deaths from asbestos exposure go back to the 1960s, and 
it was among EPA's first targets when TSCA was originally 
enacted back in 1976.
    When we passed the Lautenberg Act, we hoped it would fix 
the flaws in TSCA and allow EPA to finally ban asbestos, 40 
years after it began the regulatory process.
    But EPA is now working on an asbestos risk evaluation that 
ignores all exposures to legacy asbestos, which we all know is 
a major driver of risk. And last year, the agency adopted a 
Significant New Use Rule that will allow new uses of asbestos 
in consumer products.
    EPA political leadership took this action over the 
objections of the nonpartisan career staff who were worried 
about the very real public health impacts.
    Because of these actions, I have lost confidence in EPA's 
ability to implement this law and ban asbestos and that is why 
last week I joined Representatives Bonamici, Slotkin, and 
others in sponsoring the Alan Reinstein Ban Asbestos Now Act.
    It is long past time that we banned this dangerous 
substance which continues to kill American workers. The Trump 
EPA's attack on workers goes beyond its refusal to properly 
implement TSCA.
    The Clean Air Act's Risk Management Planning program should 
play an essential role in protecting workers and communities 
from toxic chemical exposures, but the Trump EPA has repeatedly 
tried to weaken it.
    They have also tried to weaken farm worker protection 
efforts. But this Congress recently passed legislation that 
would prevent EPA from rolling back farm worker protections for 
the time being.
    And, finally, I must mention the unfortunate fact that 
workers are among those most endangered and impacted by climate 
change. Extreme weather and natural disasters pose serious 
threats to emergency responders, chemical plant workers, 
refinery workers, and more.
    The Trump EPA has repeatedly undermined national efforts to 
address climate change, leaving our workers and communities 
vulnerable to ever-worsening extreme weather.
    So this hearing, Mr. Chairman, I know it is just the 
beginning of your efforts to hold EPA accountable to the people 
it is supposed to protect.
    I hope we can work together in a bipartisan fashion to 
ensure EPA is meeting its statutory obligations and mission to 
protect human health and the environment.
    [The prepared statement of Mr. Pallone follows:]

             Prepared Statement of Hon. Frank Pallone, Jr.

    Today we are here to continue this Committee's critical 
oversight work of the Trump Administration by reviewing the 
Environmental Protection Agency's mismanagement of chemical 
risks and its harmful impacts on America's workers.
    Two years ago this Committee came together after years of 
work to pass the Frank R. Lautenberg Chemical Safety for the 
21st Century Act to finally reform the Toxic Substances Control 
Act, commonly known as TSCA. One of the most important 
protections included in that bill, from my perspective, was the 
new requirement that EPA ensure protection for vulnerable 
populations, including infants, pregnant women, environmental 
justice communities and workers.
    Explicit worker protections are so essential because 
workers bear the brunt of chemical exposures and harm.
    In fact, according to the National Institute of 
Environmental Health Sciences, occupational diseases kill more 
than 50,000 workers in our nation each year. About a third of 
those cases are cancer. Globally, the United Nations reported 
last year that toxic exposures at work kill one worker every 15 
seconds. To put that in perspective, by the time my five 
minutes are up, toxic exposures will have killed 20 workers 
worldwide.
    Clearly our track record of protecting workers is 
appalling. Many of us who worked to update TSCA hoped it would 
help, but unfortunately, I fear EPA's implementation of the Act 
is moving us in the wrong direction.
    Methylene (METH-A-LEAN) Chloride is a prime example. EPA 
began a risk assessment on methylene chloride before we 
completed action on TSCA reform. That assessment looked at 
workplace exposures, including numerous worker deaths. Based on 
that assessment, the Obama EPA proposed a complete ban on 
methylene chloride. Now, the Trump EPA is trying to 
keepcommercial uses in place, leaving workers at unacceptable 
risk.
    Asbestos is another serious example. Studies documenting 
worker deaths from asbestos exposure go back to the 1960's, and 
it was among EPA's first targets when TSCA was originally 
enacted back in 1976. When we passed the Lautenberg Act, we 
hoped it would fix the flaws in TSCA and allow EPA to finally 
ban asbestos, 40 years after it began the regulatory process.
    But EPA is now working on an asbestos risk evaluation that 
ignores all exposures to ``legacy asbestos'' which we all know 
is a major driver of risk. And last year, the agency adopted a 
Significant New Use Rule that will allow new uses of asbestos 
in consumer products. EPA political leadership took this action 
over the objections of the non-partisan career staff who were 
worried about the very real public health impacts.
    Because of these actions, I have lost confidence in EPA's 
ability to implement this law and ban asbestos. That is why, 
last week, I joined Reps. Bonamici, Slotkin, and others in 
sponsoring the Alan Reinstein Ban Asbestos Now Act. It is long 
past time that we banned this dangerous substance which 
continues to kill American workers.
    The Trump EPA's attack on workers goes beyond its refusal 
to properly implement TSCA. The Clean Air Act's Risk Management 
Planning program should play an essential role in protecting 
workers and communities from toxic chemicals exposures, but the 
Trump EPA has repeatedly tried to weaken it. They've also tried 
to weaken farmworker protection efforts, but this Congress 
recently passed legislation that would prevent EPA from rolling 
back farmworker protections for the time being.
    And, finally, I must mention the unfortunate fact that 
workers are among those most endangered and impacted by climate 
change. Extreme weather and natural disasters pose serious 
threats to emergency responders, chemical plant workers, 
refinery workers and more. The Trump EPA has repeatedly 
undermined national efforts to address climate change, leaving 
our workers and communities vulnerable to ever worsening 
extreme weather.
    This hearing is just the beginning of our efforts to hold 
EPA accountable to the people it is supposed to protect. I hope 
we can work together, in a bipartisan fashion, to ensure EPA is 
meeting its statutory obligations and mission to protect human 
health and the environment.

    Mr. Pallone. I know, Mr. Tonko, that you have--oh, I guess 
I am supposed to--I didn't know I was supposed to give my time. 
Whatever I have left I will give to Mrs. Dingell.
    Mrs. Dingell. Thank you, Mr. Chair and Mr. Chair.
    We are holding an important hearing today to examine how 
EPA is mismanaging its responsibility to protect the health and 
safety of the American worker. The American worker needs to be 
protected from all harmful and toxic chemicals as every 
American should be.
    The American worker is the backbone of this country. I want 
to briefly recognize and thank Professor Finkel from the 
University of Michigan--go Blue--that began last weekend--and 
Jeaneen McGinnis, a retired auto--we are going to do better 
this weekend--and Jeaneen McGinnis, a retired auto worker, for 
testifying before the subcommittee today to share their 
respective expertise and their personal story. The committee 
can learn a lot and I look forward to hearing from them today.
    And I yield back.
    Mr. Tonko. The gentlelady yields back.
    I believe Mr. Walden, Republican Leader, is busy with the 
Health Subcommittee downstairs. So we will proceed by reminding 
members that pursuant to committee rules all Members' written 
opening statements shall be made part of the record.
    Now we introduce our witnesses for today's hearing and we 
thank you again for joining.
    Ms. Jeaneen McGinnis, benefits representative of the United 
Auto Workers. Seated next to Ms. McGinnis is Mr. Patrick 
Morrison, assistant to the general president for health, 
safety, and medicine at the International Association of 
Firefighters.
    Next, we have Ms. Wendy Hutchinson on behalf of the 
Baltimore Teachers Union. Then Mr. Giev Kashkooli--did I 
pronounce that correctly?
    Mr. Kashkooli. That is right.
    Mr. Tonko. OK. On behalf of--serving as vice president of 
United Farm Workers. Then we have Mr. Tom Grumbles, former 
president of the American Industrial Hygiene Association and 
past president of Product Stewardship Society on behalf of 
AIHA.
    Next, we have Mr. Duvall is it? Oh, Duvall. Principal of 
Beveridge and Diamond PC, and then we have Dr. Adam M. Finkel, 
clinical professor of environmental health sciences of the 
University of Michigan School of Public Health.
    We, on behalf of the--I, on behalf of the subcommittee, 
thank all of our witnesses for joining us today. We look 
forward to your testimony.
    At this time, the Chair will now recognize each witness for 
five minutes to provide his or her opening statement. Before we 
begin, I would like to explain the lighting system.
    In front of our witnesses is a series of lights. The light 
will initially be green at the start of your opening statement. 
It will turn yellow when you have 1-minute left. Please begin 
to wrap up your testimony at that point. The light will turn 
red when your time expires.
    So we will now move to Ms. McGinnis and recognize Ms. 
McGinnis for five minutes and, again, welcome.

 STATEMENTS OF MS. JEANEEN McGINNIS, BENEFITS REPRESENTATIVE, 
  UNITED AUTO WORKERS; PATRICK J. MORRISON, ASSISTANT TO THE 
 GENERAL PRESIDENT, INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF FIREFIGHTERS; 
WENDY HUTCHINSON, ON BEHALF OF THE BALTIMORE TEACHERS UNION AND 
     AMERICAN FEDERATION OF TEACHERS; GIEV KASHKOOLI, VICE 
 PRESIDENT, UNITED FARM WORKERS; THOMAS G. GRUMBLES, CERTIFIED 
 INDUSTRIAL HYGIENIST, AMERICAN INDUSTRIAL HYGIENE ASSOCIATION 
AND THE PRODUCT STEWARDSHIP SOCIETY; MARK N. DUVALL, PRINCIPAL, 
 BEVERIDGE AND DIAMOND PC; AND ADAM M. FINKEL, D.SC., CLINICAL 
   PROFESSOR OF ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH SCIENCES, UNIVERSITY OF 
                MICHIGAN SCHOOL OF PUBLIC HEALTH

                 STATEMENT OF JEANEEN McGINNIS

    Ms. McGinnis. Thank you.
    Thank you, Chairman Tonko and Ranking Member Shimkus and 
members of the committee, for the opportunity to testify before 
you today.
    My name is Jeaneen McGinnis. I am an FCA-UAW benefit 
representative. I am also a retiree and I represent the UAW 
Local 1413 and 1929 out of Huntsville, Alabama. I was hired as 
an assembly line worker at the Chrysler plant in Huntsville 
Alabama in 1983.
    It was a profound time in my life when I was entering the 
workforce for the first time. My husband had just been--gotten 
out of the military after serving for several years and we 
needed to supplement our income, so I had to seek employment.
    I was overjoyed to land a job that was so highly sought 
after in the area of our country with Chrysler Corporation 
where the jobs were so scarce. It offered a decent wage and 
opportunity for growth, which I quickly took advantage of and 
soon--later on earned a degree.
    Once known as the fastest-growing automotive electronic 
operation in North America, the plant built many products that 
went into the Chrysler vehicles and other vehicles.
    When I started working there, there were approximately 
2,400 employees and it rose to 2,800 employees. It was a fast-
moving plant that had different lines with large solder waves 
throughout the plant.
    Many of us began--became concerned due to the breathing 
problems we experienced related to the solder paste and the 
fumes that were coming from the solder wave machines.
    The plant was very old, and very poor ventilated, and our 
skin was exposed to the various chemicals used in the 
production. There was a field adjacent to our--one of the old 
buildings that we worked in where the ladies play softball and 
our concerns were heightened when they closed the softball 
field and later found out that the soil was contaminated.
    But we continued to work in the plant that was right next 
to the field. In the early 1990s, we moved to a newly-built 
plant called the Huntsville Electronic Division of Chrysler, or 
HEDC, and we moved to Madison, Alabama.
    It wasn't until we moved that the workers were provided 
guidelines and hazardous postings. Many had already, though, 
been exposed to--in the old plants to all the chemicals that 
were in those plants.
    While there were improvements due to--and due to 
unfamiliarity of the chemicals being used we were still 
breathing fumes from TCE and dust from fiberglass created from 
the printed circuit boards.
    There were 16 assembly lines in a wide-open space with big 
solder wave machines on most of the lines. Every line had 
cleaning stations. These agents that were used for cleaning 
were to clean the residue off the printed circuit boards and 
that product that we used was TCE.
    Chlorinated solvents like TCE were thought to be safety 
solvent because they would not catch on fire. As workers, we 
didn't understand the possible health effects of these 
chemicals and just focused on completing our jobs and wanting 
to do a good job and get it done. Now, later, we realize that 
TCE is a known carcinogen.
    Researchers have studied our death rate of our retirees and 
they found that my co-workers have died at a higher rate than 
the general population of disease related to TCE and other 
chemical exposures including cancer of the brain, the nervous 
system, as well as non-cancer nervous system diseases.
    A lot more could have been done to protect our workers and 
less chemical risk. Companies need to be held accountable and 
more stringent legal requirements are needed to ensure that the 
workers are not exposed to harmful chemicals.
    We need to go forward and not backward to the 1970s. The 
Obama administration has proposed banning use of TCE. However, 
the Trump administration has not issued final rules on these 
bans.
    As more business and auto manufacturing jobs are coming to 
my region of the country, we will be faced with the same 
issues. Chemicals must be tested for rigorous testing and they 
must be tested again and again and again before manufacturers 
are permitted to use these chemicals in our plants and our 
workplaces.
    In 2016, President Obama signed the Lautenberg Act to fix 
the Toxic Substance Control Act. We can't afford to wait 
anymore. Implementation of the TSCA is a must and must be a top 
priority for the EPA and this administration to protect our 
workplace and our communities from untested toxic chemicals.
    In this great country everyone should be able to work with 
the expectation that their workplace is safe and that we all 
should be able to enjoy our golden years.
    Thank you.
    [The prepared statement of Ms. McGinnis follows:]
    [GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
    
    Mr. Tonko. Thank you very much.
    We will now move to Mr. Patrick J. Morrison, speaking from 
the International Association of Firefighters' perspective.
    Welcome.

