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

         BAN ASBESTOS NOW: TAKING ACTION TO SAVE LIVES AND LIVELIHOODS

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

                                    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

                                   __________

                                  MAY 8, 2019

                                   __________

                               Serial No. 116-30

    [GRAPHIC(S) 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
    40-222 PDF            WASHINGTON : 2021

                        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...........................................     6
    Hon. Frank Pallone, Jr., a Representative in Congress from the
      State of New Jersey, opening statement.........................     7
        Prepared statement...........................................     8
    Hon. Greg Walden, a Representative in Congress from the State of
      Oregon, opening statement......................................     9
        Prepared statement...........................................    11

                                   Witnesses

    Alexandra D. Dunn, the Assistant Administrator, Office of
      Chemical Safety and Pollution Prevention, United States
      Environmental Protection Agency................................    12
        Prepared statement...........................................    15
        Answers to submitted questions...............................   167
    Linda Reinstein, Co-Founder, Asbestos Disease Awareness
      Organization...................................................    47
        Prepared statement...........................................    49
    Rebecca L. Reindel, MS, MPH, Senior Safety and Health Specialist,
      American Federal of Labor and Congress of Industrial
      Organizations..................................................    69
        Prepared statement...........................................    71
    Michael P. Walls, Vice President, Regulatory and Technical
      Affairs, American Chemistry Council............................    79
        Prepared statement...........................................    81
        Answers to submitted questions...............................   174
    Celeste Monforton, DrPh, MPH, Lecturer, Texas State University...    84
        Prepared statement...........................................    86

                               Submitted Material

    H.R. 1603, Alan Reinstein Ban Asbestos Now Act of 2019, submitted
      by Mr. Tonko...................................................   102
    Statement on ``Ban Asbestos Now: Taking Action to Save Livelihood
      and Lives," May 8, 2019, by Rep. Suzanne Bonamici, submitted by
      Mr. Tonko......................................................   116
    Letter of May, 7, 2019, from Harold A. Schaitberger, General
      President, International Association of Fire Fighters to Mr.
      Tonko and Mr. Shimkus, submitted by Mr. Tonko..................   117
    Article of May 8, 2019, ``E.P.A. Leader Disregarded Agency's
      Issuing Asbestos Rule, Memos Show," The New York Times, by Lisa
      Friedman, submitted by Mr. Tonko...............................   118
    Article of August 10, 2018, ``E.P.A. Staff Objected to Agency's
      New Rule on Asbestos Use, Internal Emails Show," The New York
      Times, by Lisa Friedman, submitted by Mr. Tonko................   121
    Letter of May 7, 2019, from James W. Tobin III, Executive Vice
      President and Chief Lobbyist, National Association of Home
      Builders, to Mr. Tonko and Mr. Shimkus, submitted by Mr. Tonko.   125
    Letter of May 7, 2019, from Robyn Brooks, Vice President, Health,
      Environment, Safety and Security, The Chlorine Institute, to
      Mr. Pallone, et al., submitted by Mr. Tonko....................   126
    Letter of March 7, 2019, from American Alliance for Innovation,
      by American Chemistry Council, et al., to Hon. John Barrasso,
      et al., submitted by Mr. Tonko.................................   158
    Statement of National Rural Water Association, May 7, 2019,
      submitted by Mr. Tonko.........................................   160
    Letter of May 8, 2019, from Jeff Lambert, Chief Executive
      Officer, National Demolition Association, to Mr. Tonko and Mr.
      Shimkus, submitted by Mr. Tonko................................   162
    Letter of May 8, 2019, from G. Tracy Mehan, III, Executive
      Director, Government Affairs, American Water Works Association,
      to Mr. Pallone, et al., submitted by Mr. Tonko.................   164

         BAN ASBESTOS NOW: TAKING ACTION TO SAVE LIVES AND LIVELIHOODS

                                  ----------

                             WEDNESDAY, MAY 8, 2019

                      House of Representatives,
        Subcommittee on Environment and Climate Change,
                              Committee on Energy and Commerce,
                                                        Washington, DC.
        The subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 10:03 a.m., in
    room 2322 Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Paul Tonko
    (chairman of the subcommittee) presiding.
        Members present: Representatives Tonko, Peters, McEachin,
    Blunt Rochester, Soto, Matsui, McNerney, Ruiz, Dingell, Pallone
    (ex officio), Shimkus (subcommittee ranking member), Rodgers,
    McKinley, Johnson, Long, 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; Jerry Couri, Minority
    Deputy Chief Counsel, Environment & Climate Change; Margaret
    Tucker Fogarty, Minority Staff Assistant; Theresa Gambo,
    Minority Human Resources/Office Administrator; Peter Kielty,
    Minority General Counsel; Ryan Long, Minority Deputy Staff
    Director; Mary Martin, Minority Chief Counsel, Energy &
    Environment & Climate Change; Brandon Mooney, Minority Deputy
    Chief Counsel, Energy; and Brannon Rains, Minority Staff
    Assistant.
        Mr. Tonko. The subcommittee on Environment and Climate
    Change will now come to order. I recognize myself for 5 minutes
    for the purposes of an opening statement.

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

        Today's legislative hearing will examine H.R. 1603, the
    Alan Reinstein Ban Asbestos Now Act of 2019.
        And I would like to start by recognizing Linda Reinstein,
    Alan's widow, and their daughter Emily, who are with us today.
    Thank you for joining us; and heartfelt thanks for being able
    to carry forward in a really constructive way to--respond to a
    really difficult time for you.
        I have worked with Linda for a number of years on chemical
    safety efforts. She is a tireless champion for countless
    Americans suffering from asbestos-related diseases and fighting
    for a TSCA program that actually works to protect people from
    toxic risks.
        Linda is a powerful voice for the millions of Americans who
    get up every morning and go to work, and raise their families;
    who have done everything right, but who are now facing the
    painful consequences of some ill-fated toxic exposure they may
    not even understand; and from a Federal Government that has,
    for far too long, failed to take these risks seriously enough.
        As a result, today asbestos can be found in countless
    consumer products, despite our knowing for decades that it is
    indeed harmful to human health. The dangers of asbestos are not
    new to anyone. We know the carcinogenic effects of exposure and
    that asbestos-related diseases kill tens of thousands of
    Americans each year.
        I am so proud to be holding this hearing today, and I hope
    we are able to move forward on behalf of all the people-the
    victims and their families-that Linda is here to help
    represent. I look forward to hearing from her on today's second
    panel, along with our other witnesses.
        The Alan Reinstein Ban Asbestos New Act was introduced by
    Congresswoman Bonamici, Congresswoman Slotkin, and Congress--
    and Chairman Pallone earlier this year. The subcommittee thanks
    them for their urgent and timely work.
        This legislation would prohibit the manufacture, the
    processing, and distribution of asbestos and asbestos-
    containing mixtures and articles one year after its enactment.
    It allows for a limited exemption for national security
    purposes and requires a report to Congress on legacy uses; for
    example, asbestos already in buildings.
        In March, this subcommittee heard from workers representing
    firefighters, teachers, autoworkers and others who have seen
    the consequences of long-term health impacts of workplace
    exposures. More than 60 countries have moved forward with
    asbestos bans to date. For the sake of our consumers and our
    loved ones, the United States must do the same. In fact, we
    have tried to do so in the past.
        Thirty years ago, EPA attempted such a ban, which was
    overturned by the courts in 1991. It was the most glaring
    example of the inadequacy of our nation's Toxic Substances
    Control Act, and one of the reasons Congress advanced the
    Lautenberg Act to reform TSCA. My Republican counterpart Mr.
    Shimkus was the leader on that effort and, to his credit,
    worked to find compromise and give EPA the authorities
    necessary to protect Americans from toxic threats.
        Based on the available public health and scientific data,
    and the heartbreaking experience of Linda's family and hundreds
    of thousands of others like her, that means stopping asbestos
    use once and for all.
        This morning, I suspect we will hear that EPA already has a
    process under way. Asbestos was selected as one of the first
    ten chemicals for consideration under the Lautenberg Act, and
    the Agency recently issued an SNUR requiring notification if
    previous uses are reintroduced into commerce.
        Unfortunately, that is not good enough. I am sure other
    members will discuss concerns with the asbestos risk
    evaluation. But between that and the Agency's treatment of
    methylene chloride, I have little confidence that EPA will move
    forward on a reasonable timeline with the only acceptable
    outcome-a complete asbestos ban. We are approaching three years
    since the enactment of the Lautenberg Act, and it is likely a
    ban; if proposed at all, and will take many years to finalize.
        Congress came together to give EPA additional authorities
    precisely so that substances such as asbestos, that are nearly
    universally agreed to present an unreasonable risk, could be
    properly regulated. The bill's supporters are right to think
    that if this is the direction that EPA claims to be heading, we
    can ensure a ban moves forward with confidence on a certain
    timeline.
        I hope that members on both sides of the aisle will
    consider how we might be able to come together, build upon the
    bipartisan success of the Lautenberg Act, and help protect
    Americans from preventable asbestos-related diseases.
        Thank you again to Assistant Administrator Dunn and our
    other witnesses for being here this morning. I look forward to
    the discussion.
        I will now recognize myself, and share my remaining time
    with Representative McNerney of California.
        Mr. McNerney. I thank the chair for giving me a minute
    here. What I would like to do is recognize a member of the
    audience here.
        Lina Caboteja, would you please stand. Lina is a Tuesday's
    Child and she will be shadowing me today. And I just want to
    make sure she has a great experience here on the Hill. Thanks
    for coming, Lina.
        [Applause.]
        [The prepared statement of Mr. Tonko follows:]