                STATEMENT OF PATRICK J. MORRISON

    Mr. Morrison. Thank you, Chairman Tonko and Ranking Member 
Shimkus and members of the subcommittee.
    My name is Patrick Morrison. I am assistant to the general 
president for occupational health and safety and medicine of 
the International Association of Firefighters.
    Prior to that position, I was a firefighter for 20 years 
with the Fairfax County Fire and Rescue Department. I 
appreciate the opportunity to appear today before you on behalf 
of General President Schaitberger and over 316,000 professional 
firefighters and emergency medical personnel who comprise our 
organization.
    Our members face significant chemical exposures on the job 
due to the vast quantity of chemicals in building materials, 
consumer products, and the equipment our members use every day.
    Firefighters have put our trust in the EPA to regulate 
these toxic chemicals but have witnessed only modest efforts by 
the current administration to protect the health and wellbeing 
of exposed workers.
    This is very concerning to us as firefighters have a higher 
rate of certain cancers than the general population including 
twice the rate of mesothelioma.
    Unfortunately, in the year since TSCA's passage, little 
progress has been made. Specifically, we are disappointed in 
EPA's failure to evaluate all susceptible subpopulations and 
address the use and disposal of legacy chemicals.
    We are pleased that EPA included both asbestos and HBCD, a 
flame retardant, as two of the first 10 chemicals to evaluate 
under TSCA, as firefighters are regularly exposed to these 
chemicals through their work.
    The IFF presented evidence relating to firefighters' 
exposure to these chemicals and the associated health problems 
linked to occupational exposure in response to EPA's scope of 
risk evaluation document released in June 2017.
    These documents included firefighters as a susceptible 
subpopulation and included legacy uses as part of the 
evaluations. Unfortunately, EPA's failure to include 
firefighters as a susceptible subpopulation in their problem 
formulation document for asbestos released in May of 2018.
    Furthermore, EPA also removed the evaluation of both legacy 
HBCD and legacy asbestos, including disposal from such 
documents. Firefighters have high exposures to these chemicals 
daily as part of their occupation and should be evaluated.
    Additionally, according to TSCA, EPA must evaluate the 
entire life cycle of a chemical from the moment these chemicals 
enter the market until they are disposed of. The EPA should be 
evaluating them through this entire life cycle.
    Unfortunately, removing the legacy use of asbestos and HBCD 
from EPA's evaluation will almost certainly skew the 
evaluations' results, especially as it relates to workers. The 
bulk of exposures to these chemicals are a result of legacy 
use.
    Further, from the firefighters' perspective, such exposures 
are not legacy. They are occurring today. While TSCA is among 
the highest profile chemical legislation that has directly 
impacted our members, it is not our only concern.
    Recently, Congress noted the dangers associated with PFAS. 
These chemicals are found in AFFF firefighting foam primarily 
used at military bases and airports, older protective clothing, 
and potentially in newer protective clothing.
    In 2006, EPA instituted the voluntary PFOA stewardship 
program that resulted in reduced production of PFOA and other 
long-chain PFAS production by eight major manufactures by 2015.
    However, these are existing stocks of foam--however, there 
are existing stocks of foam containing these chemicals still 
being used.
    In 2007, EPA issued significant new use rule regulating a 
significant number of PFAS chemicals. This effort was specific 
to PFAS chemicals reporting requirements and did not restrict 
the use of existing stocks of legacy AFFF firefighting foam 
containing long-chain PFAS chemicals.
    In 2015, EPA proposed another SNUR PFOA, another long-chain 
PFAS as a regulatory follow-up to the voluntary PFOA 
stewardship program. Regrettably, this SNUR has not been 
finalized.
    We are also aware that EPA is starting to work on a PFAS 
action plan to outline concrete steps to address PFAS and to 
protect the public health. Unfortunately, yet again, EPA is 
neglecting to look at the worker's perspective.
    EPA's plan addresses communities affected by firefighting 
foam runoff but they are not looking at the subgroup of airport 
and base firefighters that are using these foams and exposed to 
these chemicals on a regular basis.
    Since there is little Federal oversight in this topic to 
protect workers, we are taking matters into our own hand. 
Currently, IFF is sponsoring three research projects relating 
to PFAS, testing firefighters' blood, station dust, and turnout 
gear for the substance.
    While we are frustrated with the efforts from EPA on these 
issues, the IFF will continue working with legislators and 
other decision makers to address our concerns with these 
chemicals and their use.
    Thank you.
    [The prepared statement of Mr. Morrison follows:]
    [GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
    
    Mr. Tonko. Thank you very much, Mr. Morrison.
    We will now move to Ms. Wendy Hutchinson on behalf of the 
Baltimore Teachers Union.
    Welcome.

                 STATEMENT OF WENDY HUTCHINSON

    Ms. Hutchinson. Good morning, Chairman Tonko, Ranking 
Member Shimkus, and members of the subcommittee.
    My name is Wendy Hutchinson. I am a science and health 
educator at Edmondson-Westside High School in Baltimore, 
Maryland.
    I appreciate the opportunity to offer my perspective on the 
EPA's failure to protect school staff and students in our 
public schools. My comments will focus on three issues.
    The first is asbestos removal in Baltimore schools. In 
2017, the Baltimore Sun and others reported that parents of 
Rosemont Elementary and Middle School boycotted the school by 
keeping their children home because of district plans for a 
roof replacement, a project requiring the removal of materials 
testing positive for asbestos.
    Contractors plan to work during after school hours from 
January through June. Pursuant to State and Federal guidelines, 
contractors were expected to take precautions to prevent 
particles from spreading.
    In addition, air samples were taken daily before students 
were let back into the building. Parents advocated for students 
to be temporarily relocated but district leaders said that was 
not necessary.
    I share this story because my school was constructed at the 
same time as Rosemont, a period when asbestos was commonly used 
in construction. As our State's school buildings continue to 
age and deteriorate, too many students and school staff are 
being exposed to the deadly asbestos fibers.
    While some school districts are ignoring the obvious, other 
districts are simply not aware of their own hazards and the 
scope of work abatement--that work abatement requires.
    As I prepared for today, colleagues shared that the EPA is 
narrowing how the agency assesses the impact and health risks 
of toxic chemicals like asbestos on school employees and 
students.
    Thirty-three after Asbestos Hazard Emergency Response Act 
became law, far too many people are still exposed to asbestos. 
Virtually every expert will say there is no safe level of 
exposure to asbestos.
    Even minimal exposure can lead to significant diseases such 
as mesothelioma or lung cancer. In fact, a two-year study by 
NIOSH found an elevated rate of mesothelioma among public 
school teachers whose only exposure to asbestos was at school.
    I have a co-worker who died of lung cancer. She was in good 
shape, athletic, a non-smoker, and ate well. She worked for 
many years in a school built in 1955 that had asbestos and was 
not completely renovated before her untimely death.
    Although it is now a known human carcinogen, asbestos has 
previously been used in school buildings like mine, especially 
from 1946 to 1972. This means some 131,000 school facilities in 
the United States as well as 57 million students and school 
staff are potentially exposed.
    Next, I would like to discuss lead in Baltimore schools. 
Lead testing was mandate in 2017 after a decade of banned water 
use in public school facilities in Maryland.
    Since testing began, elevated levels of lead have been 
found in nearly all of the 170-plus schools in the city school 
system. For years city schools notoriously used plastic water 
bottles to provide safe water for students. But fixing the 
problem would mean replacing all the water pipes, costing 
millions of dollars per school.
    My school has not been renovated and is not on any list for 
renovation currently. I visited the city school system Web site 
and found that as the school district tries to improve school 
buildings, it has installed water filtrations systems in some 
schools and upgraded plumbing in new buildings. To date, some 
14 have working water fountains and clean water in their 
kitchens and no longer require bottled water.
    Finally, I would like to share my personal experience with 
a combination of hazardous environmental exposures in the city 
school system. My fellow teachers and students understand the 
lack of investment in school infrastructure, particularly in 
schools serving many students of color. It impedes learning and 
compromises our health and safety.
    How do we send children to schools with contaminated water 
or inadequate air quality? Too often parents are unaware that 
they are sending their children to substandard learning 
environments.
    Our children and educators deserve better and that begins 
with the EPA assuming full responsibility for these issues. 
While the EPA has authority to mandate significant protective 
measures to spare students and school staff from unhealthy 
exposure, it has generally failed to do so.
    Asbestos and lead are just two examples but there are 
others. As a result, veteran educators who have been working in 
the same building silently suffer and are at risk for potential 
long-term consequences.
    Congress can help make school buildings safer by providing 
more resources for school infrastructure. In its 2017 report on 
the nation's infrastructure, the American Society of Civil 
Engineers gave school facilities a D. It found that nearly 53 
percent of public schools needed to make renovations or 
upgrades to be in good condition.
    That is why I am pleased that the Rebuild America's Schools 
Act is moving forward in the House.
    In closing, I can only hope you understand that investing 
in school infrastructure will increase the health and safety of 
children and school staff. That is what my union, the AFT, has 
launched Fund Our Future, a national campaign to secure 
sustainable investments in our public schools and public 
colleges.
    It is our solemn responsibility to educate our nation's 
future workforce in safe and healthy buildings so that all 
students can reach their potential.
    [The prepared statement of Ms. Hutchinson follows:]
    [GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
    
    Mr. Tonko. Thank you, Ms. Hutchinson.
    And now we welcome Mr. Giev Kashkooli, vice president of 
the United Farm Workers.
    Thank you.

                  STATEMENT OF GIEV KASHKOOLI

    Mr. Kashkooli. Thank you, Chairman Tonko, Ranking Member 
Shimkus. It is an honor to be here with firefighters, teachers, 
and auto workers.
    My name is Giev Kashkooli. I am the second vice president 
of the United Farm Workers. In addition to our members, we are 
proud to fight for the 2.5 million who feed the 325 million 
rest of us in this country.
    Unlike the other panelists, farm workers and the control of 
pesticides is the one group of workers where EPA has full 
responsibility to enforce. For every other worker in the United 
States, it is OSHA that has that responsibility.
    There is an ugly race-based history for why farm workers 
were excluded from that. But we are pleased that some of that 
is being changed, first, with EPA coverage and also just last 
week bipartisan support by Congress including farm workers in 
close to full protections as all other workers as part of PRIA 
4. That is a great moment and we hope from here, we can be 
moving forward.
    We want to be moving forward because of incidents like what 
happened on May 5th, 2017, in rural California. That was the 
day--this is not going to be a war zone I am going to describe 
but was a day when a group of principally women and some men 
were harvesting cabbage when a noxious odor came into their 
senses. Some of their lips began to go numb, there was an 
extraordinarily awful taste in their mouth, and yet, as Ms. 
McGinnis mentioned, when people are needing to work and put 
food on their own families' plates, this group of women and men 
continued to work.
    But soon after, the headaches started to set in. Some women 
began to vomit, and when another woman looked across at her 
daughter who was working alongside her, and saw her begin to 
convulse and rub her eyes-and then Bircmary, who was 37 years 
old, fell to the ground, convulsing, a mother of three 
children.
    None of them knew what had happened. None of them knew that 
day what had happened even after going through the humiliation 
of being stripped naked out in the fields to be tried to be 
cleansed of that toxic chemical.
    So these were dangerous. They learned later that this was 
chlorpyrifos. Most farm workers have children. Over 55 percent 
of them do. Approximately 500,000 farm workers are under the 
age of 18 themselves. And so these are really dangerous 
impacts. Unlike the other chemicals, pesticides are 
deliberately designed to harm species, including people.
    I want to focus specifically on the chemical--the 
neurotoxic chlorpyrifos. Chlorpyrifos is acutely toxic and 
prenatal exposures to chlorpyrifos are associated with lower 
birth weight, reduced IQ, loss of working memory, attention 
disorders, and delayed motor development.
     The women like Bircmary and Lucia and Aylin and Vicenta, 
who I just mentioned, it turned out all had been exposed to 
chlorpyrifos. Chlorpyrifos is a restricted use pesticide and 
the scientific evidence about the dangers of chlorpyrifos, to 
quote the American Academy of Pediatrics, ``The science of its 
toxicity is unambiguous.'' That is a quote from their report.
    Here is another quote: ``There is a wealth of evidence 
demonstrating the detrimental effects of chlorpyrifos exposure 
to developing fetuses, infants, children, and pregnant women.''
    In the longitudinal study on impacts done by the University 
of California, it was shown to reduce the IQ in children. EPA's 
own risk assessments of chlorpyrifos document the health risks.
    In 2014, they showed that the extensive body of peer-
reviewed science correlated chlorpyrifos exposure with brain 
damage to children. It showed in treated drinking water 
chlorpyrifos transforms to the more toxic chlorpyrifos oxon.
    In 2016, the EPA scientists showed that all food exposures 
exceed safe levels--all food exposures--with children ages one 
to two exposed to levels of chlorpyrifos that are 140 times 
what EPA deems safe.
    They concluded that there is no safe level of chlorpyrifos 
in drinking water. They concluded chlorpyrifos is found at 
unsafe levels in the air at schools, homes, and communities 
throughout rural America.
    These are devastating impacts. At least 20 incidents of 
exposure a year took place in California alone, where we have a 
better database than other States.
    So, very simply, now EPA, unfortunately, overturned that 
and is ignoring the science and now Congress must act. So what 
we ask of you, of the committee--we have a lot more detail in 
the written testimony--but one, for farm workers EPA is the 
only enforcement mechanism so you have oversight there and we 
ask that this new law that you passed on a bipartisan basis 
last week, that that law gets enforced.
    I really appreciate Ranking Member Shimkus referencing that 
we pass these laws and then there needs to be a process of 
enforcement.
    And second, we ask you to join your colleague, 
Representative Nydia Velazquez, in H.R. 230, which would ban 
the use of chlorpyrifos which, again, the American Pediatric 
Association has shown it is unambiguous in its impacts on 
children.
    Thank you so much.
    [The prepared statement of Mr. Kashkooli follows:]
    [GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
    
    Mr. Tonko. Thank you, Mr. Kashkooli.
    Next, we will move to Mr. Tom Grumbles on behalf of AIHA.
    Welcome.