                     Prepared Statement of Hon. Paul Tonko

        Today's legislative hearing will examine H.R. 1603, the
    Alan Reinstein Ban Asbestos Now Act of 2019.
        And I would like to start by recognizing Linda Reinstein,
    Alan's widow, and their daughter Emily, who are with us today.
        I have worked with Linda for a number of years on chemical
    safety efforts. She is a tireless champion for countless
    Americans suffering from asbestos-related diseases and fighting
    for a TSCA program that actually works to protect people from
    toxic risks.
        Linda is a powerful voice for the millions of Americans who
    get up every morning and go to work, and raise their families;
    who have done everything right, but who are now facing the
    painful consequences of some ill-fated toxic exposure they may
    not even understand, and from a federal government that has,
    for far too long, failed to take these risks seriously enough.
        As a result, today asbestos can be found in countless
    consumer products, despite our knowing for decades that it is
    harmful to human health. The dangers of asbestos are not new to
    anyone. We know the carcinogenic effects of exposure and that
    asbestos-related diseases kill tens of thousands of Americans
    each year.
        I am so proud to be holding this hearing today, and I hope
    we are able to move forward on behalf of all the people- the
    victims and their families- that Linda is here to help
    represent.
        I look forward to hearing from her on today's second panel
    along with our other witnesses.
        The Alan Reinstein Ban Asbestos Now Act was introduced by
    Congresswoman Bonamici, Congresswoman Slotkin, and Chairman
    Pallone earlier this year. The subcommittee thanks them for
    their urgent and timely work.
        This legislation would prohibit the manufacture,
    processing, and distribution of asbestos and asbestos-
    containing mixtures and articles one year after its enactment.
    It allows for a limited exemption for national security
    purposes and requires a report to Congress on legacy uses- for
    example, asbestos already in buildings.
        In March, this Subcommittee heard from workers,
    representing firefighters, teachers, autoworkers and others who
    have seen the consequences of long-term health impacts of
    workplace exposure.
        More than 60 countries have moved forward with asbestos
    bans to date. For the sake of our consumers and our loved ones,
    the United States must do the same-in fact we have tried to do
    in the past.
        Thirty years ago, EPA attempted such a ban, which was
    overturned by the courts in 1991.
        It was the most glaring example of the inadequacy of our
    nation's Toxic Substances Control Act, and one of the reasons
    Congress advanced the Lautenberg Act to reform TSCA. My
    Republican counterpart Mr. Shimkus was the leader on that
    effort and, to his credit, worked to find compromise and give
    EPA the authorities necessary to better protect Americans from
    toxic threats.
        Based on the available public health and scientific data,
    and the heartbreaking experience of Linda's family and hundreds
    of thousands of others like her, that means stopping asbestos
    use once and for all.
        This morning I suspect we will hear that EPA already has a
    process under way.
        Asbestos was selected as one of the first ten chemicals for
    consideration under the Lautenberg Act, and the Agency recently
    issued a SNUR requiring notification if previous uses are
    reintroduced into commerce.
        Unfortunately, that is not good enough. I am sure other
    Members will discuss concerns with the asbestos risk
    evaluation. But between that and the Agency's treatment of
    methylene chloride, I have little confidence that EPA will move
    forward on a reasonable timeline with the only acceptable
    outcome: a complete asbestos ban.
        We are approaching three years since the enactment of the
    Lautenberg Act, and it is likely a ban--if proposed at all-
    will take many years to finalize.
        Congress came together to give EPA additional authorities
    precisely so that substances such as asbestos that are nearly
    universally agreed to present an unreasonable risk could be
    properly regulated.
        The bill's supporters are right to think that, if this is
    the direction EPA claims to be heading, we can ensure a ban
    moves forward with confidence on a certain timeline.
        I hope that Members on both sides of the aisle will
    consider how we might be able to come together, build upon the
    bipartisan success of the Lautenberg Act, and help protect
    Americans from preventable asbestos-related diseases. Thank you
    again to Assistant Administrator Dunn and our other witnesses
    for being here this morning. I look forward to the discussion.
        Mr. Tonko. I yield back.

        Mr. Tonko. I now recognize Mr. Shimkus, our leading
    Republican for the Subcommittee on Environment and Climate
    Change for 5 minutes for his opening statement. Representative.

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

        Mr. Shimkus. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and, Mr. McNerney, you
    are such a nice guy, so.
        The issue of asbestos use in America and its impact on lung
    cancer, other illnesses, and death is one of the more
    challenging and gut-wrenching I have found in my time in
    Congress. I have the privilege to represent part of Madison
    County, Illinois. And that is my home county. So I know a thing
    or two about asbestos and the disease it causes.
        In 2014, 1,500 asbestos lawsuits were filed in Madison
    County, or more than a quarter of all asbestos cases filed
    nationally. When I have gone door to door to visit my
    constituents, I see them in their oxygen machines laboring to
    live. And I am aware of the struggle, and it is real.
        Preventing asbestos-related diseases is one of the main
    reasons I and others came together to enact reform to the Toxic
    Substances Control Act. This law directed EPA, using high-
    quality science, to identify high risk chemicals and prioritize
    them, review those chemicals and the risk, otherwise known as a
    moment where hazard and exposure intersect, and regulate the
    ones that present an unreasonable risk to health or the
    environment.
        I felt good that we had enacted a process that was
    objective, and risk and science-based, that was drafted to be
    agnostic as to who was implementing it; and the EPA would have
    little trouble using very broad authority to carry out the
    requirements.
        We didn't single out any chemical by name in that bill,
    including the use of the word ``asbestos,'' but we were all
    conscious of ensuring that EPA could act on it. And I and
    others expect that EPA is doing just that; for the first time
    ever preventing lapsed asbestos uses from coming back into the
    market, and reassessing current uses concerning their
    unreasonable risk, and preparing to take any necessary action
    to reduce and remove those risks.
        I know, Mr. Chairman, that moving the TSCA bill was a tough
    process, which you were involved with and had concerns with the
    preemptive provisions. But this is precisely what the majority
    of both Democrats and Republicans on this committee supported
    on the House floor.
        I guess I am trying to say that I am a bit frustrated as to
    why we are having a legislative hearing on banning asbestos
    before we have had an oversight hearing to demonstrate that the
    EPA is failing on the technical aspects of the law in its
    review, missing deadlines, or some other such failing. I know
    my friend and full committee chairman, Chairman Frank Pallone,
    has on more than one occasion proclaimed he does not have faith
    in the professionals at EPA to carry out high-quality review
    and act the way he would prefer on asbestos.
        I would respond in two ways.
        First, under TSCA, EPA has a legal duty to support any
    decision on existing uses of asbestos, with substantial
    evidence based on objective scientific review. So, EPA cannot
    go into a chemical review with a predetermined outcome if it
    wants to avoid litigation.
        Let me say that again, because EPA cannot go into a
    chemical review with a predetermined outcome if it wants to
    avoid litigation.
        Second, let's be honest here, if there were a Democrat in
    the White House right now, my Democrat colleagues would be very
    critical of me trying to overturn one of the first existing
    chemical reviews less than three years after its enactment.
    That is why I have sympathy for at least letting EPA do its
    work before legislatively rejecting it. I understand the
    proponents want certainty on this issue. I am also sympathetic
    to those concerns.
        Because of the nature of this place, and unlike EPA, we are
    much less likely to have the time to consider or otherwise be
    able to know all the impacts a ban would have directly or
    indirectly on all Americans, particularly without the benefit
    of an oversight hearing.
        Multiple Super Bowl champ, champion coach Bill Belichick
    preaches to his players ``trust the process'' when preparing
    for challenges for a season. This formula has been successful
    for him. And I do believe it would be successful in TSCA.
        There may be more of a need to move a bill to address the
    manufacturing, import, processing, and commercial distribution
    of asbestos; but before learning more, though, I am not
    convinced that that time is now.
        I join the chairman in welcoming our witnesses today. I
    want to thank them for their sacrifice they made to be here
    with us. And I look forward to learning more from you all.
        And with that, Mr. Chairman, I yield back my time.
        Thank you, Mr. Chairman for yielding me this time.
        [The prepared statement of Mr. Shimkus follow:]

                    Prepared Statement of Hon. John Shimkus

        The issue of asbestos use in America and its impacts on
    lung cancer, other illnesses, and death is one of the more
    challenging and gut wrenching I have found in my time in the
    Congress.
        I have the privilege to represent Madison County, Illinois
    here in Congress--so I know a thing or two about asbestos and
    the disease is causes. In 2014, 1,500 asbestos lawsuits were
    filed in Madison County--or more than a quarter of all asbestos
    cases filed nationally. When I have gone door-to-door to visit
    my constituents, I see them and their oxygen machines, laboring
    to live.
        I am aware of the struggle and it is real.
        Preventing asbestos-related disease is one of the main
    reasons I and others came together to enact reforms to the
    Toxic Substances Control Act that I introduced. This law
    directed EPA, using high quality science, to identify high risk
    chemicals and prioritize them, review those chemicals and the
    risks (otherwise known as the moment where hazard and exposure
    intersect), and regulate the ones that present an unreasonable
    risk to health or the environment.
        I felt good that we had enacted a process that was
    objective and risk and science-based, that was drafted to be
    agnostic as to who was implementing it, and that EPA would have
    little trouble using very broad authority to carry out these
    requirements.
        We didn't single out any chemical by name in that bill,
    including the use of the word `asbestos', but we were all
    conscious of ensuring that EPA could act on it. And, as I and
    others expected, EPA is doing just that: for the first time
    ever, preventing lapsed asbestos uses from coming back onto the
    market and reassessing current uses concerning their
    unreasonable risk and preparing to take any necessary action to
    reduce and remove those risks.
        I know, Mr. Chairman that you didn't vote for the final
    product because you were concerned about its pre-emption
    provisions, but this is precisely what the majority of
    Democrats and Republicans on this Committee supported on the
    House floor.
        I guess I am trying to say that I am a bit frustrated as to
    why we are having a legislative hearing on banning asbestos
    before we have had an oversight hearing to demonstrate that EPA
    is failing on the technical aspects of the law in its
    review,missing its deadlines, or some other such failing.
        I know my friend and our full committee chairman, Frank
    Pallone, has on more than one occasion proclaimed he does not
    have faith in the professionals at EPA to carry out a high-
    quality review and act the way he would prefer on asbestos.
        I would respond in two ways: first, under TSCA, EPA has a
    legal duty to support any decision on existing uses of asbestos
    with substantial evidence based on objective scientific
    review--so EPA cannot go into a chemical review with a
    predetermined outcome if it wants to avoid litigation. Second,
    and let's be honest here, if there were a Democrat in the White
    House right now, my Democrat colleagues would be critical of me
    trying to overturn one of the first existing chemical reviews,
    less than 3 years after enactment.
        This is why I have sympathy for at least letting EPA do its
    work before legislatively rejecting it.
        I understand the proponents want certainty on this issue. I
    am also sympathetic to those concerns.
        Because of the nature of this place and unlike EPA, we are
    much less likely to have the time to consider or otherwise be
    able to know all the impacts a ban would have directly or
    indirectly on all Americans -- particularly without the benefit
    of an oversight hearing.
        Multiple Super Bowl Champion coach, Bill Belichick,
    preaches to his players to "trust the process" when preparing
    for challenges of a season. This formula has been successful.
        There may be a need to move a bill to address the
    manufacturing, import, processing and commercial distribution
    of asbestos. Before learning more, though, I am not convinced
    that that time is now.
        I join the Chairman in welcoming our witnesses today and I
    want to thank them for the sacrifices they made to be here with
    us. I look forward to learning for you.
        I yield back the balance of my time.

        Mr. Tonko. The gentleman yields back and now I recognize
    Mr. Pallone, Chairman of the Full Committee, for 5 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.
        It has been 40 years since the Environmental Protection
    Agency began its work to ban asbestos under the Toxic
    Substances Control Act, or TSCA. It has been 30 years since EPA
    finalized that ban. And it has been 28 years since that ban was
    struck down in court.
        Twenty-eight years of frustration, of sickness and loss. We
    have known the dangers of asbestos for decades and, frankly,
    enough is enough.
        I wish today's hearing wasn't necessary, that this bill
    wasn't necessary, but asbestos is still being imported into the
    United States, and it is still being used in this country, and
    it is still killing about 40,000 Americans every year.
        Today this committee is beginning to take action by
    discussing H.R. 1603, the Alan Reinstein Ban Asbestos Now Act,
    which Representatives Bonamici, Slotkin, and I introduced in
    March. Our bill would ban the manufacture, import, processing,
    and distribution of asbestos. It would also require the EPA to
    assess and report on the risks posed by ``legacy asbestos''
    that is found in buildings.
        In addition to Representatives Bonamici and Slotkin, I want
    to thank some of those who have worked tirelessly to get us to
    this point.
        Linda Reinstein, whose husband Alan is the bill's namesake,
    will testify this morning. Linda, thank you for everything you
    have done and everything that I know you will continue to do to
    get asbestos out of commerce, out of our products, out of our
    workplaces, out of our homes.
        I would also like to thank national and local labor unions
    who have been fighting for decades to protect workers from
    asbestos diseases.
        AFL-CIO is also here today. In March, we heard from the
    International Association of Firefighters, the United
    Autoworkers, and the American Federation of Teachers who all
    testified before this committee about the risks that workers
    continue to face from asbestos. Those stories and those people
    at risk are why we are here today.
        I also want to acknowledge Susan Moran, who is in the
    audience today. Susan's late husband, Andy, pronounced
    ``egregious,'' was an integral part of this committee's work to
    reform TSCA.
        And, finally, I would like to thank the subcommittee
    ranking member, Mr. Shimkus, who worked closely with me and
    Chairman Tonko and other committee members to reform TSCA back
    in 2016. It was not an easy task.
        The Frank R. Lautenberg Chemical Safety Act for the 21st
    Century, and that is TSCA, empowered EPA to ban asbestos. In
    fact, this committee's report on the Lautenberg Act, written
    under Republican leadership, states, and I am now quoting, ``To
    many members of the committee, an important measure of TSCA
    reform proposals has been whether the proposal would enable EPA
    to take broader regulatory action to protect against
    unreasonable risks from asbestos. The committee expects this
    legislation to enable that regulatory action.''
        And that was from the committee's report on our
    expectations.
        But, unfortunately, it is now clear that, despite the best
    efforts of our committee, the Trump EPA is not using the tools
    we gave it to regulate dangerous chemicals. Asbestos is the
    poster child for the problems we are seeing in the
    implementation of the Lautenberg Act. EPA's actions under the
    Lautenberg Act have been so legally suspect that I believe we
    need to pass this bill regardless of whether EPA were to
    announce that it is moving forward with a full ban of asbestos.
    We don't have time for more legal maneuvering and a drawn-out
    court battle while tens of thousands of people are dying.
        So, it is deeply disappointing that 40 years after EPA
    began work to ban asbestos under TSCA, and three years after we
    passed the Lautenberg Act to reform that statute, we need to
    pass another law to ban this deadly substance. But I think it
    is clear that Congress must act; and we are certainly going to
    act.
        So, with that, unless anybody else wants my minute, I will
    yield back. And thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Mr. Tonko. You are welcome.
        [The prepared statement of Mr. Pallone follows:]

                 Prepared Statement of Hon. Frank Pallone, Jr.

        It has been 40 years since the Environmental Protection
    Agency (EPA) began its work to ban asbestos under the Toxic
    Substances Control Act (TSCA). It has been 30 years since EPA
    finalized that ban. And, it has been 28 years since that ban
    was struck down in court. Twenty-eight years of frustration, of
    sickness, and loss. We have known the dangers of asbestos for
    decades. Enough is enough.
        I wish today's hearing wasn't necessary--that this bill
    wasn't necessary. But, asbestos is still being imported into
    the United States, it is still being used in this country, and
    it is still killing about 40,000 Americans every year.
        Today this Committee is beginning to take action by
    discussing H.R. 1603, the Alan Reinstein Ban Asbestos Now Act,
    which Reps. Bonamici, Slotkin and I introduced in March. Our
    bill would ban the manufacture, import, processing, and
    distribution of asbestos. It would also require the EPA to
    assess and report on the risks posed by "legacy asbestos" that
    is found in buildings.
        In addition to Reps. Bonamici and Slotkin, I want to thank
    some of those who have worked tirelessly to get us to this
    point.
        Linda Reinstein, whose husband Alan is the bill's namesake,
    will testify this morning. Linda, thank you for everything you
    have done and everything that I know you will continue to do
    get asbestos out of commerce, out of our products, out of our
    workplaces, and out of our homes.
        I would also like to thank national and local labor unions
    who have been fighting for decades to protect workers from
    asbestos diseases. AFL-CIO is also here today. In March, we
    heard from the International Association of Firefighters, the
    United Autoworkers, and the American Federation of Teachers who
    all testified before this Committee about the risks their
    workers continue to face from asbestos. Those stories, and
    those people at risk, are why we are here.
        I also want to acknowledge Susan Moran, who is in the
    audience today. Susan's late husband, Andy Igrejas
    (pronounced--EGREGIOUS), was an integral part of this
    Committee's work to reform TSCA.
        And, finally I would like to thank Subcommittee Ranking
    Member Mr. Shimkus, who worked closely with me, Chairman Tonko
    and other Committee members to reform TSCA back in 2016.
        The Frank R. Lautenberg Chemical Safety Act for the 21st
    Century empowered EPA to ban asbestos. In fact, this
    Committee's report on the Lautenberg Act, written under
    Republican leadership, states, and I'm quoting now:
        "To many members of the Committee, an important measure of
    TSCA reform proposals has been whether the proposal would
    enable EPA to take broader regulatory action to protect against
    unreasonable risks from asbestos. The Committee expects this
    legislation to enable that regulatory action."
        That was from the Committee report on our expectations.
        Unfortunately, it is now clear that, despite the best
    efforts of our Committee, the Trump EPA is not using the tools
    we gave it to regulate dangerous chemicals. Asbestos is the
    poster-child for the problems we are seeing in the
    implementation of the Lautenberg Act.
        EPA's actions under the Lautenberg Act have been so legally
    suspect that I believe we need to pass this bill regardless of
    whether EPA were to announce that it is moving forward with a
    full ban of asbestos. We don't have time for more legal
    maneuvering and a drawn-out court battle while tens of
    thousands of people are dying.
        It is deeply disappointing that 40 years after EPA began
    work to ban asbestos under TSCA and three years after we passed
    the Lautenberg Act to reform that statute--we need to pass
    another law to ban this deadly substance. But it is clear that
    Congress must act, and so we will.
        Thank you, I yield back.

        Mr. Tonko. The gentleman yields back, and now I recognize
    Mr. Walden, who is the Republican leader of the full committee,
    for 5 minutes for his opening statement. Representative.

      OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. GREG WALDEN, A REPRESENTATIVE IN
                   CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF OREGON

        Mr. Walden. Good morning, Mr. Chairman, and thank you.
        As we examine the bill today from Ms. Bonamici and others,
    I must say I am actually of several minds. And let me explain.
        At a 50,000-foot level I join my colleagues in wanting an
    end to mesothelioma, cancer, and other pulmonary diseases
    precipitated by asbestos. I think we all want that.
        To the families suffering and those with these diseases
    right now, and those who have lost loved ones to them; I am
    deeply sympathetic to you and, obviously, to the advocates of
    this bill. I recognize the tragedies you have faced, and I
    understand you want a solution once and for all.
        I also appreciate the way my colleague Mr. Shimkus has said
    about the process he authored a few years ago to modernize the
    law, to address questions of safety about chemicals, and that
    these have to be fact-based decisions. And as we speak--and
    that Ms. Dunn will talk about on the first panel today, if
    Congress is going to consistently, though, preempt the sort of
    science-based EPA reviews of statutory mandates, one has to ask
    the question then what is the point of all these new and
    expanded authorities under TSCA? Even well-meaning legislation
    can, frankly, be a bit of a blunt instrument for problem
    solving where, if not careful, Congress can create risk
    tradeoffs that spawn unintended public health risks, institute
    unimplementable enforcement requirements, or require complex
    and hard-to-meet compliance obligations.
        So, as I went through and looked at this legislation a
    number of questions came to mind.
        This legislation requires any mixture or article that is
    distributed in commerce to not have asbestos present as an
    impurity. So, my question is: Does this apply to incidental
    fibers? Do American businesses have to test and certify every
    product sold in this country to guarantee it does not contain
    any asbestos, regardless of whether it was intentionally added?
    Do people in rural areas no longer get to use gravel for roads?
    Should talcum powder fall under this or would it be exempted as
    an FDA-regulated product?
        These are just some of the questions that come to mind.
        The legislation also requires very specific and complex
    reporting to the EPA by those who either manufactured,
    imported, processed, or moved in commerce asbestos, or
    mixtures, or articles containing asbestos, including an
    incidental amount in the three years prior to and one year
    after the bill's enactment. So, prior to and one year after.
        So, how does a person report an incidental amount when they
    weren't expected to track it?
        What is the utility of all this reporting to EPA on top of
    information from the EPA's chemical data reporting, especially
    if the substance is already banned?
        Why is personally identifying information disclosed to the
    public? We are doing a lot on privacy in this committee. So the
    question: Why is personally identifying information disclosed
    to the public from each report, when EPA is only required to
    produce an aggregate report that isn't specific to each person
    reporting?
        Finally, the legislation provides a shorter transition
    period and moots existing TSCA provisions preempting an
    exemption for use of a chemical that provides greater health
    protection than its alternative; which I think is a pretty
    important point.
        I am especially concerned about the immediate loss of 36
    percent, and that is over one-third, of our nation's chlorine
    production, and what that means for hospital disinfection,
    drinking water treatment, pharmaceutical production and the
    like; the resources required to push businesses to import
    materials rather than make them here; and do healthcare costs
    and drinking water rates spike as availability of these
    services lessen, or do gaseous chlorine shipments come to our
    major ports.
        So, to protect the economic health of working men and
    women, are alternatives technologically and economically
    feasible? I think that is a question we need to look at; and,
    if so, are they drop-in ready and safer?
        So, Mr. Chairman, while I support the intent, certainly, of
    my colleague from Oregon, Ms. Bonamici, and others, I do think
    there are these questions among the whole list that if we are
    going to legislate in this space, we need to get answers to-if
    we are going to be responsible.
        So, I look forward to hearing from each of our witnesses
    today. I know their testimony will better clarify some of these
    for me, and I appreciate that. I would also say at the outset
    we have two subcommittee meetings simultaneously, and since I
    am on both, I will be coming and going. But I do have your
    written testimony.
        And, again, we all want to make the world safer. And for
    those who are suffering or who have lost someone, you are in
    our hearts, and we want to do the right thing here.
        So, with that, Mr. Chairman, I yield back.
        [The prepared statement of Mr. Walden follows:]

                     Prepared Statement of Hon. Greg Walden

        Thank you for recognizing me for this opening statement.
        As we examine a bill today from Ms. Bonamici, one of my
    colleagues from Oregon's congressional delegation, I must say
    that I am of many minds on the legislation.
        At a 50,000-foot level, I join my colleagues in wanting to
    see an end to mesothelioma, cancer, and other pulmonary
    diseases precipitated by asbestos. To the families suffering
    with these diseases right now and those who have lost loved
    ones to it, I sympathize with you and the advocates of this
    bill, I recognize the tragedies you have faced, and understand
    you want a solution once and for all.
        I also appreciate what my colleague, Mr. Shimkus, has said
    about the process he authored into law a few years ago to
    address questions of safety about many chemicals--but
    especially one--that is playing out, as we speak, and that Mrs.
    Dunn will talk about on the first panel today. If Congress is
    going to consistently pre-empt EPA reviews with statutory
    mandates, what's the point of all those newly expanded
    authorities in TSCA?
        Even well-meaning legislation can be a blunt instrument for
    problem solving where, if not careful, Congress can create risk
    trade-offs that spawn unintended public health risks, institute
    unimplementable enforceable requirements, or require complex
    and hard to meet compliance obligations.
        Looking at this legislation, I have many questions about
    how it operates and what it means. For example:

             The legislation requires any mixture or
            article that is distributed in commerce to not have
            asbestos present as an impurity.
             Does this apply to incidental fibers?
             Do American businesses have to test and
            certify every product sold in this country to guarantee
            it does not contain ANY asbestos--regardless of whether
            it was intentionally added?
             Do people in rural areas no longer get to use
            gravel for roads?
             Would talcum powder fall under this or would
            it be exempted as an FDA regulated product?

        The legislation also requires very specific and complex
    reporting to EPA by those who either manufactured, imported,
    processed, or moved in commerce asbestos, or mixtures or
    articles containing asbestos--including an incidental amount--
    in the three years prior to and one year after the bill's
    enactment.
        How does a person report an incidental amount when they
    weren't expected to track it?
        What is the utility of all this reporting to EPA on top of
    information from EPA's chemical data reporting--especially if
    the substance is banned?
             Why is personally identifying information
            disclosed to the public from each report when EPA is
            only required to produce an aggregated report that
            isn't specific to each person reporting?