                STATEMENT OF THOMAS G. GRUMBLES

    Mr. Grumbles. Good morning. My name is Tom Grumbles. Thank 
you for the opportunity to be here today.
    I am here to share my experience from 40-plus years as a 
certified industrial hygienist practicing occupational health 
and safety in the workplace prior to my retirement in April 
2018.
    In addition to my direct work experience, I spent many 
years working with professional organizations focused on 
industrial hygiene and worker protection. I am a past president 
of the American Industrial Hygiene Association and of the 
International Occupational Hygiene Association.
    I also was a founding board member and past president of 
the Product Stewardship Society. I am currently a board member 
of the American Board of Industrial Hygiene, the group that 
administers professional certification programs for the 
profession.
    I served in leadership capacity within industry trade 
associations as well. Through many years of engagement in these 
different groups, I grew to understand the practice of industry 
as a whole, not just my company.
    What I want to describe here today is what I have seen 
related to safety data sheets and personal protective equipment 
in the workplace. This is important to me in light of recent 
trade journal articles questioning EPA's ability to protect 
workers form chemical risk and the misperception that a SDS--or 
that SDSs are not followed and have no effect.
    Contrary to press accounts, I believe SDSs have a critical 
role in the safety of workers' daily life. Based on my 
experience, which I believe to be pretty standard industry 
practice, this is what happens when an SDS for a chemical is 
introduced into the workplace.
    A hazard assessment is developed that informs the need for 
additional training, workplace labelling, changes in standard 
operation procedures, additional engineering controls, and PPE 
needs.
    And yes, SDSs are made readily available to workers. SDSs 
are more than just a document to be read. The SDS is a catalyst 
for hazard assessments that ultimately guide how workers' 
safety and health will be achieved in the workplace.
    In my experience, the SDS development process for any 
chemical is rigorous and involves multi-tiered reviews 
including research and development groups, toxicology, and 
transportation departments.
    In my view, SDSs have improved dramatically with the 
implementation of HazCom 2012 by OSHA. This standard is 
utilized to globally harmonize a system for classification and 
labelling, to drive content and format improvements, hazard 
classification practices, and hazard communication through 
labels and, for the first time, symbols.
    Regarding the effectiveness of PPE used in the workplace to 
control exposures, OSHA regulations require that a hazard 
determination for PPE selection be done. In addition, the 
employer shall verify that the required workplace hazard 
assessment has been performed through a written certification 
that identifies the workplace evaluated, the person certifying 
that the evaluation has been performed, the dates of the hazard 
assessment, and which identifies the document as a 
certification of hazard assessment.
    The OSHA requirement creates an effective PPE selection 
process that is documented and verifiable. In fact, OSHA's 
statistics dating back to the 1970s shows less than 1 percent 
of violations to the lack of eye protection, lack of general 
dermal protection, and lack of or inappropriate glove use, 
despite the fact that these violations are relatively easy to 
observe by an inspector.
    This confirms that workers are wearing PPE and compliance 
with those requirements in the workplace is likely.
    I hope this helps inform the discussion this morning 
regarding the collaborative relationship between EPA and OSHA 
in protecting worker health and safety. Clearly, there is work 
to be done to get that better defined.
    Thank you for the opportunity to share my perspective with 
you this morning.
    [The prepared statement of Mr. Grumbles follows:]
    [GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
    
    Mr. Tonko. Thank you very much for your comments.
    Next, we will move to Mr. Mark Duvall of Beveridge and 
Diamond PC.
    Welcome.

                  STATEMENT OF MARK N. DUVALL

    Mr. Duvall. Thank you. I would like to thank the chairman, 
the ranking member, and members of this subcommittee for the 
opportunity to testify.
    I am Mark Duvall, a principal in the law firm of Beveridge 
and Diamond. My testimony relates to actions by EPA under TSCA 
to protect workers, particularly since enactment of the Frank 
R. Lautenberg Chemical Safety for the 21st Century Act on June 
22nd, 2016.
    EPA has always had worker protection among its high 
priorities, particularly since most of the chemicals that are 
reviewed under TSCA are industrial chemicals to which primarily 
workers are exposed, or potentially exposed.
    But the 2016 amendments amended TSCA in a number of ways 
including by making worker protection an even higher priority 
by requiring, as the chairman said, consideration of 
potentially exposed or susceptible subpopulations, a term which 
is defined to include workers.
    But this obligation to protect workers is risk based. It 
does not require EPA to protect workers without regard to the 
particular conditions of use, i.e., on the basis of hazard 
alone. Instead, every risk determination that EPA makes under 
TSCA must consider risk in light of the applicable conditions 
of use including the circumstances under which a chemical is 
intended, known, or reasonably foreseen to be manufactured, 
processed, distributed in commerce, used or disposed of.
    Thinking about new chemicals first, EPA has always made and 
continues to make worker protection one of the key 
considerations. Indeed, many in industry believe that EPA goes 
too far being unduly conservative in its Section 5 risk 
evaluations.
    Under the new chemicals review program since enactment of 
the statute EPA has granted--since enactment of the 2016 
amendments, EPA has granted 824 exemption applications. Those 
exemption applications come with restrictions. Each of the 824 
granted applications has worker protection requirements.
    EPA has also imposed worker protection requirements on many 
submitters of pre-manufacture notices, or PMNs, in the form of 
an order that includes requirements for particular kinds of 
respirators, gloves, and protective clothing and specific 
hazard communication requirements.
    EPA has then mostly extended those requirements to other 
manufacturers and processors through proposed or final 
significant new use rules. EPA has adopted 463 final rules that 
incorporate worker protection provisions and 404 final rules 
that incorporate hazard communication requirements.
    These requirements are tied to OSHA's requirements on 
respirators, other uses of personal protective equipment, and 
hazard communication.
    Since enactment of the 2016 amendments, EPA has made 564 
final determinations on PMN substances not counting those that 
were invalid or withdrawn, and issued orders restricting 441 of 
those, or 78 percent of the total.
    Thus, almost four out of every five chemicals reviewed in 
the new chemicals review program is regulated, a dramatic shift 
from the situation prior to enactment of the amendments when 
only about one out of every five that completed EPA review was 
regulated.
    EPA has also initiated or completed significant new use 
rulemaking for 378 PMN chemicals, or 85 percent of the total, 
that have received an order since enactment of the amendments.
    Turning to existing chemicals--methylene chloride--EPA 
should any day now be publishing a final rule on methylene 
chloride. We will learn the nature of the final rule and any 
additional rulemaking shortly. At the moment, none of us knows 
what EPA--what the rule will include.
    Regardless of what is in that rule, EPA's actions will 
supplement OSHA's occupational health standards on methylene 
chloride, both the general industry standard and the 
construction standard.
    Those standards set mandatory requirements on permissible 
exposure limits, exposure monitoring in regulated areas, 
methods of compliance, respirators, protective work clothing 
and equipment, hygiene facilities, medical surveillance, hazard 
communication, employee information and training, and record 
keeping.
    They will also supplement EPA's NESHAP--the National 
Emissions Standard for Hazardous Air Pollutants--for paint 
stripping and miscellaneous surface coatings, which require 
commercial paint stripping operations using methylene chloride 
to institute management practices including to ensure that 
there is not an alternative technology that can be used and to 
reduce inhalation exposure. EPA is also working on other 
aspects of methylene chloride.
    On asbestos, EPA banned most uses of asbestos in 1989 but 
in 1991 a court overturned that ban. That development led to 
enactment of the Lautenberg amendments 25 years later.
    In June of last year, EPA proposed a significant new use 
rule for 14 former uses of asbestos. The final rule is expected 
this year. Once final, that rule will achieve much of what 
EPA's 1989 ban on asbestos was intended to achieve but could 
not, due to the court decision.
    It will effectively ban many of the uses listed in the 1989 
rule as well as several others, thus preventing their 
recommencement without advanced EPA review and approval.
    EPA is also working to publish the risk evaluation for 
certain ongoing uses of asbestos with statutory deadlines. The 
scope document----
    Mr. Tonko. Mr. Duvall, if you could wrap up, please.
    Mr. Duvall. I will.
    The short answer is EPA has much work to do but its work 
will include attention to worker protection.
    Thank you.
    [The prepared statement of Mr. Duvall follows:]
    [GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
    
    Mr. Tonko. Thank you. Thank you very much.
    And finally, we move to Dr. Adam M. Finkel of the 
University of Michigan School of Public Health.
    Welcome.

               STATEMENT OF ADAM M. FINKEL, D.Sc.

    Dr.Finkel. Good morning. Thank you very much for the 
opportunity. My bio is in the written testimony but, briefly, I 
was OSHA's chief rulemaking official in 1995 to 2000 and later 
was chief enforcement official in the Rocky Mountain States out 
of Denver.
    I have been on the EPA's Science Advisory Board, Board of 
Scientific Counselors, and on both of the National Academy 
Committees convened to review EPA's risk assessment methods.
    I am a strong supporter of risk assessment and cost benefit 
analysis, having helped pioneer some of the methods EPA uses. I 
am going to pose four questions in this brief statement, but my 
main message is that, as others have said, TSCA now requires 
EPA to provide protections to workers and requires it to use 
readily available information and the best available science to 
do so.
    Many of EPA's actions and inactions over the last two years 
are contrary to the plain meaning of the law, arbitrary, and 
unscientific. Congress needs to give EPA clear direction to 
follow the law it enacted and to oversee the agency's 
corrective actions.
    So question one, ``why should EPA protect workers?''----
    Chairman Pallone mentioned 50,000 premature deaths per 
year. One might think that because EPA has been instructed by 
Congress to reduce risk to one in a million where possible, and 
because OSHA has always interpreted its Supreme Court decision 
to let it stop at one in a thousand, that workers would be 
exposed to about a thousand, times more of these chemicals than 
the general population.
    But I have looked at all the data. It is actually 10,000, 
100,000, sometimes a million times greater concentrations in 
the workplace than in the general environment.
    There is a reasonable belief that when workers are 
compensated and are informed about their risks they could bear 
somewhat more risk than the general population. But come on, 
10,000 times more?
    EPA should begin its risk assessment and management in the 
workplace because the risks physically begin there. Just as it 
is cheaper to put ice on a frozen sidewalk than to put a plate 
in a broken leg, the most efficient way to reduce 
concentrations for everyone is to reduce them at the source 
where they are highest, so they don't diffuse into the air that 
non-workers breathe all day and that workers breathe when they 
come home at night.
    And in many cases businesses will find it less expensive 
and less illogical to control these exposures simultaneously, 
using substitution or engineering controls, rather than having 
to deal with half the problem, then the other half in retrofit.
    So I think EPA, both the Air Office and the Chemicals 
Office, should regard workers as one of their primary 
constituencies. EPA doesn't ignore water pollution because 
there is a Fish and Wildlife Service and they shouldn't ignore 
workers just because there is an OSHA.
    Question two, ``why was EPA given this statutory 
authority?''--I have read comments by the American Chemistry 
Council (ACC) and the Halogenated Solvents Industry Alliance 
claiming that EPA must coordinate with OSHA before doing 
anything that might reduce worker risk. That is legally 
inaccurate.
    TSCA 9(a) gives the administrator complete discretion to 
decide when to confer, and this makes sense because for most or 
all of the chemical risks that EPA finds may be unreasonably 
high to workers, OSHA's accurate answer to the question ``can 
you do more?'' would be ``no.''
    And so asking the question is only going to complicate and 
delay needed analysis and action. I am proud of my former 
agency but it is overmatched and unable to reduce unreasonable 
risks. Many of those factors are explained in my testimony.
    Mr. Kashkooli is right that most workers are covered by 
OSHA, but not public sector workers, not independent 
contractors, not safety hazards on small farms. So there is a 
lot of lack of coverage, a budget one-twentieth of the EPA's, 
19 chemical-specific standards in 49 years compared to over a 
thousand in Germany.
    And, again, declaring victory at one in a thousand, which 
is far above where EPA would ever even begin to contemplate 
starting a rulemaking.
    Now, we have talked about methylene chloride a bit. I 
presented a graph in my written testimony showing over 12,000 
samples divided between pre-1999, when the standard I helped 
write took effect, and the 15 years later.
    The new PEL is 25 parts per million but in the 15 years 
before we went to all that trouble to regulate, the average 
exposure was about 85 parts per million. Now it is all the way 
down to 69 parts per million--widespread noncompliance.
    And that is one of 19 OSHA-regulated chemicals. There are 
thousands more that are unregulated or use standards that were 
grandfathered in in 1970 based on 1950's science.
    Question three,-- ``how is EPA failing to protect 
workers?'' I see a pattern of rather clumsily designed 
pronouncements designed to make worker risks go away without 
actually doing anything helpful.
    Methylene chloride--it is clear from the titles of the 
rules that we are headed towards a split in the rule where 
consumers may be protected--I would be happy to answer 
questions about how I think they probably will not be--but 
workers will not be, deferred for restarting a rulemaking on an 
issue, certification, and training that EPA already said, ``we 
view the costs and challenges of certification and training as 
a limitation of that approach'' and they rejected it.
    1-bromopropane--a multi-site animal carcinogen, known human 
neurotoxin--we have known this now for at least 12 to 15 years. 
EPA has still not listed it as a hazardous air pollutant, which 
is only a hazard determination, and the thing I want to 
highlight about this, just to give you a sense of what is going 
on in the workplace, there is ``manufactured doubt'' out there 
that says that when animals are exposed to far more than 
workers in the laboratory we may have trouble extrapolating 
down to lower doses.
    But in the animal test, at 62 parts per million the animals 
got 800 percent more cancer than the background. Workers are 
exposed today--at least 20 percent of them are--to over that 
limit so it is above the amount that we are giving to animals 
in the cage.
    My time is almost done. I would be happy to talk about 
PMNs. My fourth question was ``how is EPA failing everyone 
else?'' I think the methylene chloride rule is not going to 
necessarily protect consumers because there are going to be 
small cans still available. The bromopropane rules says 
consumers will avoid it because it is expensive.
    Again, I am proud of OSHA but it is not solving the 
problem--let us begin. Let us begin. That is what EPA should be 
doing.
    Thank you.
    [The prepared statement of Dr. Finkel follows:]
    [GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
    