        Finally, the legislation provides a shorter transition
    period and moots existing TSCA provisions permitting an
    exemption for use of a chemical that provides greater public
    health protection than its alternatives.
             I am especially concerned about the immediate
            loss of 36 percent of our nation's chlorine production
            and what that means for hospital disinfection, drinking
            water treatment, and pharmaceutical production.
             The resources required could push businesses
            to import materials rather than make them here. Do
            healthcare costs and drinking water rates spike, does
            availability to these services lessen, or do gaseous
            chlorine shipments come to our major ports?
             To protect the economic health of working men
            and women, are alternatives technologically and
            economically feasible? If so, are they "drop in ready"
            and safer?

        So, Mr. Chairman, while I support the intent of my
    colleague from Oregon Ms. Bonamici's bill, I do think there are
    issues that we need to work through if we are going to
    responsibly legislate in this space.
        I look forward to hearing from each of the witnesses today,
    and I hope their testimony will better clarify for me what the
    best path forward is.
        With that, I yield back the remained of my time.

        Mr. Tonko. The gentleman yields back.
        I would like to remind Members that pursuant to committee
    rules all Members' written opening statements shall be made
    part of the record.
        I will now introduce our witness for today's first panel,
    Alexandra Dunn, the Assistant Administrator of the United
    States Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Chemical
    Safety and Pollution Prevention.
        Before we begin, I would like to explain the lighting
    system. In front of you are a series of lights. The light will
    initially be green at the start of your opening statement. That
    light will turn yellow when you have one-minute left. And
    please begin to wrap up your testimony at that point. The light
    will turn red when your time expires.
        So, we thank you for that help, Administrator. At this time
    the Chair will recognize Assistant Administrator Dunn for 5
    minutes to provide her opening statement.
        Oh, there are no lights on your table. OK. So, forgive me,
    all of that, all that--OK. Thank you. Miracles of all kinds.
        So, Ms. Dunn, 5 minutes please.

    STATEMENT OF ALEXANDRA D. DUNN, ASSISTANT ADMINISTRATOR, UNITED
      STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY, OFFICE OF CHEMICAL
                    SAFETY AND POLLUTION PREVENTION

        Ms. Dunn. Well, good morning, Chairman Tonko. And
    notwithstanding the absence of the lights, I can see the clock
    up there.
        Mr. Tonko. OK.
        Ms. Dunn. Chairman Pallone, Ranking Member Shimkus, and
    Ranking Member Walden, members of the committee, as you heard,
    I am Alexandra Dunn, Assistant Administrator of EPA's Office of
    Chemical Safety and Pollution Prevention, and it is a great
    privilege and honor to appear before you today to discuss
    asbestos.
        I am pleased to share with you the significant efforts the
    EPA is undertaking to address public health risks from exposure
    to asbestos. This administration is the first in 30 years to
    use the Toxic Substances Control Act, amended by the Frank R.
    Lautenberg Chemical Safety for the 21st Century Act, to place
    additional restrictions on products that contain asbestos.
        It is helpful to look at EPA's asbestos regulation in three
    phases. As you noted, EPA's actions around asbestos took a
    major step forward when in 1989 we finalized the TSCA Asbestos
    Ban and Phase out; banning the manufacture, importation,
    processing, and distribution in commerce of most uses of
    asbestos. In 1989--excuse me, in 1991, this regulation was
    largely overturned by the Fifth Circuit, leaving only five
    asbestos products and all new uses of asbestos banned. The 1989
    partial ban remains in place, and our new actions build upon
    it.
        Second, on April 17, 2019, EPA closed a loophole left by
    the 1991 court decision. We signed a regulation that will
    present historic uses of asbestos from returning to the United
    States through domestic manufacture or import without EPA
    review. Our action affects 18 categories of historic asbestos-
    containing products, such as asbestos vinyl floor tiles and
    insulation, and has a ``catch all'' restricting any other uses
    of asbestos not currently ongoing.
        This is an aggressive and critical step to protect the
    public from the health risks associated with asbestos,
    including the increased risk of cancer.
        Third, we complete the circle of protecting the public from
    asbestos risks as we undertake a risk evaluation for the
    limited ongoing industrial uses of asbestos. A TSCA risk
    evaluation, as described by Mr. Shimkus, determines whether a
    chemical substance presents an unreasonable risk, under the
    conditions of use, to health or the environment, including an
    unreasonable risk to relevantly potentially exposed or
    susceptible subpopulations such as workers.
        If EPA determines that the manufacture, processing,
    distribution, use, or disposal of a chemical substance presents
    an unreasonable risk, we must take risk management actions
    under TSCA Section 6. Our process is open and transparent. The
    asbestos draft risk evaluation will be peer reviewed and
    available for public comment under the timetables in TSCA.
        We received two petitions asking EPA to require additional
    asbestos reporting. After consideration, EPA denied both
    petitions. Through preparing the asbestos scoping document and
    drafting the risk evaluation, we are confident that we have a
    sufficient understanding of the conditions of use of asbestos.
        We understand that many stakeholders want EPA to ban all
    remaining asbestos products now. Under TSCA, EPA cannot move
    directly to risk management actions such as a ban without first
    completing the risk evaluation and making an unreasonable risk
    determination. This is the path we are following consistent
    with our legal authority.
        EPA has also received comments asking us to address risks
    from legacy asbestos, asbestos-containing materials
    manufactured or imported in the past that may still be present
    in buildings and homes. We are not ignoring the legacy problem.
    Asbestos-containing materials that are not damaged or disturbed
    are not likely to pose a health risk. When asbestos is to be
    disturbed, Federal, State, and local laws, regulations, and
    programs are in place for the safe removal and disposal of
    these materials.
        The outlined actions show that we are committed to
    protecting all Americans from unreasonable risk associated with
    asbestos and to working with stakeholders and our Federal,
    State, and local partners. Again, for the first time in
    decades, EPA has made addressing asbestos a priority.
        On March 7, 2019, Representative Bonamici and others
    introduced H.R. 1603, the Alan Reinstein Ban Asbestos Now Act
    of 2019. EPA does not have a formal position on the bill but
    can provide technical assistance on this issue upon request.
        In conclusion, thank you, Chairman Tonko, Chairman Pallone,
    Ranking Member Shimkus, and Ranking Member Walden, and members
    of the committee for the opportunity to testify before you
    today. EPA looks forward to continuing our work with you to
    protect the public's health and well-being. I look forward to
    any questions.
        [The prepared statement of Ms. Dunn follows:]

    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        Mr. Tonko. Thank you very much. Now that the Administrator
    has concluded her opening statement, we will move to member
    questions. Each Member will have 5 minutes to ask questions of
    our witness. I will start by recognizing myself for 5 minutes.
        Administrator Dunn, thank you again for appearing before
    the subcommittee. It is my sincere hope that you are able to
    lead the Office of Chemical Safety and Pollution Prevention
    effectively. In my opinion, the office went off track in the
    early years of this, the Trump administration.
        Congress passed the Lautenberg Act to have certainty that
    EPA would have the authority to ban indisputably harmful
    substances like asbestos. Three years later and I certainly am
    not as confident that will be the ultimate outcome.
        Administrator, do you have any thoughts on how over 60
    other nations, and even the United States at one time when it
    had banned asbestos, have managed to continue to be productive
    despite having banned asbestos?
        Ms. Dunn. We are always engaged in international
    conversations with other countries. We believe that we are
    implementing TSCA, the new law that we have, using all of its
    authorities and powers that we have to look at asbestos; and
    feel very confident that we have the tools that we need.
        Mr. Tonko. And do you have concerns that the United States
    could not manage that transition?
        Ms. Dunn. I am confident that we are able to manage the
    transition to the new Lautenberg law. We have met all the
    deadlines under the new law to date.
        Mr. Tonko. Well, with a ban in general could we manage that
    transition?
        Ms. Dunn. Managing a ban, if under TSCA we reach a
    conclusion that there is an unreasonable risk presented under
    the conditions of use, and that a ban is the only way that
    those risks could be mitigated. EPA would have the capability
    to manage that process.
        Mr. Tonko. And, obviously, work has been done going back to
    the 1970s on the United States ban. There are career staff at
    EPA that have been working on asbestos for literally decades.
    What role do you believe EPA career staff should play in
    determining the agency's path forward on asbestos?
        Ms. Dunn. I am absolutely privileged every day to work with
    our career staff. They have prepared me today for speaking with
    all of you. They have incredible expertise about asbestos; how
    it is used in the United States. They did all the ground work
    around our risk evaluation, and they are absolutely dedicated
    to the task at hand. Very committed to the public service.
        Mr. Tonko. In late August, the New York Times reported a
    story entitled ``EPA Staff Objected to Agency's New Rules on
    Asbestos Use Internal Emails Show,'' which outlined career
    staff's concerns with this new proposal. I appreciate that
    story was published before your confirmation; but just this
    morning The Times published ``EPA Leaders Disregarded Agency's
    Experts in Issuing Asbestos Rule Memos Show.''
        Do you have any thoughts on these stories or understand why
    it may cause some members to question EPA's political
    leadership's commitment to implementing a ban?
        Ms. Dunn. I don't want to comment on internal conversations
    amongst our staff. We encourage full disclosure and
    conversation amongst our teams. We explore a variety of options
    at all times. And my door remains open to any member of our
    staff who feels they are not being heard in regard to their
    professional opinions.
        Mr. Tonko. But moving forward do you plan on seeking input
    from career staff from across program offices on asbestos and
    other risk evaluations?
        Ms. Dunn. Absolutely.
        Mr. Tonko. And I know you previously led EPA Region 1. Do
    you believe the career staff at regional offices can provide
    valuable insights?
        Ms. Dunn. Having been the regional administrator in New
    England for all of 2018, I have a great appreciation for the
    ability of our EPA regions; many of whom you all interact with
    when you are home. That is the EPA that you see, not
    necessarily the Beltway EPA.
        What I really enjoyed about the regional office is that we
    are very close to communities. I went to many public meetings.
    I sat with communities. Probably got a flavor for what you all
    go through when you go home, when you listen to communities
    with concerns, whether it was with regard to Superfund sites or
    other chemical exposures.
        So, so being on the ground, to answer your question, yes,
    our regions can be very helpful to us with that direct
    communication from the field essentially.
        Mr. Tonko. And are you familiar with criticisms by Region
    10 staff of both the proposed SNUR and the scope of the risk
    evaluation from May and August 2018 respectively?
        Ms. Dunn. I am not familiar with the Region 10 staff.
        Mr. Tonko. Well, based on some of these communications, it
    seems clear that numerous EPA career staff believe the Agency
    is not fully pursuing efforts to reduce asbestos exposure. And
    I hope these expert voices have an appropriate role in the
    process as it moves forward.
        And with that, I thank you for your response to our
    questions.
        The Chair now recognizes Mr. Shimkus, our leading
    Republican on the subcommittee, for 5 minutes to ask questions.
        Mr. Shimkus. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        I get the sense from listening to the majority that they
    are concerned that comprehensive action on asbestos isn't
    happening and they want it to occur immediately. I detected
    from your opening statement that there is an effort within
    EPA's TSCA work to get at many of these things.
        So, can you help me piece together how the Agency is
    addressing asbestos? Can you please walk me through the
    thinking and implications of EPA actions on your Significant
    New Use Rule on asbestos and the ongoing risk evaluation of
    asbestos?
        Ms. Dunn. Yes. It would be my pleasure to do that.
        The Significant New Use Rule, which we just signed a few
    weeks ago, is a very important action for us to take. It makes
    clear that any historic, not-ongoing use of asbestos cannot
    occur and resume in the United States without notification to
    EPA. Notification to EPA provides us all the tools in TSCA to
    look at the proposed use.
        If anyone thought that getting into the business of
    asbestos was a good idea, they would have to come forward to
    the EPA, we would have to look at the type of activity that
    they wanted to undertake, we would have to assess any potential
    risks, and we would have to put requirements on that activity
    to mitigate all risks.
        The requirement could also turn out to be a no, that they
    may not commence that activity.
        So, the action we took with the SNUR is very important. It
    puts EPA in a very important place with regard to these
    historic uses.
        Mr. Shimkus. Thank you. Are you on track to timely complete
    your evaluation and make a determination on asbestos by the end
    of this year?
        Ms. Dunn. We are on track. We are completing the risk
    evaluations of asbestos and the other nine chemicals. Just this
    morning an announcement went out that our Science Review
    Committee, which is brand new under TSCA, will be meeting in
    June to begin looking at the first of the first ten chemicals.
    And we will be moving our way through them throughout the
    summer. We are very much anticipating meeting our end-of-year
    deadline.
        Mr. Shimkus. That is that purple 29 one?
        Ms. Dunn. Pigment violet 29.
        Mr. Shimkus. Purple was my high school color, so.
        Some of you have heard today--some of what you have heard
    today and the dinging the Agency for not addressing legacy uses
    of asbestos. What do you say in response to those criticisms?
        Ms. Dunn. EPA's authority under TSCA has to do with the
    manufacture, distributing, importation, and use, and disposal
    of asbestos. So, we are focusing on our legal authority.
        When it comes to legacy uses, EPA relies on the fact that
    there are many, many other programs, including under OSHA,
    under our Clean Air Act, the NESHAP. There are requirements for
    anyone who is disturbing asbestos when it is intact. We want to
    make sure that that is done safely and properly. So, there are
    many controls at the State and Federal level around legacy
    asbestos.
        Mr. Shimkus. In 2016, EPA designated asbestos as one of the
    first ten chemical substances subject to risk evaluation. Is
    the Agency on track to complete this risk evaluation by the end
    of 2019?
        Ms. Dunn. We do remain on track, yes.
        Mr. Shimkus. Can we expect a determination regarding
    unreasonable risk for all the conditions of use the agency
    identified in its scoping document from June 2017?
        Ms. Dunn. I cannot prejudge today what we will find through
    our risk evaluation. The risk evaluation will go to peer
    review, also to public comment.
        We are looking at the limited, ongoing uses of asbestos.
    Right now they are industrial. They largely have to do with the
    fabrication of diaphragms for chlorine and sodium hydroxide
    production, as well as some other very, very narrow industrial
    uses.
        Mr. Shimkus. Since H.R. 1603 is silent on it, what legal
    effect does H.R. 1603, if enacted, have on ongoing risk
    evaluation and any resultant risk management requirements?
        Ms. Dunn. The fact that the bill is silent on that is of
    some concern. It does not tell us to stop our work. And so we
    would hope to reach some clarity around that should the bill
    advance.
        Mr. Shimkus. Thank you. My time has expired.
        Let me just say those are questions I wanted to get on the
    record. I tell people I hate asbestos, OK. But in delving down
    into chemicals and dealing with the risk issue, I like the fact
    that chlorine is a major use in keeping water safe for use. I
    like the soda hydroxide for cleaning hospitals. So, we have
    some issues here. But I appreciate your being here.
        I'm sorry to go over time. I yield back.
        Mr. Tonko. The gentleman yields back.
        The Chair now recognizes the gentleman from California,
    Representative Peters, for 5 minutes.
        Mr. Peters. Thank you, Ms. Dunn, for being with us today.
        Can you explain to me what has been the status--well, let
    me ask first, what has been the status since between 1991 and
    up to the time of your issuance of the Significant New Use Rule
    on asbestos? How has that differed from what you are doing now?
        Ms. Dunn. There was not a significant movement to bring
    historic uses back to the United States. However, we took
    action on the SNUR to ensure that that could not occur.
        Mr. Peters. OK. And so, have you been approached by people
    who want to continue to use asbestos or use it in ways that
    would require the development of the Significant New Use Rule?
    Is that what?
        Ms. Dunn. We have not been approached right now by entities
    that intend to commence the asbestos uses.
        Mr. Peters. OK. So what would be examples of asbestos-
    containing goods that you would expect would be eligible for
    the case by case approval?
        Ms. Dunn. Some of the historic uses that we address in the
    SNUR are 18 categories. They include building insulation,
    asbestos vinyl floor tile, roofing tile. Those are some of the
    examples of products that historically contained asbestos that
    are not currently being imported or brought into the United
    States. And we would want to ensure that before thatever-
    occurred EPA would have a chance to review that.
        Mr. Peters. And it is my understanding that in each of
    those uses substitutes have developed for asbestos that have
    been effective. Is that your understanding as well?
        Ms. Dunn. I am not aware of the full range of substitutes,
    but I know that roofing is occurring today without imported
    asbestos roofing tile.
        Ms. Peters. Right. How would your evaluation of the
    Significant New Use Rule application be affected by the
    availability of substitutes in the economy?
        Ms. Dunn. Well, certainly through our chemicals program we
    are always looking for new chemicals. We have an entire new
    chemicals program where innovators bring forward new
    chemistries. They ask us to review them. That's another one of
    our authorities under TSCA. We review new chemicals. We
    determine if any restrictions need to be placed on them.
        We don't say that every new chemical is (air quote)
    ``greener than an existing chemical," but in many cases the new
    chemistries coming forward are shorter-lived in the
    environment, more focused in how they act in the environment,
    and can in some cases be greener.
        Mr. Peters. Let me be a little bit more focused. So, let's
    take building insulation, which has been the big use over time
    and from which a lot of the friable asbestos come. That is not
    the standard anymore. People are using different materials for
    building fire retardants and for insulation. Those are
    available in the economy.
        And someone comes to you, they want to do a new product for
    that use with asbestos in it, you have to evaluate the risk;
    right?
        Ms. Dunn. Yes.
        Mr. Peters. And so, is part of the evaluation of the risk
    for the new product the fact that it is really not needed
    because it has been, the need for it has been met by other
    substitute product?
        Ms. Dunn. We look at a full range of factors under the law
    as to whether or not that product can come to market. Most of
    our review is around the safety of the product. We do look to
    see if there are other products in the marketplace that can
    give us a sense of risk. But EPA is not in the role of making
    decisions about the marketplace.
        Mr. Peters. OK. Can you describe for me what the analysis
    is generally behind the Significant New Use Rule application?
        Ms. Dunn. Right. So, as an application comes in, we have a
    team of risk assessors, risk evaluators.
        Mr. Peters. Health risk assessors, health risk evaluators?
        Ms. Dunn. Health risk assessors, yes. Exposure experts.
    They look at all the conditions of use. They not only look at
    what that applicant says they want to do with that chemical,
    but they also have to under TSCA look at other reasonably
    foreseeable uses.
        Mr. Peters. Right.
        Ms. Dunn. So, we have to look out and determine if there
    are any other uses that maybe the applicant has no intent of
    using the chemistry in that fashion, but we look at the other
    ways it could be used. We assess any of those risks as well.
        And we come back and we determine if there are requirements
    that need to be put in place to mitigate risk.
        Mr. Peters. And how do you determine what an acceptable
    level of health risk is?
        Ms. Dunn. Well, it depends on the chemical, but we look at
    the hierarchy of controls. So, we largely look at how the
    workers are coming into contact with the chemistry. So, we look