    Mr. Tonko. Thank you, Dr. Finkel.
    That concludes the opening statements of our witnesses. 
Thank you, everyone, of the panel for your thoughts.
    We will now move to member questions and each Member will 
have five minutes by which to ask questions of our witnesses. I 
will start by recognizing myself for five minutes.
    We have heard from representatives of workers in four 
different and distinct industries. But each are raising similar 
concerns.
    Ms. McGinnis, Mr. Morrison, Ms. Hutchinson, and Mr. 
Kashkooli--in your opinions, is EPA doing enough to protect 
workers in your line of work? And just need a yes or no answer 
there and let us begin with Ms. McGinnis.
    Ms. McGinnis. I feel like they are doing some, but they 
could do better--more.
    Mr. Tonko. OK. So that is a they are not doing enough, so 
no.
    Ms. McGinnis. Not doing enough.
    Mr. Tonko. OK.
    Mr. Morrison, yes or no?
    Mr. Morrison. Not doing enough. No.
    Mr. Tonko. No.
    Ms. Hutchinson?
    Ms. Hutchinson. No.
    Mr. Tonko. Thank you.
    And Mr. Kashkooli?
    Mr. Kashkooli. No, and they now have a new tool and that I 
hope Congress will help them--make sure that they use it.
    Mr. Tonko. Thank you.
    Mr. Morrison and Dr. Finkel, the Lautenberg Act explicitly 
designated workers as a susceptible subpopulation. Do you think 
that was a warranted decision for Congress to make and, if so, 
is EPA doing enough to live up to that statutory change?
    We will begin with Mr. Morrison, please.
    Mr. Morrison. For our class of workers, the firefighters, I 
think what they fail to do is they prevented us from being that 
sub-worker group with the legacy asbestos. We were not 
considered that.
    We were not considered a high-hazard group on that and, 
therefore, we were excluded. So we feel that EPA has really let 
us down, especially around that legacy asbestos issue.
    Mr. Tonko. Thank you.
    And Dr. Finkel?
    Dr. Finkel. Well, workers are not--I mean, they are a 
susceptible population but they are there because they are an 
incredibly highly-exposed population and in every single case 
where OSHA has regulated and in every single case where OSHA 
has not regulated, unreasonable risk to workers by definition 
remains.
    So, obviously, I feel EPA must always consider, assess, and 
their conclusions, if they are scientific, should be that there 
is unreasonable risk that we may or may not be able to deal 
with.
    Mr. Tonko. Thank you.
    And, Dr. Finkel, in EPA's TSCA framework rules, for 
example, the risk evaluation rule, do you think EPA has taken 
sufficient consideration there to protect workers?
    Dr. Finkel. I have been looking more at the specifics of 
the initial rules that have--the drafts that have come out on 
methylene chloride and PV29 and bromopropane. They are 
certainly thinking about workers in those. But the idea that 
exposures will not be ``reasonably foreseen:'' the non-use of 
protective equipment, noncompliance with requirements, 
noncompliance with guidelines, that is the very definition of 
``reasonably foreseen.''
    So all of these attempts to say that if everything goes 
swimmingly and workers, instead of having clean environments 
are wearing respirators, all will be well, ``reasonably 
foreseen:'' that can't happen.
    Mr. Tonko. Thank you.
    And Mr. Morrison, same question with the TSCA framework 
rules--the risk evaluation rule specifically. Do you think EPA 
has taken sufficient consideration to protect workers?
    Mr. Morrison. No. I really think that EPA just 
misunderstood our occupation, I mean, as----
    Mr. Tonko. In what--in what way?
    Mr. Morrison. In that, you know, how are we exposed to--and 
I am going to back to asbestos--how are we exposed to 
asbestos--how do we do it.
    When we arrive on a fire, we have to fight that fire. We 
have to go into that house. We have to start pulling ceilings. 
We have to make sure that that fire spread is stopped.
    Asbestos is--in some of those cases are completely covered 
with asbestos. They didn't understand that we can't stop and do 
an abatement program. We are there as rescuers. We are there as 
firefighters. We are going to get in there. We are going to do 
it.
    But they failed to see what our job was. They needed to 
understand what is that end user--what is that firefighter 
doing? What are the exposures and what are the significant 
amount of mesothelioma that we have from a NIOSH cancer study 
for firefighters that show that increase that we are not doing 
enough for our work in this----
    Mr. Tonko. Thank you.
    We have one risk evaluation example, that being PV29. Based 
on how that process has gone forward under the new framework 
rules, I think we have some evidence of what to expect in the 
future and in my opinion--my opinion--it is not good.
    Mr. Morrison, as EPA goes forward with the other first 10 
chemicals or even future action, for example, on PFAS, are you 
confident that worker exposure risk will be given appropriate 
consideration?
    Mr. Morrison. Mr. Chairman, I am hoping that it is. I mean, 
I think PFAS right now, I am hoping that we have a lot more 
detailed discussion about PFAS. It is probably the one chemical 
exposure for firefighters now that scare us more than anything 
else because of not having that protection.
    Mr. Tonko. Right. I think you even mentioned, right, that 
it was part of turnout gear, like part of the----
    Mr. Morrison. Part of the legacy turnout gear. We are--
right now, we are doing a study on the current gear to find out 
the current gear's--what levels of that are on there even 
before that PFAS.
    Mr. Tonko. Thank you. And do you or Dr. Finkel have any 
other suggestions on how the TSCA framework rules could better 
conform with the letter of the law? Either of you? Both of you?
    Dr. Finkel. For example, on the PV29 risk assessment the 
kind of casual way that EPA talks about, well, ``we have some 
evidence that this material is not genotoxic and therefore 
there is no foreseeable carcinogenic risk,'' that is just 
unscientific. And, again, I think the nexus between EPA and 
OSHA is, obviously, the key both from a management point of 
view but also from a scientific/analytic point of view.
    OSHA does not require employers to follow manufacturers' 
recommendations on the data sheet. They often do, no question 
about it. But to say that there is no foreseeable risk just 
because there is a nonbinding recommendation from a 
manufacturer out there, again, it might not be crazy in the 
management stage but in the assessment, they are supposed to 
say, is there foreseeable risk? That is abdication of the law, 
I think.
    Mr. Tonko. OK. And, Mr. Morrison, any suggestions? Quickly, 
because we----
    Mr. Morrison. Yes. One suggestion that I think that we have 
to do is that we are a susceptible population. You know, what I 
would ask of the EPA is to acknowledge that and number two is 
to really acknowledge the fact that legacy asbestos is an issue 
for us and that we have to address that.
    And one other thing, real quickly, Mr. Chairman: PFAS. We 
have to look at those substitute foams that we can use as 
firefighters that don't put us at risk for the exposure that we 
are today.
    Mr. Tonko. Thank you. Thank you very much.
    The Chair recognizes Mr. Shimkus, the Republican Leader of 
the subcommittee, for five minutes.
    Mr. Shimkus. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    We want to, again, welcome you here and I want to welcome 
my colleagues who have joined the subcommittee.
    These acronyms, this science, these agencies--just hearing 
this testimony would--just tires me out and, you know, and I 
have been in this space, especially the six years we worked on 
TSCA. The Frank Lautenberg Act took us five and a half, six 
years to work through.
    And so I welcome my colleagues to this discussion and 
debate because it is just--this is just not an easy space and 
so we appreciate you all being in it.
    For an example, it is, like, you have asbestos, PFAS, PFOA, 
and HBCD. All were really designed to help firefighters--fire 
retardant substances that are now--and a lot of them came on 
way before we even had any of these agencies, right.
    We had--OSHA, came on in 1970, actually prior to the TSCA 
legislation in 1976. So, I always like to look back at the past 
to find out where we are at. That kind of explains why we got 
so many chemicals out there that we are trying to get our hands 
wrapped around because they were in and around or used before 
we even started thinking as legislators, hey, we need to do 
something about this.
    So, hence, our movement to try to move things up and, 
hence, the importance of this hearing.
    I want to go back to Mr. Grumbles and try to get this nexus 
of this OSHA-EPA debate vetted a little bit. So--and I pulled 
it up on the iPad, too--what is the role of OSHA in this 
process?
    Mr. Grumbles. This process, the PMN process?
    Mr. Shimkus. Just the safety of the--the workforce safety 
areas that we were--we have been discussing.
    Mr. Grumbles. Oh, gosh. I could speak paragraphs----
    Mr. Shimkus. Don't. Just briefly. Why do we have OSHA?
    Mr. Grumbles. OSHA is to protect the workers. Implement 
regulations to protect workers.
    Mr. Shimkus. Thank you. Would it be fair to say that to get 
a full picture of what is necessary to understand worker 
chemical safety you must understand the role of OSHA and its 
relationship with the EPA?
    Mr. Grumbles. Yes.
    Mr. Shimkus. When it comes to worker protection and safety, 
from your experience, where has a line been drawn between EPA 
and OSHA authority and involvement?
    Mr. Grumbles. So in the workplaces I worked in, EPA's 
presence in worker safety and health was not much. The workers 
certainly knew EPA existed. We trained them in TSCA 80 and 8(c) 
rules because we needed their input.
    They knew we had permits. They knew there were operating 
procedures that had----
    Mr. Shimkus. Let me ask you this. Would you have concerns 
if EPA began writing its own specific worker protection, 
standards, and to significant new use rules for chemicals under 
the--under TSCA?
    Mr. Grumbles. Yes, absolutely. I would just worry about the 
conflicts that occur--could occur in terms of differing 
requirements under OSHA and what EPA would write.
    Mr. Shimkus. Right.
    Mr. Grumbles. And, to me, that is the key issue of working 
out this what does consultation with OSHA mean.
    Mr. Shimkus. Yes. And maybe we can help, as we move 
forward, because I do think there is an abutment of agencies, 
except for Mr. Kashkooli, which you noted that EPA is the sole 
authority under that and I would be interested in learning 
more, just the history of that, too, because there should be no 
differentiation between how we treat our workers and how we 
protect them, in my view.
    Mr. Morrison, we all love firefighters so and so I am 
trying to understand this going into the burning building--
pipes still wrapped with asbestos. You don't know it is there. 
We get it. We can all envision this. It could even crumble, 
airborne. What can we do about it? I mean, so what can OSHA or 
EPA do about that? That is what I am struggling with. That is 
my question. What can they do?
    Mr. Morrison. Well, I think OSHA could do a couple things 
here. One is the right to know. You know, we have to--we should 
have a right to know where that asbestos is when we respond to 
that call.
    Mr. Shimkus. Right. Right.
    Mr. Morrison. Second, I think, OSHA can help us with the 
monitoring devices on the scene to make sure that we stay 
within our full protective ensemble until the air is safe or at 
a safer level.
    Mr. Shimkus. But--OK, so they would have a monitoring 
device in the facility. I mean, they are not going to get there 
before you guys and start putting in a monitoring device.
    Mr. Morrison. A lot of--you know, a lot of the exposures 
that we have is during overhaul, too. I mean, it is not just, 
you know, we are in there. We put the fire out. Then we have to 
come back in and make sure the fire is completely out and 
extinguishing. We want to make sure that firefighters aren't 
taken off their SCBA----
    Mr. Shimkus. Amen.
    Mr. Morrison [continuing]. Prior to doing that and they 
can't do that. They should not do that.
    Mr. Shimkus. And we have seen numerous buildings torn down 
and all the work that has to be done--old schools, the tiles 
or, you know, the ceiling things----
    Mr. Morrison. Correct. Yes.
    Mr. Shimkus [continuing]. And we have made great progress. 
But I think you made a good point. My time has expired. I want 
to thank you all for being here.
    Mr. Tonko. The gentleman yields back.
    Now the Chair will recognize Mr. Pallone, full committee 
chairman of Energy and Commerce, for five minutes to ask 
questions.
    Mr. Pallone. Thank you, Chairman Tonko.
    Clearly, we have some differences of opinion on the panel 
between the chemical industry lawyer and the impacted workers.
    Mr. Duvall, I appreciate your testimony because it shows 
exactly what industry wants from EPA on worker protections 
under TSCA which is, in my opinion, nothing at all, and I am 
going to focus my questions on asbestos because it is very 
serious as a threat to workers across the economy and we have 
known about its dangers for decades. But we are still importing 
it and it is still present in consumer products and even 
cosmetics in the U.S.
    Mr. Duvall said in this testimony the EPA's proposed 
significant new use rule for asbestos would finally achieve 
much of what EPA tried to do in their '89 asbestos ban. But it 
is not a ban. It doesn't apply to any ongoing uses. It only 
applies to a limited set of old uses and it doesn't even ban 
manufacturers from resuming those uses.
    All it does is set up a path for EPA to review those uses 
if a manufacturer chooses to resume them. So in light of that, 
I want to start with Dr. Finkel but most of this is just going 
to be yes or no. Otherwise, I will never get through it in the 
three minutes here.
    So Mr. Finkel, do you believe that EPA's significant new 
use rule for asbestos is effectively an asbestos ban, as Mr. 
Duvall claimed? Yes or no.
    Dr. Finkel. No, I don't.
    Mr. Pallone. Do you think that asbestos should be banned, 
and do you think EPA is on track to ban it?
    Dr. Finkel. Hard to give a yes or no to two different 
questions. There are different forms of asbestos, but I don't 
think EPA is on track to ban the most dangerous ones.
    Mr. Pallone. And you don't think they are going to do it, 
obviously?
    Dr. Finkel. I am hopeful.
    Mr. Pallone. OK. You are hopeful. Good. I always like 
optimism.
    And I want to turn to those on the panel who have had 
personal experiences with workplace hazards including asbestos. 
It can be easy when we are talking about technical subjects 
like risk assessments and regulatory maneuvers to lose sight of 
the people who are impacted.
    But all of you should be our focus. So I really want to 
stress how valuable it is for us to hear from you.
    So I want to start with Ms. Hutchinson. Do you and your 
colleagues worry about your exposure to asbestos and the impact 
it might have on your health?
    Ms. Hutchinson. Yes.
    Mr. Pallone. OK. Do you think we should continue to allow 
the use of asbestos in this country?
    Ms. Hutchinson. No.
    Mr. Pallone. And let me go to Ms. McGinnis. Auto workers 
have historically been exposed to asbestos in automotive parts 
and asbestos is still used in brakes and clutches.
    Do you and other UAW members you know worry about the 
health effects of asbestos exposure?
    Ms. McGinnis. Yes.
    Mr. Pallone. Do you think we should continue to allow the 
use of asbestos in automotive parts?
    Ms. McGinnis. No.
    Mr. Pallone. Mr. Morrison, what impact does asbestos 
exposure have on firefighters in this country? That is a more 
open question.
    Mr. Morrison. Well, one effect it has is the--as the NIOSH 
cancer study said that we have twice the rate of mesothelioma 
from exposure to asbestos in our firefighter population and it 
was a study of three cities--Philadelphia, Chicago, and San 
Francisco.
    So what that is telling us is that firefighters are being 
exposed to asbestos at a higher rate and right now we have to 
stop that. We have to end that currently.
    Mr. Pallone. All right. Now I have a yes or no. Do you 
think we should continue to allow the use of asbestos?
    Mr. Morrison. No.
    Mr. Pallone. OK. Do you have confidence that EPA will ban 
asbestos under the newly reformed TSCA?
    Mr. Morrison. I am going to be optimistic, too. I hope so--
they do. Right now, no.
    Mr. Pallone. Everybody is--right now, no, but you would 
like them to. OK. Well, you know, in politics they always say 
the optimist wins the election. So maybe we will take a lesson 
from that.
    Now I just wanted to say--I have a minute left--that when 
we adopted the Lautenberg Act, and I will point out to my 
friend, Mr. Shimkus, I think you said, what, four years--I 
would say more like 14 years.
    I mean, I remember when we were meeting with Lisa Jackson, 
who was the New Jersey DP commissioner and then the 
administrator under Obama in the first--in the first four years 
and----
    Mr. Shimkus. I was being optimistic.
    Mr. Pallone. You were being very optimistic. OK.
    So when we adopted the Lautenberg Act, many of us in this 
room hoped that we were paving the way to an outright ban on 
asbestos. But I think it is clear now that EPA is not moving 
towards that ban and the Congress will have to act directly to 
ban asbestos.
    So I hope we can work together in a bipartisan fashion as 
we did on the Lautenberg Act to move the Alan Reinstein Ban 
Asbestos Now Act and finally end the use of asbestos in this 
country. So I will be optimistic as well that we can do that.
    Thank you, Mr. Chair.