    at ventilation. We look at how----
        Mr. Peters. I am sorry, I have about 3 seconds left.
        Let me just tell you my concern. We can pick it up later.
        Ms. Dunn. OK.
        Mr. Peters. Which is that you could decide that something--
    you are willing to take a certain amount of risk if it is a
    product that is necessary to meet some need in the economy.
    What I would like to hear is that, given that there are other
    ways to meet that need in the economy, you would take a hard
    line on asbestos and evaluating what risk is acceptable.
        I yield back.
        Mr. Tonko. The gentleman yields back.
        The Chair now recognizes the representative from West
    Virginia, Representative McKinley, for 5 minutes.
    Representative.
         Mr. McKinley. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        In the construction industry we have found ways of dealing
    with asbestos over the years. We have banned the product quite
    effectively, finding alternative use, alternative materials,
    even though polyurethane has been often criticized because it
    has other environmental issues in using polyurethane. So we in
    the construction industry we have found ways for dealing with
    it.
        But after this, the 1989 ban and then the 1991 return, from
    what I understand there are only five products that apparently
    were ultimately completely banned.
        Ms. Dunn. Yes.
        Mr. McKinley. And that allowed us, people to continue using
    some form of asbestos.
        So, I'm curious, since the construction industry came up
    with alternatives----
        Ms. Dunn. Yes.
        Mr. McKinley [continuing]. That were viable, effective, why
    hasn't the industry been able to replace asbestos to be using
    all other products? Why do we, why in God's name do we, still
    use this thing?
        Ms. Dunn. Well, we largely do not use it. So, the action
    that we took a few weeks ago is to ensure that any of those
    historic uses that were left out after the court decision
    invalidated our total ban, what we did was we took the 18
    categories of uses that were still available should someone
    decide to enter the United States marketplace with them. No one
    has been. They are dormant uses. But what we have done now is
    close the door to ensure that someone could not decide to bring
    back one of those uses for whatever reason they chose, without
    coming through EPA.
        Mr. McKinley. Can you explain a little bit about the
    chlorine? I need to understand that because we banned all the
    piping with it. How is that involved with chlorine?
        Ms. Dunn. So, each----
        Mr. McKinley. Chlorine filters, I think you said something
    with filters.
        Ms. Dunn. Yes. EPA is required under TSCA to look at the
    ongoing conditions of use of asbestos. So, you were asking
    where is asbestos still used in the United States? Not largely
    in building and construction, as you mentioned.
        Mr. McKinley. Know that.
        Ms. Dunn. But I will tell you where it is used. It is used
    all through import. All the asbestos that comes into the United
    States today is imported from other countries. And the imported
    raw, bulk asbestos is used to make diaphragms for chlorine and
    sodium hydroxide production. It is also used in sheet gaskets
    in chemical production such as titanium dioxide production. It
    is used in brake blocks in oil drilling equipment.
        Mr. McKinley. So, OK.
        Ms. Dunn. Yes.
        Mr. McKinley. I can read that as well.
        But why do we allow that? Why are we importing, why are we
    allowing imports to come in that are hazardous?
        Ms. Dunn. So, this is the risk evaluation process that EPA
    is undertaking now. We are looking at all those uses, and a few
    more that I just listed. We are looking at whether these uses
    pose unreasonable risk.
        And if we find that they pose unreasonable risk, we have
    two years to take action.
        Mr. McKinley. Well, only thing in a reasonable risk, if we
    don't allow American manufacturers to do it, why would we let a
    foreign manufacturer do it?
        Ms. Dunn. Well, these are American companies importing
    these, this raw asbestos for these limited industrial uses.
        Mr. McKinley. Well, you have opened up a can of worms here
    with that.
        So, then we just say that maybe falling back again with
    what Shimkus was raising on his questioning, and I've got just
    a minute left on it. Can you follow up more on the importance
    of following the procedures outlined under TSCA when
    considering future actions? I'd like to understand more of that
    aspect of it.
         Ms. Dunn. Well, what I hear from you, Representative, is a
    great concern about these remaining uses of asbestos. And so,
    the process that we are following is that by the end of this
    year we will complete a risk evaluation of any risk that we
    identify under these uses in the chlorine manufacturing and the
    other industrial uses.
        We then, if we find unreasonable risk, and we have to make
    that finding under TSCA, if we find any unreasonable risk, and
    it wouldn't be across the whole category, we have to look at
    each use, then we have two years to take a risk management
    activity. That could require labeling, restrictions, a whole
    variety of ways to get rid of that risk.
        The most significant way to get rid of a risk is a ban. But
    that's only one of our tools.
        Mr. McKinley. OK. I guess I have run out of time.
        I am just--would you explain to me--as I understand this--I
    am walking out of this now, you said American manufacturers
    can't make the asbestos product, a brake block, a brake
    assembly, but if they go overseas and import it, they can?
        Ms. Dunn. They are bringing the asbestos in.
        Mr. McKinley. That is incredible. Thank you.
        I yield back.
        Mr. Tonko. The gentleman yields back.
        We now go to the voice of Delaware, Representative Blunt
    Rochester.
        Ms. Blunt Rochester. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and thank you,
    Ms. Dunn, for your testimony.
        Based on the scientific evidence available at the time, EPA
    determined in 1989 that a ban on asbestos was necessary to
    protect human health. That decision was based on 10 years of
    work and an exhaustive record.
        In the 30 years since the ban was published, research has
    shown more dangerous forms of asbestos and more deadly impacts.
    We now know that asbestos not only causes mesothelioma and lung
    cancer, but also cancer of the larynx, pharynx, stomach, and
    colorectum, and ovary. Unfortunately, EPA excluded those
    cancers from the problem formulation document for asbestos.
        Ms. Dunn, can you explain why EPA excluded those cancers
    from the problem formulation document?
        Ms. Dunn. Well, we are looking at the industrial uses that
    I was just explaining; those five or six limited industrial
    uses. And we will look at any health risks associated with
    those uses. So, if there are health risks along the lines that
    you identify we will be looking at all the relevant literature.
        Ms. Blunt Rochester. I actually have a document to submit
    for the record. And it is a memorandum prepared by career staff
    in EPA's Region 10 office raising concerns about the EPA's
    problem formulation for asbestos. And I would like to submit
    this for the record.
        Mr. Shimkus. Mr. Chairman, I reluctantly object to its
    submission. As the Assistant Administrator spoke earlier, she
    can't comment on internal documents. So, for us having an open
    hearing here without her ability to comment or put the whole
    memo on context, I wish we wouldn't ask for that to be
    submitted.
        Mr. Tonko. Mr. Shimkus, I believe the representative wants
    simply to relate what she has before her and ask for a response
    from the witness. I believe if she puts it in that context,
    that she shares the statement, all we are looking for is a
    reaction to that statement.
        Ms. Blunt Rochester. Mr. Chairman, could I just briefly
    read a quote and then respond to the quote?
        Mr. Shimkus. Well, I can't stop you from reading a quote.
    My concern is a submission for the record and this not being
    the Oversight and Investigation Committee.
        But I want to also say, Chairman, if I may, and if your
    time--Can I--I am open to have a debate on these memos in a
    bipartisan process somewhere outside of this hearing.
        Mr. Tonko. Well, then I would say, fine; let the
    representative go forward with the quote.
        Ms. Blunt Rochester. OK. So, this is the quote. ``There are
    other significant lethal and nonlethal harms from asbestos
    exposures, including asbestosis and other respiratory ailments,
    ovarian cancer, colorectal cancer, and cancers of the stomach,
    esophagus, larynx, and pharynx. These additional harms should
    be included if there is to be a comprehensive evaluation of the
    risks from exposure to asbestos.''
        And so, the question was do you dispute that, that claim?
        Ms. Dunn. Well, Representative, I am not familiar with
    that. And I would prefer not to comment on internal
    deliberative conversations of our staff.
        Ms. Blunt Rochester. What I did--what I thought I did hear
    you say earlier is--because my next question was would you
    consider these cancers in the risk evaluation? And I think I
    heard you say?
        Ms. Dunn. If our evaluation of the conditions of use reveal
    that those types of cancers are a possible outgrowth of the
    ongoing conditions of use, then we would not rule them out.
        Ms. Blunt Rochester. So, Assistant Administrator Dunn, we
    always talk on this committee about risk as a product of hazard
    and exposure. And do you agree with that as part of the
    formulation?
        Ms. Dunn. That is absolutely how we approach risk at the
    United States EPA.
        Ms. Blunt Rochester. So, I have one minute.
        To me it seems obvious that excluding those hazards and
    those exposures undermines the validity of your risk evaluation
    and amounts to considering non-risk factors, which is
    prohibited under TSCA. That is why I share the chairman's
    concerns that your actions under TSCA on asbestos will not
    survive a court challenge. That is one of the concerns and why
    I don't think we can really wait to ban this substance. And I
    support this bill and hope my Republican colleagues will also
    join in supporting and doing so.
        Thank you. I yield back.
        Mr. Tonko. The representative yields back.
        The Chair now recognizes the gentleman from Ohio,
    Representative Johnson, for 5 minutes. Representative.
        Mr. Johnson. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        We are discussing a very important issue today. There is no
    question about that. I share the concerns about asbestos. I
    don't think there is any question about the health implications
    of asbestos.
        However, Assistant Administrator Dunn, I am trying to piece
    together how the implementation of the required private sector
    reporting would work based on this legislation H.R. 1603. It
    appears to be silent on how to determine if asbestos is
    contained in a material or product, in particular those
    containing asbestos as an impurity.
        So, how would the EPA define impurity for the purposes of
    implementing this legislation? Could it be one strand of fiber?
        Ms. Dunn. Thank you for your question. Currently TSCA Title
    2 defines an asbestos-containing material as a material
    containing more than 1 percent asbestos by weight. That is what
    we use today.
        Our review of the bill does not reveal that it includes a
    factor like that.
        Mr. Johnson. OK. Does it seem reasonable to you that
    standardized, cost-effective test methods may be necessary to
    implement the ban?
        Ms. Dunn. Absolutely. There are a number of different test
    methods. There is no sort of consensus method at this point. So
    it would require some time to agree in the scientific community
    as to what method would be the best of the many that exist.
        Mr. Johnson. Yes, that is some of the devil in the details,
    because when we have no agreed-upon standardized test then we
    wind up shooting with a shotgun instead of with a laser to try
    and solve a problem.
        Is there a test in particular that could easily be
    deployed?
        Ms. Dunn. In talking to our technical experts, there are a
    variety of tests. They would want to do more research to
    respond to your question in terms of how easily some might be
    deployed over others.
        Mr. Johnson. Could you get back to us on that?
        Ms. Dunn. Be happy to do that.
        Mr. Johnson. OK. And you might have to give the same answer
    for these other questions as well.
        Is there enough expertise and laboratory capacity to
    operate these tests for compliance purposes?
        Ms. Dunn. We have not done an assessment of laboratory
    capacity at this point.
        Mr. Johnson. OK. Can you get back to me when you do?
        Ms. Dunn. We can.
        Mr. Johnson. OK. Do you read H.R. 1603 to assume those
    persons subject to its ban provision would need to test
    products and materials to comply?
        Ms. Dunn. Our review of the bill does appear to require
    testing, yes.
        Mr. Johnson. OK. So, other than tobacco products,
    pesticides, guns and bullets, nuclear materials regulated by
    the Atomic Energy Act, and items regulated by the Federal Food,
    Drug, and Cosmetic Act, would every other item manufactured,
    imported, processed, or distributed in commerce be subject to
    these requirements?
        Ms. Dunn. I think the require--at least our initial
    assessment is that the bill is focused on asbestos, but it
    could certainly set testing precedent.
        Mr. Johnson. But, well, I know it is focused on asbestos
    but, you don't know until you test. So, my question is other
    than tobacco products, pesticides, guns and bullets, nuclear
    materials, and those food items or those items regulated by the
    Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act, it seems to me that every
    other item manufactured, imported, processed, or distributed in
    commerce would be subject to these testing requirements under
    the bill. Is that correct?
        Ms. Dunn. We have not done a complete assessment of that,
    but we would be happy to get back to you.
        Mr. Johnson. Would you please?
        Ms. Dunn. Yes.
        Mr. Johnson. Thinking about the utility of all this
    reporting or on a substance that is being banned, do you see a
    clear benefit to the Agency for using this information that is
    required to be collected by H.R. 1603?
        Ms. Dunn. We believe through our work under TSCA that we
    have a very good understanding of the limited, ongoing uses of
    asbestos in the United States. So, we do not believe that the
    information requested by this bill would be particularly
    helpful to the Agency. It would be a significant undertaking to
    gather it.
        Mr. Johnson. OK. Kind of a corollary then, since the risk
    evaluation of asbestos will be over by the end of 2019, and the
    bill bans asbestos, how might the Agency use all this