    Mr. Tonko. You are welcome, and the gentleman yields back.
    The Chair now recognizes the gentlelady from the State of 
Washington, Mrs. Rodgers, for five minutes.
    Mrs. McMorris Rodgers. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I too 
want to thank everyone for being here today and sharing your 
insights on this important issue.
    You know, we have several different Federal agencies that 
are involved. Our goal is to make sure that we are doing 
everything we can to protect workers and especially those who 
routinely handle all manner of potentially hazardous chemicals 
and to ensure that they are able to perform their duties in a 
safe and effective manner.
    OSHA is involved, EPA is involved in guaranteeing the 
safety of these employees, whether it is TSCA or OSHA. I wanted 
to ask and I thought I would start with Mr. Duvall but if 
others want to answer, too--I wanted to ask about OSHA, 
specifically, how do you differentiate between the scope of 
protection for workers under OSHA and the suite of laws 
implemented and enforced by EPA and what protocols exist 
between OSHA and EPA for sharing information and deferring to 
each other when it comes to exposure issues?
    Mr. Duvall. OSHA's jurisdiction is entirely devoted to 
worker safety and protection. EPA also must consider worker 
safety but it also has to worry about exposures to the general 
population, other sensitive populations, and the environment.
    The EPA worker protection provisions have typically 
referenced and built on OSHA requirements, which is 
appropriate. I would encourage EPA and OSHA to converse much 
more often and in more detail about the best ways that EPA can 
leverage OSHA requirements and make them effective in 
particular instances.
    Mrs. McMorris Rodgers. Would you speak to how information 
is currently shared and how they work--how we are deferring--if 
they defer to each other when it comes to these issues?
    Mr. Duvall. I spoke to a deputy administrator of OSHA last 
week about that very issue. He told me that EPA and OSHA meet 
monthly to discuss process safety issues and when I asked him 
about getting together to talk about TSCA issues, he said, oh, 
we have met several times over the years.
    So I do not see a rigorous line of communication between 
the agencies, which I would encourage them to develop.
    Mrs. McMorris Rodgers. Mr. Finkel?
    Dr. Finkel. Yes, thank you.
    I just wanted to clarify one thing that was said earlier. 
You know, I have worked at both agencies. Nobody likes 
duplication and unnecessary piling on of requirements.
    But, in fact, for example, if the methylene chloride rule 
as it would have been promulgated had it looked the way it did 
in 2017 there would not have been a conflict.
    OSHA got it down to 25 parts per million, not very well 
enforced. It is now--it is still about 70 ppm. EPA would have 
banned several uses of it. That would tell a narrow swath of an 
industry that there is no more need for controls because there 
won't be that chemical.
    The new methylene chloride rule that we think is coming out 
will be conflicting because it is telling--it is headed towards 
a certification and training program for workers, which is 
going to duplicate the OSHA certification and training. It is 
not going to be helpful.
    So just because there are two agencies involved doesn't 
mean it is duplicative at all.
    Mrs. McMorris Rodgers. OK.
    Mr. Grumbles, some people have argued that it would be 
better if EPA rather than OSHA set permissible exposure 
levels--the PELs. Would you just speak to that question and 
maybe some of the concerns or practical effects of having PELs 
set by EPA?
    Mr. Grumbles. Yes. So PELs, in my profession, have been a 
struggle forever. Everyone in the process is frustrated.
    So we have got to find a better way to do it. Based on what 
has happened in the last 30 years, we have a lot of experience 
with how OSHA has done it, what barriers they run into, how 
they make their risk decisions and determine the permissible 
exposure limit.
    For EPA process there is a document that describes how they 
do that in the new chemical review. But I am not sure that that 
process is similar enough and/or is as transparent as the OSHA 
process.
    So I think we all would have some concerns if they started 
doing it certainly outside the new chemical notification 
process. But even in that process I think it would be better to 
have a little more transparency on what their process is.
    Mrs. McMorris Rodgers. OK. Thank you.
    Mr. Morrison, I had the chance to meet with some 
firefighters earlier this week from Washington State. I learned 
about the work that you are doing on the exposure study of PFAS 
chemicals.
    I represent Fairchild Air Force Base. We have had some 
issues around the base and are working right now to make sure 
that there is water made available and filtration systems for 
homes.
    I wanted to just ask what is the--kind of the next steps. 
What is the plan to conduct a health effects study to better 
understand whether the detections might be found are indicating 
disease?
    And I am out of time but maybe you can just follow up with 
me.
    Mr. Morrison. Yes, just real quickly.
    Mrs. McMorris Rodgers. OK.
    Mr. Morrison. We have--we are actually sponsoring a bill 
trying to protect our Federal firefighters that work in the 
military bases and one is the medical monitoring--would be a 
blood test to try to recognize right now.
    What we have right now is we have to have some sort of--
almost a moratorium on that--on the PFAS and look for safer 
substitutes. But the problem with the safer substitute is that 
we have to make sure it is safer.
    We just can't say substitute and then not really understand 
that. So for us right now it is removing that stock of PFAS 
away out of firefighters' contamination zone and getting into 
something safer.
    Mrs. McMorris Rodgers. OK. Thank you. I certainly want to 
work with you on that, and I will yield back. Thanks.
    Mr. Tonko. The gentlelady yields back.
    The Chair now recognizes the gentleman from the 
Commonwealth of Virginia, Representative McEachin, for five 
minutes.
    Mr. McEachin. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you for 
calling this hearing, and to all of our witnesses, thank you 
for sharing your expertise with us today.
    Last week, I was pleased to host a briefing and partnership 
with Earth Justice to discuss some of the EPA's attacks on 
workers and community health protections, including the failure 
to adequately regulate some of the toxins we are discussing 
today.
    We were able to hear from members of impacted communities. 
There is no one who can better explain what is at stake or the 
moral imperative to change our course.
    I was not on this committee during its consideration of 
TSCA, but I appreciate the good work done by my colleagues to 
ensure protections for vulnerable populations including workers 
in disproportionately exposed communities.
    Unfortunately, many workers in chemical facilities qualify 
as vulnerable and disproportionately exposed on two fronts--
first, because of the way their workplace--first, because of 
their workplace exposure and second because they often live 
around the facilities where they work.
    So, to me, the issue of worker protection is very closely 
tied into the issue of environmental justice.
    Dr. Finkel, do you think the EPA is doing enough to protect 
disproportionately exposed communities around chemical 
facilities under TSCA?
    Dr. Finkel. No. You are exactly right about the nexus 
between where workers work and where they live. I have major 
concerns going back 30 years about EPA's--you know, the 
conventional wisdom is--you hear it all the time--EPA is very 
precautionary about its risk assessment.
    Not the case. EPA is deliberately underestimating risk to a 
susceptible people of all kinds, workers and non-workers. So 
that is a constant struggle and, scientifically, they are still 
resisting modernizing and being appropriately precautionary.
    Mr. McEachin. For workers in chemical plants who live near 
their workplaces, do you think EPA is failing them twice over? 
I assume from your answer that you probably do believe that.
    Dr. Finkel. I mean, they have certainly have done a lot in 
terms of process safety, along with OSHA. But in terms of 
chronic exposures, no.
    Mr. McEachin. Thank you.
    Mr. Kashkooli--did I pronounce that right?
    Mr. Kashkooli. You did.
    Mr. McEachin. All right. I also see a serious concern that 
workers in some areas in some industries might receive better 
workplace protection than some in less affluent or majority 
minority areas.
    You mentioned historical inequities that have left farm 
workers less protected than other workers in other industries. 
Can you elaborate on what those historical references that you 
make?
    Mr. Kashkooli. Thank you, Congressman McEachin, for asking 
that question. I know Congressman Shimkus earlier asked what 
was--what is the basis for why farm workers are treated 
different from all other workers. So I really appreciate you 
asking the question and given the time to ask.
    So it is an ugly race-based history. In the 1930s when the 
United States passed most of our labor laws--Fair Labor 
Standards Act, National Labor Relations Act, and others--the 
principal population working as farm workers in the United 
States were African American. And I am not going to use the 
exact words that a member of Congress used at that time but I 
am going to quote minus one word, and this is what a 
Congressman said when they were voting on the law. Quote, ``You 
cannot put an African-American and white man on the same basis 
and get away with it.''
    That is what said and those were the reasons why farm 
workers were specifically excluded from all national labor laws 
and that continued on to the Federal Insecticide and Fungicide 
Act.
    So that was wrong then when farm workers were principally 
African American. It is wrong now when farm workers are 
principally Latino. Fortunately, in some States, those laws are 
now being changed.
    Fortunately, last week on a bipartisan, unanimous basis, I 
should add, farm workers were finally included in equal set of 
protections--it was signed into law last Friday--on pesticides, 
not in any other area. But we now have a--finally, a way to 
move forward.
    I will add that the exclusions include things like workers 
compensation in many States within the United States. So thank 
you very much for the question.
    Mr. McEachin. And thank you for your expertise.
    And, Mr. Chairman, I only have 29 seconds so I will give 
them back to you. I yield.
    Mr. Tonko. The gentleman yields back.
    The Chair now recognizes the gentleman from Ohio, Mr. 
Johnson, for five minutes.
    Mr. Johnson. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    You know, I hope at some point we can hear from the EPA on 
the issues being discussed today and perhaps OSHA as well. 
EPA's implementation of TSCA, which was recently amended, 
thanks to the bipartisan work of this committee, does provide 
opportunities for the agency to take steps to protect workers 
as well as consider data from important Federal partners like 
OSHA.
    I think having the EPA and OSHA here to really flesh out 
that work could be beneficial for everyone in this room today 
and lead to a more constructive conversation.
    Mr. Duvall, your written testimony mentioned TSCA Section 
3, the definition there of, and I quote, ``potentially exposed 
or susceptible populations.''
    Does that definition as it relates to workers only apply if 
EPA identifies those workers as relevant because those workers 
face higher than average risks of adverse health effects from a 
chemical's higher level of exposure?
    Mr. Duvall. The definition is based on EPA's discretions as 
identified by the administrator. So it is appropriate for the 
administrator to consider particular groups of workers rather 
than all workers if all workers are not affected.
    Firefighters might be a perfectly appropriate group of 
workers to focus on. But since EPA has so much to do and so 
many areas to look at, it is appropriate for EPA to select the 
areas where it could be most effective under TSCA in protecting 
the different groups that it must address.
    Mr. Johnson. OK. Well, following onto that, does TSCA, 
particularly Section 6, give the EPA discretion to choose 
whether and which workers will be the subject of a chemical's 
risk evaluation?
    Mr. Duvall. Again, EPA has discretion and the key area 
where that discretion is addressed is on the conditions of use 
that will be addressed in the scope of a risk evaluation.
    That is where the legacy uses issue arises. The EPA must 
consider workers and the other areas that it has responsibility 
for. But the reality is the EPA has so much to do that it 
cannot effectively do its work if it tries to do everything for 
everyone.
    Mr. Johnson. OK. Does TSCA authority pre-empt OSHA 
authority?
    Mr. Duvall. It does not. Section 9(c) of the act 
specifically states that EPA actions under TSCA do not pre-empt 
OSHA actions. I believe that is an indication that Congress 
always intended EPA and OSHA to work together on worker 
protection rather than to have EPA supersede OSHA.
    Mr. Johnson. OK. Does TSCA Section 5(f)(5) require EPA to 
consult to the extent practicable with OSHA in evaluating 
workplace exposure issues in new chemicals?
    Mr. Duvall. Yes. There is a specific direction for EPA and 
OSHA to talk to each other. They have done so to some degree. 
It has not been very transparent.
    I would encourage better and more transparent 
communication.
    Mr. Johnson. OK. And does TSCA Section 9(a) address EPA 
deferring to the laws of other Federal agencies that might 
prevent sufficiently addressing an unreasonable risk determined 
by the administrator?
    Mr. Duvall. It does. Under Section 9(a), EPA under TSCA 
must consider the ability of other Federal agencies to regulate 
the same issue. Section 9(b) requires EPA to think about other 
EPA programs that can effectively address the same issue.
    There is a procedure proscribed in those--particularly in 
9(a), which is a little clunky, in my view. I think it is best 
read as encouraging a discussion and an open mind as to which 
is the best authority for addressing a particular issue.
    Mr. Johnson. OK. Your testimony also states that, and I 
quote, ``TSCA is not a particularly good statute for addressing 
asbestos remediation and disposal.'' Why is that?
    Mr. Duvall. The 1989 rule on asbestos similarly did not 
address remediation and disposal. It had to do with ongoing 
use--then ongoing uses of asbestos.
    Since 1989, many ongoing uses have been discontinued and 
the significant new use rule is intended to prevent those 
discontinued uses from resuming.
    In a separate activity, EPA is doing the risk evaluation on 
current ongoing uses. For the in-place asbestos that has been 
there in buildings from the 1920s onward, EPA is--I am sorry, 
the TSCA statute as opposed to, say, the RCRA statute, just is 
not well structured to focus on the kinds of demolition 
controls that the OSHA standards and the NESHAPs on asbestos 
and that 50-State asbestos abatement statutes address in 
extraordinary detail.
    Mr. Johnson. OK. All right.
    Thank you, Mr. Duvall.
    Mr. Chairman, I yield back.
    Mr. Tonko. The gentleman yields back.
    The Chair now recognizes the gentlelady from Delaware, Ms. 
Blunt Rochester, for five minutes.
    Ms. Blunt Rochester. Thank you so much, Mr. Chairman, and 
for convening this hearing as well on this important topic, and 
also thank you to all of the witnesses for your testimony.
    I hope we can all agree on both sides of the aisle that 
worker safety should be a top priority at EPA. Thanks to the 
bipartisan work of this committee, Congress has made major 
strides updating our nation's toxic chemicals laws to reduce 
environmental health risk for all Americans.
    But reforming those statutes is only the first step. It 
will require a commitment of time and resources from the 
executive branch to implement those changes and protect 
workers.
    President Trump's budget released earlier this week falls 
short. What little detail we have raises alarming concerns that 
environmental programs will be cut to pay for props. Even in 
areas where we should agree, the budget falls short, and I want 
to focus on one example relevant to today's hearing.
    The president's budget for EPA pledges to, quote, ``support 
healthier schools and create safer and healthier school 
environments for American children.''
    This is something that we call can support. But even here, 
the administration is ignoring worker risks. There is no 
mention of workers responsible for renovating and maintaining 
schools, the janitors who use chemicals to clean those 
buildings daily, or the teachers who work in the same 
potentially hazardous classrooms for years.
    I have a set of questions that I wanted to ask Ms. 
Hutchinson and I will start off with the first one. Do you 
believe that safe and healthy schools should be a part of our 
infrastructure work this Congress?
    Ms. Hutchinson. Absolutely.
    Ms. Blunt Rochester. And should we ensure that school 
infrastructure improvements address occupational risks to 
teachers and other school workers?
    Ms. Hutchinson. Yes.
    Ms. Blunt Rochester. And what would you say are the most 
important occupational hazards to address as we work to improve 
our school infrastructure?
    Ms. Hutchinson. Well, I definitely think asbestos is at the 
top of the list and also the water. So we bottle water in for 
drinking but we still wash our hands, and I don't have research 
to support this but we still wash our hands and every once in a 
while you might forget and wash a utensil that you use to eat 
with. I don't know what happens in the cafeteria. Again, we 
don't cook much food. So I am not sure how that is problematic.
    But then there are other things that may seem very trite 
like the temperature in schools. The infrastructure of the 
school that I work in the windows blow out. It is cold. It is 
hot, depending on what the weather is.
    And then the other thing that is not very pleasant to think 
about is the infestation of rodents--mice, roaches, rats. You 
know, this building is extremely old and while it houses about 
850 students and maybe 75 educators and maybe 25 additional 
workers, that is a lot of people to keep everything spotlessly 
clean.
    But if we had a new updated modern building, students would 
act different, faculty would act different, and we would, you 
know, have a nice space to learn in.
    Ms. Blunt Rochester. Thank you.
    Dr. Finkel, in the last series of questions to Mr. Duvall, 
I was curious to hear your take on what you believe the roles 
of the EPA and DOL, specifically OSHA, are or should be.
    Dr. Finkel. Well, again, I have been in both places. There 
is, I agree, untransparent but frequent communication. I am in 
favor of more of that.
    The problem really is that at long last Congress said in 
this law that unreasonable risk, which has always in EPA's 
purview been more aggressive than at OSHA's--again, one in a 
million towards that level versus one in a thousand.
    EPA now has a new responsibility to look around and see if 
there are unreasonable risks to workers and I will say again--
this is my expertise--every risk to workers that OSHA has dealt 
with and every one they have not dealt with leaves behind 
unreasonable risk.
    So EPA has a job to do, at least a job to consider. And so 
the idea that this is going to be solved by deferring to an 
agency that has reached the limits of its ability is crazy 
talk. I am sorry.
    Ms. Blunt Rochester. And one other question I had, I know 
historically there was an MOU between Department of Labor and 
EPA. Can you give any insight on MOUs?
    Dr. Finkel. Well, there were--there were many in my time in 
the late '90s, early 2000s, obviously, about farm workers, 
field sanitation. I actually crafted one with EPA in North 
Carolina about the maximum achievable control technology 
standards for the air program, that we would get more of a 
chance to look at those and make sure that in fact some of the 
controls that EPA was ready to propose for stack emissions were 
not actually pushing the material back into the workplace and 
hurting workers.
    So we have a history of doing that. I have no idea how that 
is going now, you know, without a head of OSHA right now.
    Ms. Blunt Rochester. Thank you. And I know I only have 
one--no seconds--but MOU, memorandum of understanding--just I 
don't like to speak in jargon.
    So thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I turn it back over.
    Mr. Tonko. The gentlelady yields back.
    The Chair now recognizes the gentleman from Georgia, 
Representative Carter, for five minutes.
    Mr. Carter. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank all of you 
for being here. This is extremely important.
    I have to admit to you that I get somewhat frustrated by 
some of the answers. I see--I get confused as to whether it is 
EPA or OSHA or who is responsible and particularly when it 
comes to these chemicals.
    And, look, everyone up here wants a safe community. 
Everyone up here wants a safe working place. And I know all of 
you do as well, and whoever's responsibility it is we need to 
make sure they are doing it.
    So I am a little bit frustrated by some of the responses I 
am getting. Not that it is your fault, and I am not frustrated 
with you. I am frustrated that it is not clear and that is 
just--I am just a little bit frustrated by that.
    Mr. Duvall, it appears to me that really this hearing has 
been really focused on how EPA has not--has not responded or 
acted upon some of the regulatory actions from the past 
administration and I am just interested about the jurisdiction.
    Does the EPA and OSHA--do they overlap and have similar 
responsibilities under various laws when it comes to some of 
these chemicals?
    Mr. Duvall. There is--they both have responsibility for 
worker safety. OSHA's only responsibility is worker safety. 
Worker safety is one of several priorities for EPA.
    They have different tools in their tool boxes. They have 
different statutes. OSHA's statute is well designed for setting 
permissible exposure limits and both chemical-specific 
restrictions on how chemicals can be safely used in the 
workplace and the kinds of backstop provisions, which are 
important to protect workers.
    EPA's statute is different. Section 6 was amended in 2016. 
It had not been function for a full 25 years and we are only 
now learning how EPA will implement Section 6 and I think we 
need to give it some time. It is learning as it goes.
    But I can tell you that EPA is working extremely hard on 
worker protection and other aspects of its existing chemicals 
program under Section 6. Under Section 5, EPA has 
responsibility for reviewing individual chemicals that are 
developed through R&D and are proposed to be commercialized.
    Mr. Carter. OK. Let me ask you this. Can we make it any 
clearer? Do we need to make certain distinctions between the 
responsibilities of the two--of the two bodies here?
    Mr. Duvall. I think the responsibilities are clear in the 
statutes already.
    Mr. Carter. So, first of all, Dr. Finkel, do you want to 
respond to that?
    Dr. Finkel. Well, I like what he just said. I think the 
responsibilities are clear. OSHA sets permissible exposure 
limits. I don't think they have done a great job. It is partly 
my responsibility that I didn't fulfil.
    But EPA is now tasked with looking at uses and making hard 
decisions about whether certain uses are so unnecessary because 
of better substitutes or they are so dangerous that some uses 
should be banned not only for workers but for the people who 
breathe what the workers let out the door at night.
    So I don't see any lack of clarity or duplication there. 
OSHA has done the best it can with, for example, methylene 
chloride and it is EPA's job to ask the question, ``should we 
do more?'' If they decide to do more, Congress has now given 
them the ability to do that.
    Mr. Carter. OK. I have got just about a minute left. Help 
me out here. Dumb it down for me. I don't know the difference 
in 5 and 6, Mr. Duvall. I am sorry. I probably should but I 
just don't.
    So what can we do? What can we do better? That is our 
responsibility is set direction to these agencies. Tell me what 
we can do to OSHA and EPA to make sure that we got the safest 
working environment that we can have for our community.
    Mr. Duvall. I would say that one of the most important 
things that could be done is to fully fund both agencies. OSHA, 
in particular, is underfunded and needs----
    Mr. Carter. OK. Aside from funding. I saw that coming.
    [Laughter.]
    Mr. Carter. Seriously. Thirty seconds left. Anyone.
    Mr. Duvall. My sense is that EPA should work more closely 
with OSHA to get the best worker protection measures that are 
appropriate under their respective----
    Mr. Carter. Everybody agree with that?
    Mr. Morrison?
    Mr. Morrison. Yes. I think what we are finding right now 
is, like, on the fire department--there are fire departments in 
your area that are governed by recommended practices--NFPA.
    We would like OSHA to work with EPA to make these 
rulemaking process that the firefighters are protected on that 
and that relationship--I don't see why it could not work and it 
should work--EPA and OSHA working together to protect the 
workers on the--you know, out there.
    Mr. Carter. Dr. Finkel?
    Dr. Finkel. Yes, I have got a suggestion. Before I retire, 
I would love to see the beginning of a conversation that OSHA 
does a great job with worker safety but not as great with 
worker health. There should be one national agency dealing with 
chemicals that go out of the workplace into the environment. 
Whether it is at EPA or OSHA, I don't care. But the separation 
is the problem.
    Mr. Carter. Great. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for your 
indulgence. I yield back.
    Mr. Tonko. The gentleman yields back.
    The Chair now recognizes the gentlelady from Illinois, 
Representative Schakowsky, for five minutes.
    Ms. Schakowsky. I want to thank you, Mr. Chairman, for 
calling this hearing.
    Oversight of the Lautenberg Act is long overdue. I am very 
concerned about--that implementation of the act has veered from 
congressional intent, putting vulnerable populations at work.
    Certainly, we have heard about firefighters. But you also 
mentioned about students, particularly, low-income, students of 
color, places that are low-income with asbestos and lead in the 
water, which is also true, by the way, in Illinois where we 
have seen that in Chicago.
    I am particularly concerned about implementation of the 
changes to the new chemical program which were intended to 
ensure that, moving forward, all new chemicals had a finding 
that they were--that they were safe.
    Ensuring that new chemicals are safe is essential to 
addressing regrettable replacements where one toxic chemical is 
being phased out just to replace it by another analogous and 
equally toxic chemical.
    Importantly, the Lautenberg Act blocked EPA from finding a 
chemical safe if it poses an unreasonable risk for a vulnerable 
subpopulation such as workers.
    Mr. Duvall noted several new chemicals that EPA allowed on 
the market despite finding serious risks based on an assumption 
that persons are--that personal protective equipment would be 
used.
    So, Mr. Finkel, is this assumption reasonable? I think you 
mentioned that, that it is going--or someone did about going 
along with the personal protection is not reasonable.
    Dr. Finkel. It is certainly not reasonable in the early 
stages, the way EPA has sort of waved their hands and made it 
go away. They are supposed to look for unreasonable risk under 
reasonably foreseeable conditions and, to me, as a former 
enforcement official, the non-use of respirators and PPE or the 
non-requirement that it be is the most foreseeable thing 
possible.
    Now, after they find that there is unreasonable risk if you 
don't use all this equipment properly, if they want to do 
something more to see that that actually happens, that is one 
thing.
    But at the get-go to say ``all is well'' because there is 
some guidance document somewhere that tells the workers to put 
on this mask that does or doesn't work is abdication.
    Ms. Schakowsky. Are the workers required to know about this 
as well or is it just the person that is in charge implementing 
the rule?
    Dr. Finkel. No, the OSHA Hazard Communication Standard does 
require the employer to make available all these data sheets 
for the workers. So they are supposed to be informed.
    But it doesn't do them any good if the mask that they are 
wearing is not appropriate, if it is not fit properly. They can 
complain and there is a whole history of how that goes.
    Ms. Schakowsky. All right. It seems to me that if EPA is 
relying on personal protective equipment to address the risk to 
workers, it should impose requirements for the use of such 
equipment.
    But my understanding and from what you have said it ought--
it may not--may or may not be. So is this an enforcement issue?
    Dr. Finkel. Yes, but I do want to say I am not trying to 
suggest that I think EPA should get into the personal 
protective equipment business. OSHA has always said, with good 
reason, that PPE is the last line of defense.
    So EPA should be in the engineering control and the use-ban 
business, which it is if it was doing what it is supposed to 
do. EPA should not be in the business of saying, ``we are going 
to protect workers by respirators and gloves.'' They should be 
assessing what the degree of protection is.
    Ms. Schakowsky. So is this, again, the problem of the dual 
agencies and conflicting or at least misunderstood 
jurisdiction?
    Dr. Finkel. Again, I don't think so. I think Congress 
intentionally gave EPA some new tools that OSHA simply doesn't 
have, and that EPA should use them.
    Ms. Schakowsky. OK.
    So, Mr. Duvall, you cited some statistics in your testimony 
regarding the new chemicals program but they seem to gloss over 
the major change EPA made in July 2018 to speed up the new 
chemicals program.
    So, Mr. Duvall, does the statistic you give for the number 
of new chemicals allowed onto the market based on a, quote, 
``non-likely to present an unreasonable risk,'' unquote, 
finding distinguish between the period before July 2018 and the 
period after?
    Mr. Duvall. The number of not likely to present 
determinations is only after June 2016.
    Ms. Schakowsky. You are shaking your head, Dr. Finkel.
    Mr. Duvall. But prior to June 2016 EPA did not make a 
determination that a chemical was not likely to present. It 
simply made it--decided that it could not make a finding that a 
chemical may present an unreasonable risk and having decided 
not to make that finding the chemical was allowed onto the 
market.
    Ms. Schakowsky. Unfortunately, my time--oh, no--yes, my 
time is up. Sorry.
    Dr. Finkel. You said 2018 and he said 2016. That is why the 
answers are different 52 of the last 65 since 2018 have been 
``no significant risk.'' There was a change very much as you 
suggested.
    Mr. Tonko. The gentlelady yields back.
    The Chair now recognizes the gentleman from California, 
Representative McNerney, for five minutes.
    Mr. McNerney. I thank the Chair and the ranking member for 
working together on this issue. I appreciate that. I thank the 
panellists, too, especially Mr. Morrison. I appreciate the 
firefighters taking initiative on some research efforts. We 
should be doing that and we are not, so you are stepping up. I 
appreciate that.
    And Mr. Kashkooli, your story about the farm workers hits 
home. I have an Agricultural district in the Central Valley. We 
don't do cabbage. That wasn't my district. But we do have farm 
workers and they put their lives on the line to feed us and it 
is something that we need to appreciate more and give them more 
protections. So I appreciate your participation today.
    There are over 84,000 chemicals on TSCA inventory that 
should be assessed and regulated under the existing chemical 
program. Now, while working on the TSCA reform we heard 
extensive testimony about the problems with the existing 
chemical program.
    Unfortunately, it seems that many of the problems remain 
more than two years after the passage of the Lautenberg Act.
    Mr. Finkel, how many chemicals has the EPA required to be 
tested under Section 4 since we passed TSCA reform here?
    Dr. Finkel. Hoping to defer to somebody else on that one. I 
don't know that answer.
    Mr. McNerney. The answer really is there are none. The 
answer is that there are none.
    Dr. Finkel. None. OK. That is why I didn't know.
    Mr. McNerney. So I think that is a problem. We haven't made 
progress in the last two years.
    So I get to start my five minutes over?
    We also heard testimony about and claims about confidential 
business information. Mr. Finkel, is that a problem that has 
been solved?
    Dr. Finkel. No. My understanding is there are a couple of 
new EPA assessments where they talk about health studies--you 
know, case reports on EPI studies inside of workplaces--being 
CBI and I think that is a problem.
    I gather they just released something that says that may 
have been a mistake and now they are saying it was because it 
was a foreign workplace. But no, this stuff should not be--it 
could be redacted but the health information is essential.
    Mr. McNerney. OK. So that is not very encouraging either.
    Dr. Finkel. No.
    Mr. McNerney. One of the central flaws with TSCA that we 
determined was that the chemicals were based--evaluated on a 
risk standard, which was cost benefit, basically, and so that 
was changed with the Lautenberg Act.
    The statute is now crystal clear that the EPA cannot use 
cost benefit analysis and has to use risk only analysis and I 
think that is an important advancement.
    But under this regime, cost considerations are supposed to 
be reserved until after the risk evaluation is complete. But at 
this stage, an EPA has not even reached any of the first 10 
chemicals going through the existing chemical program.
    So we are telling them not to use cost benefit. Use only 
health risk but of the 10 chemicals not a single one has been 
evaluated.
    Mr. Finkel, do you think the EPA has implemented this 
statutory requirement, or do you see non-risk factors coming 
into the consideration?
    Dr. Finkel. Well, they are certainly not on track to finish 
what they need to finish by the end of this calendar year. You 
know, they will probably ask for an extension but I don't think 
they are going to make that either.
    I don't see cost coming in necessarily but I think the--
what we have been talking about, the reliance on compliance 
with guidance documents is basically they are not doing their 
job to think about reasonably foreseeable exposure, which is 
the basis of where the risk comes from.
    So you are right that we haven't seen them try to use cost 
yet, but they are trying not to even have to get there by 
saying that there are no unreasonable risks when there, 
clearly, are.
    Mr. McNerney. Thank you. Do you think the EPA is 
implementing the existing chemical program as required by the 
Lautenberg Act?
    Dr. Finkel. Well, it is not promising so far. They had, in 
my view, a perfectly reasonable and long-overdue proposal on 