    information that it is going to be collecting?
        Ms. Dunn. It is unclear exactly how we would be able to use
    the information, given the timelines of our work under meeting
    the TSCA deadlines.
        Mr. Johnson. OK. All right. Mr. Chairman, I am going to
    yield back the balance of my time, a whole 20 seconds.
        Mr. Tonko. Well, I think we are a little off with the
    clock. So, it is fine, you didn't lose any seconds.
        So, the gentleman yields back. And the chair now recognizes
    the gentleman from Florida, Representative Soto, for 5 minutes.
        Mr. Soto. Thank you, Chairman.
        And I think we understand the history of this; generations
    of workers who lost their lives due to a chemical that since
    the Twenties here in the United States there was awareness of
    its toxicity. We see mesothelioma commercials are ubiquitous
    across T.V. People get a sense this is dangerous, and it no
    longer should be in society.
        So, I think one of the biggest surprises to me, being new
    on the committee, is how this took so long to even get to this
    point. A lot of my colleagues like to extol the importance of
    common sense. It would be a great time to apply it here.
        The public expects us to get it right, particularly on
    public health. They assume we are going to stop things that are
    going to kill us from being in commerce anymore, and that is
    one of our biggest, you know, duties here.
        The Lautenberg Act was a great work, great bipartisan work
    that set up a great framework. That was then, and this is now.
    We aren't bound even by this great framework that could help
    with a lot of other chemicals, as you know. We can, as our
    prerogative, set up general progress--process, and then still
    on this law get more aggressive with certain chemicals, in this
    case asbestos. Being a political branch, we are not bound by
    agency action or inaction.
        I guess my first question is: Is asbestos still being
    manufactured in the United States?
        Ms. Dunn. No. All the asbestos in the United States is
    currently imported.
        Mr. Soto. OK. So, but it is still being purchased and in
    commerce at this point?
        Ms. Dunn. It is brought into the United States for the
    limited industrial uses that I previously alluded to.
        Mr. Soto. Do you know how many new cases of asbestos
    exposure have happened post the Lautenberg Act?
        Ms. Dunn. I do not have that figure available, but I would
    be happy to get back to you on that.
        Mr. Soto. Do you have an estimate? Is it in the hundreds?
    Is it in the thousands of people?
        Ms. Dunn. I don't have an estimate of that.
        Mr. Soto. So we don't know how many people are dying still
    because of inaction; is that correct?
        Ms. Dunn. We do know that some asbestos-related diseases
    are many years in revealing themselves. So, the Lautenberg Act
    was passed in 2016, and we have been aggressively working on
    asbestos since then.
        Mr. Soto. But there could be new exposures happening post
    that, that we will find out about 10, 20 years from now; right?
    Is that fair to say?
        Ms. Dunn. Under the risk evaluation that we are conducting
    of the limited industrial uses that remain, we are looking at
    exposures, particularly to workers.
        Mr. Soto. Does EPA oppose having a ban of asbestos?
        Ms. Dunn. We have no position on the bill.
        Mr. Soto. OK. So, what's holding us back? What are the
    benefits of continuing to have asbestos in commerce currently
    in the United States?
        Ms. Dunn. Well, what we have determined--and, again, we are
    doing a risk evaluation of this process--is that for about the
    five or six industrial uses that they import asbestos to the
    United States for chlor-alkali production, sodium hydroxide
    production, several others, sheet gasket production, that this
    asbestos is still the product of choice. That is not EPA's role
    to tell the companies what product to use.
        Mr. Soto. So it's not the role of EPA to tell companies
    what product to use that we know has a substantial risk of
    cancer? Is that what you're saying there?
        Ms. Dunn. We are following our legal process. And so if we
    reach the end of our risk evaluation process and find
    unreasonable risk from the use of asbestos in these industries,
    we then have the legal power to take a number of important
    steps, which could include what you are looking for; which is
    saying that it could not be used any longer.
        Mr. Soto. And how long do you think it is going to take to
    finish this process?
        Ms. Dunn. We have two years after the end of this year to
    complete that process.
        Mr. Soto. And do you expect you will take the full two
    years?
        Ms. Dunn. I don't want to speculate on how long it will
    take us to act. We will act expeditiously.
        Mr. Soto. OK. I yield back.
        Mr. Tonko. The gentleman yields back.
        The Chair now recognizes the gentleman from Missouri,
    Representative Long, for 5 minutes. Representative.
        Mr. Long. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and thank you, Ms. Dunn,
    for being here. I think that we can all agree that asbestos is
    one of the few things that has a lower approval rating than
    members of Congress. So we, we all are in agreement that
    whatever we can do to help in this situation we need to get
    done.
        This bill before us today would require entities to report
    to the Environmental Protection Agency regarding use, quantity,
    and exposure of asbestos within the last three years prior to
    its passage. The bill would also require the Environmental
    Protection Agency to make this information public within a
    certain time frame.
        The question for you: would the EPA be able to meet the
    information collection requirements under the Paperwork
    Reduction Act for deadlines required from H.R. 1603 for
    producing reporting instructions and forms?
        Ms. Dunn. Thank you for your question. The EPA and all
    Federal agencies are always extremely cognizant of the burdens
    of information collection by the Federal Government on the
    American public and on anyone who has to respond to our
    requests. Our preliminary assessment is that the amount of data
    collection contemplated by this bill would be quite significant
    and quite impactful.
        Mr. Long. Based on how you read this legislation, do you
    have an estimate of how much it would cost the EPA to implement
    the information collection requirements?
        Ms. Dunn. We have not done an estimate.
        Mr. Long. You have no estimate at all?
        Ms. Dunn. No.
        Mr. Long. OK. What would the impact be to EPA's current
    TSCA budget to implementation? I guess you don't know that
    either if you don't know what the cost is going to be?
        Ms. Dunn. What I can tell you is that our TSCA staff are
    working dedicatedly to meet the deadlines under TSCA. This law,
    which as you know was significantly overhauled in 2016, put us
    on a very aggressive clock to look at a number of chemicals,
    the first ten. We already identified 20 more that we are
    looking at; another 20.
        What I can say is that requirements like this would
    certainly put an additional strain on our current staff.
        Mr. Long. OK. The public disclosure provisions are an
    amendment to TSCA Section 6, which are further governed by
    confidential business information provisions in Section 14, as
    well as the Federal Trade Secrets Act. This might tie into what
    you were saying a minute ago, but do you see any conflict at
    all between the information this bill requires to be released
    and existing Federal law protecting the disclosure of certain
    types of confidential information?
        Ms. Dunn. One of the obligations that we have in the
    chemical program is to be very respectful of confidential
    business information. I would like to note that the
    confidential information provisions were the provisions of TSCA
    completely struck by Congress and completely replaced.
        So, we look at those new provisions very, very carefully.
    We have not done a full analysis of any potential conflicts
    between this bill and our existing confidential business
    information requirements. But we would be happy to get back to
    your office on that.
        Mr. Long. When my friend Mr. McKinley was questioning you
    about these four or five existing commercial purposes that
    asbestos is imported into the United States for their usage,
    did I understand you all are doing a study on that or not?
        Ms. Dunn. Yes. Yes. We are required under TSCA as naming,
    since we named asbestos one of the first ten chemicals, we are
    doing a full risk evaluation of all of those uses. And at the
    end of that process we have to make a determination of
    unreasonable risk or no risk essentially.
        And so, if we reach an unreasonable risk determination, we
    then have two years to regulate it, meaning we could require a
    variety of different controls to take that risk away. There are
    lots of ways to remove risk. You could produce the chemical in
    a completely sealed box where none of it gets out.
        But another option that is open to EPA under the law is a
    ban. That is another way to remove the risk.
        Mr. Long. OK.
        Ms. Dunn. But we can't prejudge where we are going to go
    with that.
        Mr. Long. And what is your time frame as far as completing
    this study?
        Ms. Dunn. We are on track to complete the risk evaluation
    by the end of 2019. And then under TSCA we have two years to
    complete the regulatory action.
        Mr. Long. By the end of this year?
        Ms. Dunn. By the end of 2019.
        Mr. Long. December 31, 2019, your study will----
        Ms. Dunnontinuing]. --2021 we would complete the risk
    evalu--we would complete the risk management component of the
    remaining limited uses of asbestos.
        Mr. Long. OK, thank you.
        Mr. Chairman, I yield back.
        Mr. Tonko. The gentleman yields back.
        The Chair now recognizes the chairman of the full
    committee, Mr. Pallone, for 5 minutes. Mr. Chairman.
        Mr. Pallone. Thank you. Thank you, Chairman Tonko.
        Every day it seems new evidence comes to light that EPA is
    failing to protect the American people from asbestos and toxic
    chemicals in general. On asbestos, everything we have seen out
    of the Agency, from the scoping document to the recent
    Significant New Use Rule, to the denial of the petition by
    multiple State AGs, shows the desire to discount risk and
    entertain the possibility of new ones or new uses.
        So, I don't think EPA is moving towards a ban. But
    Administrator Wheeler did commit when he was here last month to
    promulgate a ban.
        So, my question to you, Ms. Dunn, are you aware of
    Administrator Wheeler's commitment to me last month to ban
    ongoing uses of asbestos under TSCA?
        Ms. Dunn. I can't comment on the administrator's
    representation to you.
        Mr. Pallone. Well, he said he was going to ban it. Is there
    a timeline for finalizing the ban or do you know anything about
    what he is going to do in terms of finalizing a ban?
        Ms. Dunn. I can't comment on that. What I can comment on is
    that we continue to do our work under TSCA to complete our
    asbestos risk evaluation on time this year.
        Mr. Pallone. Well, let me go back to this risk evaluation.
    One of my biggest concerns with your risk, your asbestos risk
    evaluation is the Agency's position that you have the
    discretion to exclude significant exposures. So, let me ask,
    the scoping document for the asbestos risk evaluation excluded
    exposure, and I quote, ``to legacy asbestos from EPA's risk
    evaluation.'' Is that correct?
        Ms. Dunn. Yes.
        Mr. Pallone. OK. Have you changed course or will the risk
    evaluation, which is due to be published next month, exclude
    the risk from legacy asbestos?
        Ms. Dunn. We are not ignoring the legacy asbestos problem,
    Representative. However, we do believe that there are extensive
    Federal, local, and State requirements that address legacy
    asbestos if it is to be disturbed and removed, demolished
    essentially.
        Mr. Pallone. You have also excluded exposure from disposal
    of legacy asbestos, despite the fact that disposal is
    explicitly included in the statute. Is that correct, that you
    have excluded exposure from disposal?
        Ms. Dunn. We are looking at the ongoing uses of asbestos in
    commerce today, and that is in the manufacturing process.
        Mr. Pallone. But I mean, do you, don't you, won't you
    acknowledge that disposal is explicitly included in the
    statute?
        Ms. Dunn. Absolutely TSCA defines use as processing,
    manufacture, import, disposal, et cetera, yes.
        Mr. Pallone. Well, then how do you exclude exposure from
    disposal?
        Ms. Dunn. In formulating that scoping document there was a
    determination made which certainly through the peer review
    process and through the transparent process we will follow this
    summer could certainly be questioned whether that was a
    reasonable assumption by our scientific experts that that could
    come up.
        Mr. Pallone. I mean the exclusion of the legacy asbestos
    and the legacy disposal is, I think, a major reason why I think
    Section 3 of my bill is so important. But I am also concerned
    that you have excluded relevant cancers, relevant forms of
    asbestos, significant exposure pathways. And I think your are
    failing to meet the letter and spirit of the law by failing to
    evaluate firefighters as a relevant disproportionately exposed
    subpopulation.
        Have you reversed course any of those things that I just
    mentioned?
        Ms. Dunn. We have not had discussions around those items. I
    would be happy to follow up with your office to talk more about
    them.
        Mr. Pallone. I appreciate that. In my view these are fatal
    flaws in your risk evaluation that are going to doom any future
    regulatory action. And as one of the original drafters of the
    Lautenberg Act, I can tell you that we did not intend for EPA
    to conduct risk evaluations that ignore major drivers of risk,
    like the risks posed by legacy asbestos. And I don't think your
    actions implementing TSCA comport with the law. I don't think
    you are moving towards a ban, even though Mr. Wheeler said so.
        And so I urge my colleagues to join us in supporting the
    bill. And that is why we need to have this bill that bans
    asbestos once and for all.
        Can I just ask a question, while there is not much time?
    Pigment violet 29, as part of your risk evaluation for pigment
    violet 29, you identified several studies that have been
    submitted to the European Chemicals Agency that would be
    relevant to your evaluation. Is that correct?
        Ms. Dunn. That is correct.
        Mr. Pallone. And you tried to identify United States
    entities that have those studies in order to inform your risk
    evaluation; is that correct?
        Ms. Dunn. Right.
        Mr. Pallone. You then reached out to the EU entities in
    possession of those studies so you could use them in your risk
    evaluation; correct?