methylene chloride and now it is being split in half and sent 
back to the drawing board.
    They had a proposal to put 1-bromopropane on the HAPs list 
and it is sitting in limbo. So no.
    Mr. McNerney. Have you heard of the term chemical trespass?
    Dr. Finkel. Yes.
    Mr. McNerney. Would you explain it?
    Dr. Finkel. I am going to have a hard time with that 
because I have heard it in different ways and I don't want to 
get into a pejorative--if you could just maybe rephrase it for 
me a little.
    Mr. McNerney. OK. Well, basically, I am wondering is the 
EPA making any progress to reduce the threat of chemical 
trespass and has the passage of the Lautenberg Act helped at 
all?
    Dr. Finkel. I may have to defer. If you are talking about 
incursions into chemical plants where there is a security and 
safety----
    Mr. McNerney. No, I am talking about just general exposure 
to chemicals in the general environment. I mean, we are all 
exposed to chemicals that weren't here in the environment a 
hundred years ago.
    Dr. Finkel. No, he set me straight about biomonitoring and, 
you know, that's a tough issue with privacy and autonomy 
issues. But yes, we need more data on the body burdens of 
chemicals in the environment that are getting into both workers 
and non-workers, and for some good reasons but for some delay 
and obfuscation, we are not--EPA is not moving fast enough on 
this.
    Mr. McNerney. Thank you, and I am going to yield back and I 
will look forward to additional oversight on those issues, Mr. 
Chairman.
    Mr. Tonko. The gentleman yields back.
    The Chair now recognizes the gentlelady from Colorado for--
Representative DeGette, for five minutes.
    Ms. DeGette. Thank you so much, Mr. Chairman. I want to 
thank you for having this hearing. The chairman and I were both 
part of the team that helped work on the much-anticipated and 
long-delayed reauthorization of TSCA.
    But when we did that, we thought that the EPA would 
actually act to enforce the law. So that is why it is good--I 
know Mr. Shimkus thought they would, too--and so that is why I 
think it is really good that we are having this hearing today.
    I want to ask about just a couple specific issues, since I 
know many other members have asked questions. When EPA 
administrator--then Administrator Scott Pruitt appeared before 
this committee in December 2017 I asked him when we could 
expect to see a final ban of methylene chloride.
    He had no answer for me then. But last year after meeting 
with some of the families of people who were killed by this 
potent toxic chemical, the secretary committed of finalizing 
the ban.
    So now, fast forward two years later, it is 2019. The ban 
still has not been finalized. It was reported yesterday that we 
might see a final rule from EPA on methylene chloride this 
week.
    But from what we can tell, commercial uses will not be 
banned. So I got to say I think this is an extraordinary 
disservice to dozens of workers who have been killed by 
commercial uses of this chemical.
    Dr. Finkel, how dangerous is methylene chloride?
    Dr. Finkel. It runs the gamut. As you say, it is acutely 
toxic. It can asphyxiate people in bathtubs and in other 
settings. We did a case where somebody poured a small container 
on a squash court, if you know how big that is. Closed the door 
and was overcome by fumes in a gigantic cubical area from one 
can. It is also a carcinogen and is also a neurotoxin.
    So we did the best we could. I did the best I could 20 
years ago and we are waiting for the next step.
    Ms. DeGette. Right. In your view, should the next step 
include banning commercial uses of methylene chloride?
    Dr. Finkel. Not necessarily all but certainly the ones that 
were proposed three years ago, yes. Paint stripping, coating 
removal--that is where the substitutes exist and the dangers 
are apocalyptically high.
    Ms. DeGette. Do you think that OSHA regulations are 
sufficient to protect workers from this substance?
    Dr. Finkel. The number of acute fatalities has gone down 
slightly. But, again, we can't cover independent contractors, 
public sector employees, and we did the best we could for the 
carcinogenicity. But the 25 ppm limit is way, way too high.
    Ms. DeGette. And do you think that if the current 
commercial uses of methylene chloride continue that customers 
will be protected?
    Dr. Finkel. I have to see how they come up with this 
splitting of the rule. The original rule said at least 
consumers would be protected because it would no longer be sold 
in quantities--in containers less than 55 gallons.
    If they go back on that in order to make it easier for 
commercials users then, essentially, consumers are just where 
they were except that, thank goodness, Lowe's and Home Depot 
have done the right thing and said, you can't buy it from us.
    Ms. DeGette. They did it on their own. Yes.
    Dr. Finkel. Yes. On their own. Of course.
    Ms. DeGette. OK. I want to ask you now about 1-BP, 
bromopropane. I am just going to call it BP. How dangerous is 
this substance for workers and the general public, Dr. Finkel?
    Dr. Finkel. Sorry to say, more dangerous than methylene 
chloride. It is a carcinogen. It is a neurotoxin at lower 
levels than methylene chloride; we knew about 1-BP just barely 
in 1997 when we finished that rule, but we had no idea that it 
would be as aggressively touted as a substitute that it has 
been ever since.
    Ms. DeGette. And do you think the EPA is meeting its 
obligations under the Clean Air Act and the Lautenberg Act with 
respect to this chemical?
    Dr. Finkel. Absolutely not, and it goes back beyond the 
last three years as well.
    Ms. DeGette. OK. Do you think that Nancy Beck, who is 
currently the deputy assistant administrator with 
responsibility for the Lautenberg Act should recuse herself 
from decisions regarding 1-BP?
    Dr. Finkel. Well, I called for that in written comments to 
the agency on this docket.
    Ms. DeGette. Right.
    Dr. Finkel. I have read her testimony before she came to 
EPA and it is one erroneous sentence after another trying to 
exculpate this chemical from what we already know about it. It 
is inappropriate.
    Ms. DeGette. Thank you.
    Thank you, and I also want to thank all of our 
representatives of working people for coming here today and 
talking to us about what his happening in the workplace.
    You know, folks, it is like Ms. McGinnis said. People are 
just trying to put food on the table for their families. 
Several other of our witnesses said that and sometimes they 
can't affect what chemicals they are dealing with in the 
workplace and so that is why we have the EPA because they are 
supposed to enforce the laws on a science-based effort for 
everybody and we are going to make sure that happens.
    So thanks. I yield back.
    Mr. Tonko. The gentlelady yields back.
    The Chair now recognizes the very patient gentleman from 
Florida, Representative Soto, for five minutes.
    Mr. Soto. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    On January 3rd of this year, Tampa Bay Times' headline 
read, ``Florida Officials Delayed Telling Residents About 
Tainted Water, Emails Showed.''
    Linda Lawson thought little of drinking the water from the 
decades-old well in her back yard less than a half a mile down 
the road from the Florida State Fire College in Ocala. That 
changed when her daughter-in-law answered to State workers 
knocking on her door one morning, or one afternoon. They came 
to test the water, a worker said.
    In August, our local DEP in Florida confirmed that flame 
retardants containing PFAS and PFOA had been used by the fire 
college in the past. In early September, the college was told 
only to drink bottled water.
    It took four months for State officials to notify the 
community and, recently, six former employees of the fire 
college have joined a class action suit.
    Obviously, we want to be proactive on this issue.
    Mr. Morrison, is the EPA actively pursuing PFOA and PFAS 
risks to firefighters in the community at large?
    Mr. Morrison. No, I do not think that they have really 
stepped up to the plate to do that. And just in full--you know, 
just to add, my brother was a firefighter. He was at that 
academy. He actually taught at that academy. He actually has 
kidney cancer. But he actually was suffering from that, and 
what we have right now----
    Mr. Soto. I am sorry to hear that, sir.
    Mr. Morrison. Thank you for addressing this. But I think 
what EPA has not done is they have not looked at the 
seriousness of what it has cost not only for the workers there 
but for the drinking water in there.
    Mr. Soto. Recently, we had an op-ed in our local paper 
discussing an attack on science that is a threat to our water 
and the--a Ph.D., Deepthi K. Weerasinghe, said, ``A systematic 
pattern of undermining science is occurring at the Federal 
level at the EPA and that vulnerable communities face 
disproportionate burdens of health and environmental justice.''
    Dr. Finkel, would you agree that there is a systematic 
pattern of undermining science at the EPA currently and that it 
does disproportionately affect vulnerable communities?
    Dr. Finkel. Yes. Unfortunately, I have to say I agree with 
that. Obviously, it doesn't permeate all the way through to the 
career levels and affect all programs. But what we are seeing 
in terms of the climate change program and what we have been 
talking about today, I don't have time to talk about it but in 
my written testimony there are some--there are some profoundly 
unscientific things being said about these chemicals by career 
and by political officials at EPA.
    Mr. Soto. Give us a little flavor of what you mean by 
profoundly unscientific.
    Dr. Finkel. Well, I am going to single out Bill Wehrum, who 
is the new head of the Air Office. About a month before he was 
confirmed in that role--this hits me hard in terms of being a 
former OSHA official--he was at an attorney advocating against 
the OSHA silica standard, which was upheld in the DC Circuit, 
and he said, among other things, quote, ``People live in dusty 
environments all the time and it doesn't kill them.''
    So a fundamental misunderstanding of what risk is and a 
fundamental disdain for the people who work in this country. I 
was just--it is hard to shock me these days but that really 
shocked me.
    Mr. Soto. Thank you, Dr. Finkel.
    My next questions are from Ms. McGinnis, Ms. Hutchinson, 
and Mr. Kashkooli. The--my constituent goes on to say that the 
EPA and the administration is stacking science advisory groups 
and hollowing out agency positions and monitoring enforcement.
    We will start with Ms. McGinnis and go down the line. Do 
you believe this is happening and how does this affect workers?
    Ms. McGinnis. I am not sure I understand the question. 
Could you----
    Mr. Soto. Do you believe that the administration and the 
EPA is hollowing out agency positions in monitoring and 
enforcement and how is this affecting workers?
    Ms. McGinnis. I don't really know how to answer that. I 
will pass.
    Mr. Soto. OK. Ms. Hutchinson, would you say that there is a 
hollowing out of agency positions in monitoring and enforcement 
and, if so, how would that affect workers?
    Ms. Hutchinson. I am not so sure how to answer that as 
well. I just know that things that happen in schools are not 
communicated. So I would guess to say no.
    Mr. Soto. OK. Let us simplify the question. So if there 
were less folks in monitoring and enforcement at the EPA, would 
that affect workers in general, Ms. McGinnis, at UAW and other 
facilities?
    Ms. McGinnis. I think so, yes.
    Mr. Soto. And how so?
    Ms. McGinnis. Well, you have less hands in the fire so you 
have less people making the decisions on what is acceptable and 
what is not. I don't know if that answers it or not.
    Mr. Soto. Sure. And under the more simplified version of 
the question, Ms. Hutchinson, do you have anything to add on 
behalf of our teachers?
    Ms. Hutchinson. I would agree.
    Mr. Soto. And, Mr. Kashkooli, do you believe that there is 
a hollowing out of agency positions in monitoring and 
enforcement, and even if you don't, should that actually be 
true would that affect our farm workers?
    Mr. Kashkooli. So yes, it will impact farm workers and I 
can answer the question. EPA right now is not listening to the 
scientists that they do have. Career scientists, both in 2014 
and 2016, were very clear that chlorpyrifos is toxic and 
reduces the IQ for children.
    It is the same finding that scientists found for everybody 
else back in 2000. It was prohibited use for everyone but 
agriculture. And so in rural areas now for the last 19 years 
scientists have now conclusively shown that it reduces IQ for 
children.
    And so EPA--the current EPA is not listening to the staff 
that they do have on and----
    Mr. Soto. My next question is for----
    Mr. Kashkooli. Sorry. One other----
    Mr. Soto. Sorry. My time is limited, sir.
    Do we see a hollowing out of agency positions, career EPA 
officials, and what effect does that have?
    Dr. Finkel. I have read about it. I certainly have to look 
at next year's budget to see how much worse it is going to get. 
I can certainly say that is happening at OSHA which has no head 
and which has reduced its enforcement.
    So these are the overmatched people who are trying to get 
to 8 million workplaces with 2,000 people and now they are down 
to, I think, 1,650, something like that.
    Mr. Soto. So it is safe to say that in EPA and OSHA were 
not given sufficient staff and, therefore, enforcement at a 
level that is appropriate is not happening right now?
    Dr. Finkel. No, and it hasn't happened in a while--I was 
not expecting to see so little progress in enforcing the 
methylene chloride standard that I helped write, as I have 
found.
    Mr. Soto. My time has expired.
    Mr. Tonko. The gentleman yields back. That, I believe, 
concludes the list of colleagues looking to question the 
witnesses.
    We thank you again for participating in what is a very 
important topic. I request unanimous consent to enter the 
following into the record:
    We have a letter from the Asbestos Disease Awareness 
Organization, a statement from the Environmental Defense Fund, 
a study published in ``Environmental Health Perspectives,'' a 
report by the Government Accountability Office entitled 
``Multiple Challenges Lengthen OSHA's Standard Setting.''
    We have a letter from the International Union, UAW; 
comments by the International Union, UAW; on EPA's proposed 
changes to the risk management program. We have a letter from 
the Chlorpyrifos Alliance to USDA; Secretary Perdue and EPA 
Administrator Wheeler; a fact sheet on the use of chlorpyrifos 
in agriculture; a letter from the Pesticide Registration 
Improvement Act--PRIA--Coalition; a letter from the Safer 
Chemicals Healthy Families Coalition; a letter from Alexandra 
Dapolito Dunn, assistant EPA administrator; a letter from TSCA 
New Chemicals Coalition, NCC; a letter from Riki Ott with the 
Alert Project; and a report by the Government Accountability 
Project entitled, ``Deadly Dispersants in the Gulf: Our Public 
Health and Environmental Tragedies the New Norm for Oil Spill 
Cleanups.''
    We have a public--a list of public comments submitted by 
the Government Accountability Project on EPA's proposed rule to 
Sub Part J of the National Oil and Hazardous Substances 
Pollution Contingency Plan that governs the use of dispersants.
    We have a photo documentation of dispersant contamination 
and, finally, a testimony from Dr. Riki Ott on the Trans 
Mountain Pipeline.
    We ask unanimous consent that they be incorporated into the 
record.
    Mr. Shimkus. Mr. Chairman, reserving the right to object. I 
think the committee staff are working to reconcile some of this 
stuff. So I don't think, in the end, we will. But if I can 
reserve that right and we can visit that in the near future I 
would appreciate it.
    Mr. Tonko. Right. The gentleman asked to reserve and that 
request is granted.
    With that----
    Mr. Shimkus. Mr. Chairman?
    Mr. Tonko. Yes.
    Mr. Shimkus. May I just--I also want to thank you all for 
being here. Just for the laymen, this is a very--just a very 
challenging difficult process. So your expertise--I just--Dr. 
Finkel, I didn't want to object or intervene in your answering. 
But you skated closely to impugning the intent and the work of 
Mr. Bill Wehrum. He is not here--he doesn't have the right to 
defend himself at this time and I would caution you not to do 
that.
    Dr. Finkel. Well, I was asked a question and it is in the 
public record that he said that.
    Mr. Shimkus. You know, unless the chairman wants to give 
you time--I am just making that statement as an observation.
    Dr. Finkel. Fair enough.
    Mr. Tonko. And I ask our Republican Leader again to review 
two more submissions into the record. We have from the 
Gainesville Sun an opinion via a letter that is entitled, ``A 
Tax on Science: A Threat to our Water,'' and then, finally, 
from The Buzz, ``Florida Officials Delay Telling Residents 
About Tainted Water, Emails Show.''
    Mr. Shimkus. Again, we will reserve and put it in the 
package and my expectations will be--will all be good.
    Mr. Tonko. Thank you. The request to reserve is granted.
    I would like to thank again the witnesses for their 
participation in today's important hearing. I remind Members 
that pursuant to committee rules they have 10 business days by 
which to submit additional questions for the record to be 
answered by the witnesses who have appeared.
    I ask each witness to respond promptly to any such 
questions that you may receive, and at this time, the 
subcommittee is adjourned.
    [Whereupon, at 12:40 p.m., the committee was adjourned.]
    [Material submitted for inclusion in the record follows:]

                 The Prepared Statement of Hon. Walden

    Mr. Chairman, thank you for recognizing me and for calling 
today's hearing to emphasize the importance of workplace 
safety.
    We may disagree, Mr. Chairman, on the ways to solve various 
problems. We may disagree on the scope of certain problems. We 
may even disagree on the costs of the problem. But I know we 
all agree that all working Americans, whether unionized or not, 
should not have to fear injury or illness every time they go to 
work. I think we all agree that facilities, both private and 
municipal, should be good neighbors and control their 
pollution.
    We should also agree that the Federal Government needs to 
follow the rule of law in setting public health standards.
    Our Federal Constitution gives us, Congress, the power to 
write the laws and provides the Executive Branch the power to 
interpret and enforce those law. Hopefully we write the law so 
clearly that the implementingAgency doesn't have to "interpret" 
it. If we aren't clear, our Constitution does not give another 
branch the power to rewrite it or make it up. Instead, it 
requires that Congress go cleanup the mess of the law that it 
made.
    Which is why I am intrigued by this hearing today. I am 
looking forward to the compelling testimony we are about to 
hear but I'm also interested to learn how occupational safety 
is now the domain of the Environmental Protection Agency.
    As I understand it, Congress, through the Occupational 
Safety and Health Act has been quite clear that the 
Occupational Safety and Health Administration at the Department 
of Labor is primary responsibility for Federal rules for worker 
safety and health.
    While our environmental laws try to keep exposure to 
pollution and hazards at bay regardless of whether the person 
is working, our environmental laws have the Environmental 
Protection Agency defer to OSHA and the National Institute of 
Occupational Safety and Health for protections in the 
workplace.
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]


                                 [all]