        Ms. Dunn. Right.
        Mr. Pallone. And then you received those studies from the
    EU entities and used them in your risk evaluation. That is
    correct as well?
        Ms. Dunn. That is correct.
        Mr. Pallone. All right. I think I have run out of time, Mr.
    Chairman, on that. But I will ask you to get back to us on what
    you offered before on the asbestos.
        Ms. Dunn. Be happy to.
        Mr. Pallone. Thank you.
        Mr. Tonko. The gentleman yields back.
        The Chair now recognizes the gentleman from the State of
    South Carolina, Mr. Duncan, for 5 minutes, please.
        Mr. Duncan. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and, I thank the
    witness for being here.
        Administrator Dunn, I am struggling with how some of the
    provisions of this bill will be used. H.R. 1603 requires a
    legacy use consensus--or census of asbestos within 18 months of
    enactment.
        I'm from South Carolina. I lived in South Carolina, North
    Carolina, Virginia. We have textile communities all over our
    States. And those textile communities back in the day, the
    local textile mill-built houses for its employees. Many of
    those houses were built prior to 1950. Many of those houses
    have asbestos siding still. A lot of those houses have been
    renovated by the owners and that asbestos siding has been
    covered up by more modern siding. Right? So, keep that in mind.
        How challenging would it be for the EPA to coordinate with
    the Departments of Labor and Health and Human Services to
    produce a report that accurately estimates the presence of
    asbestos in every residential, commercial, industrial, public,
    and school building and the extent of exposure and risk not
    later than 18 months after enactment?
        Folks, there is no way in Washington that you can determine
    every house just in the South. That is not counting all the
    northern communities that are like textile communities in the
    South where there might be asbestos in the siding. No way. And
    definitely not in 18 months.
        And so the number of buildings nationwide, the amount of
    asbestos remaining in the United States, how hard is that going
    to be for you?
        Ms. Dunn. We identified this provision of the bill as being
    a significant challenge to do well. We pride ourselves at EPA,
    when asked to undertake assessments, of being comprehensive,
    thorough, and accurate. And under 18 months we are questioning
    whether we could come close to completion.
        Mr. Duncan. Are you going to send every homeowner, every
    landlord a questionnaire and say, does the house that you own
    have asbestos siding?
        Ms. Dunn. We had not even begun to think about how we would
    implement it. But I think even gettingresponses----
        Mr. Duncan. That is a heck of a lot of properties.
        Ms. Dunn. It is. We do not have the ability to enter
    private property.
        Mr. Duncan. We have probably already identified most of the
    public buildings and school buildings and that sort of thing
    that may or may not have asbestos. But in those school
    districts we are going to have to spend a lot of resource
    looking at the insulation in their boiler rooms, on their
    pipes, to look at their sidings, their roofing insulation
    materials. How do you plan to leverage resources without any
    additional funding?
        Ms. Dunn. That would be a significant challenge. And as I
    stated earlier, when asbestos is intact and not disturbed it
    does not generally pose a risk.
        Mr. Duncan. All right. Do you have the resources and
    employees to complete this report without disrupting ongoing
    activities at the Agency?
        Ms. Dunn. It would impact.
        Mr. Duncan. I mean, are you going to have to pull people
    from other projects to conduct a survey and provide a report in
    18 months?
        Ms. Dunn. I am not sure our colleagues in other offices
    with other statutory obligations would look kindly on us
    borrowing their people, but I think we would have a very
    difficult job getting this work done with our existing
    resources.
        Mr. Duncan. All right. So, H.R. 1603 requires the President
    rather than the Administrator to determine whether an exemption
    is granted. It also prevents the use of waiver by EPA to
    protect national defense. Since the exemption only applies to
    national security and limits the President's ability to use
    asbestos in the interests of the nation in mind, does this
    limitation on the President infringe upon the President's
    Article II, Section 2 powers under the Constitution in your
    opinion?
        Ms. Dunn. We have not fully assessed the implications of
    this provision, but we did identify it as of concern because
    Section 22 of TSCA already has a definition of national defense
    that appears to be in conflict with what is in the bill.
        Mr. Duncan. All right. I appreciate your being here.
        Let me just make a point. As this bill moves forward there
    will probably be amendments proposed that will give more
    timeline if we are going to do a census. I think there is an
    agreement that asbestos in certain forms and areas are toxic
    and are detrimental to the health of folks in the nation. But
    there has got to be some common sense injected into
    legislation, and I hope to do that in full committee in mark-
    up.
        I thank you for being here today.
        Mr. Shimkus. Would the gentleman yield for his last----
        Mr. Duncan. Yes, yes.
        Mr. Shimkus. I just want to check for the record, if we
    could check the record for the Wheeler hearing and make sure. I
    think he said he would like to. Well, I would check the record
    to make sure that that is what the Administrator said.
        I yield back.
        Mr. Duncan. I reclaim my time and I yield back, Mr.
    Chairman.
        Mr. Tonko. The gentleman yields back.
        The Chair now recognizes the gentleman from the State of
    California, Representative McNerney, for 5 minutes.
        Mr. McNerney. I want to thank the Chairman, and I thank Ms.
    Dunn for testifying this morning.
        But I want to focus on an important part of the legislation
    under consideration, namely the definition of asbestos. This
    bill makes clear that the ban on asbestos should include
    several forms that were excluded from the EPA's proposed ban
    back in 1989 because we didn't know back then that they had,
    some of these other forms had the same properties and same
    risks. This includes several of the Libby amphiboles that have
    been connected to the terrible burden of disease in Libby,
    Montana.
        I have a document here, a memorandum from career staff in
    EPA's Region 10 office that was sent to your office regarding
    the proposed asbestos Significant New Use Rule, or SNUR,
    raising concerns about the definition of asbestos in that
    document. Now, I will go over some parts of the document with
    you.
        The career staff in Region 10 raised a concern about the
    proposed SNUR because it focused only on the six forms of
    asbestos covered in the original 1989 ban. Does the final SNUR
    focus only on those six forms?
        Ms. Dunn. The--we are, we did not redefine asbestos for the
    purposes of the final action we took in April. We are using the
    definition of asbestos in Title 2 of the statute, which does
    not include the two fibers that you are referring to,
    richterite and winchite.
        Mr. McNerney. So we are restricting this to only the six
    forms? That is a yes or no answer.
        Ms. Dunn. We are using the current statutory definition.
        Mr. McNerney. This Region 10 memo cites W.R. Grace
    Superfund case from 2002 concerning the Libby contaminants
    where the Federal District Court rules that the Libby
    amphiboles are in fact asbestos. Are you aware of that case?
        Ms. Dunn. I am not familiar with that case.
        Mr. McNerney. OK. I would recommend that you familiarize
    yourself.
        The Region 10 memo also states, and I am quoting, ``the EPA
    is now aware that there are more than six types of asbestos
    fiber, including several Libby amphiboles which the EPA has
    known about since the 1990s.''
        Do you agree with that statement that the EPA was aware
    that there are other forms?
        Ms. Dunn. I do not have a position on that statement. We
    are using the definition of asbestos in the Act.
        Mr. McNerney. All right. This memo is focused on the
    asbestos SNUR, but the same concerns hold true for overall risk
    evaluation and possible risk management. Is your risk
    evaluation for asbestos going to include exposures to all forms
    of asbestos?
        Ms. Dunn. Our risk evaluation is looking at the limited
    ongoing industrial uses of asbestos today. There are
    approximately five or six.
        Mr. McNerney. Additional types?
        Ms. Dunn. Uses that are still ongoing.
        Mr. McNerney. Uses?
        Ms. Dunn. Yes.
        Mr. McNerney. So you will consider just the six types in
    these five or six uses?
        Ms. Dunn. Right. We are--we are, exactly, yes.
        And the types of asbestos fibers that are used in these
    ongoing industrial manufacturing settings are within the
    current definition of asbestos in the statute.
        Mr. McNerney. So it seems to me like you are missing out on
    quite of bit of risk with regard to additional asbestos types
    that are damaging the American public; is that right?
        Ms. Dunn. Well, we feel very confident that looking at the
    ongoing conditions of use of asbestos in these industrial
    applications will allow us to do a very protective risk
    evaluation.
        Mr. McNerney. Well, I think it is important to define and
    ban all forms of asbestos, not just the six we knew about 30
    years ago. It is clear that an accurate definition of asbestos
    in this bill is one of the most important reasons that this
    bill will be more protective than other actions coming out of
    the EPA.
        Mr. Chairman, I thank you for holding the hearing and I
    yield back.
        Mr. Tonko. The gentleman yields back.
        The Chair now recognizes the gentleman from the State of
    Georgia, Representative Carter, for 5 minutes, please.
        Mr. Carter. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and thank
    you, Ms. Dunn, for being here. I appreciate it very much. This
    is a very important subject for all of us.
        Let me ask just a couple of broad simple questions to begin
    with. Since the Toxic Substances Control Act was passed in
    2016, what kind of extra authority has it given EPA? I mean,
    you have some explicit authorities as a result of that. Can you
    explain those to me very quickly?
        Ms. Dunn. Yes. It is a very powerful law. It Acts, puts us
    on a very aggressive time frame to look at chemicals.
        Some of the things we are most proud of-we have just
    completed an inventory of chemicals in the United States. It
    was estimated that there were over 83,000 chemicals in commerce
    in the United States We have checked with the manufacturers and
    importers and we just announced and finalized that the list is
    actually half. It is about 40,000 chemicals in commerce in the
    United States. So, we cut the list in half. That cuts our
    workload in half.
        But we have to bit by bit work our way through that list.
    We are starting with the chemicals on the 2014 TSCA work plan.
    We are starting with the first ten chemicals that we have been
    talking about today including asbestos. We have already named
    20 high priority chemicals that we are going to start looking
    at next year, as well as 20 lower priority chemicals.
        Mr. Carter. Right. And certainly this is important for a
    number of reasons. Particularly in my district I assume that a
    lot of these go through ports and seaports. And being the home
    of two major seaports in coastal Georgia, this is extremely
    important for us. Our constituents are very concerned about
    this and about the work you have been doing.
        Now, it is my understanding that you are currently
    reviewing the use of asbestos.
        Ms. Dunn. We are.
        Mr. Carter. And that you are going to be releasing your
    draft findings soon. Do you know when that will be?
        Ms. Dunn. We anticipate it will be, I will say, before the
    end of the late summer. We have a scientific review panel that
    has to review it. And most of those individuals are academics.
    The best time to get academics is when they are not teaching
    classes. So, we want to make sure that that information is
    available for them to meet and review in June, July, and August
    of this summer.
        Mr. Carter. OK. Well, I think it is clear from the hearing
    today that none of us, you know, want to see anybody harmed. We
    want protection for everyone.
        I will be quite honest with you, it is my understanding the
    majority of asbestos is no longer being in production, is no
    longer in use. But is any? I didn't realize there were any----
        Ms. Dunn. There is only----
        Mr. Carter [continuing]. Forms of asbestos out there.
        Ms. Dunn. There are only five ongoing limited industrial
    uses of asbestos in the United States today. It is in
    manufacturing. All of the asbestos that is used is imported. So
    there is no ongoing asbestos mining in the United States
    anymore. And that is something that would be covered by our
    activity that we took a few weeks----
        Mr. Carter. Whoa, whoa, whoa. Hold on. I don't mean to
    interrupt you, but you raise my concern here. If it is coming
    from out of the country, then we are not having any regulation
    over it before it gets here? Do we, are we checking it when it
    gets here?
        Ms. Dunn. Well, any import of a chemical does have to be
    checked at the border.
        Mr. Carter. But specifically asbestos? That is what I am
    concerned with here.
        Ms. Dunn. As asbestos is coming in, what we are doing right
    now is a comprehensive risk evaluation of that type of asbestos
    and the uses that it is still being used in the United States,
    which is in the manufacture of brake blocks for oil drilling,
    automotive brakes, vehicle friction products, some gaskets, and
    a couple of chemical productions.
        Mr. Carter. OK. Specific to those that you just mentioned--
    --
        Ms. Dunn. Yes.
        Mr. Carter [continuing]. What is EPA doing to guard against
    any problems there may be with those specific ones that you
    just listed?
         Ms. Dunn. Well, any imports of chemicals have to be
    handled with border, Customs and Border Protection now.
        Mr. Carter. So you are grouping them into all chemicals,
    not just focusing on these that you just listed?
        Ms. Dunn. All. We manage the import of all chemicals.
        Mr. Carter. You see where I am coming from. It would just
    appear to me that you would be more concerned because we know
    the dangers of asbestos. It would seem to me that you would be
    more concerned with those than you would be for just
    generalizing them and putting them into a broad group.
        Ms. Dunn. No, I understand where you are coming from. My--
    again, the manufacturers, those companies that are using
    asbestos in these limited applications certainly are trying to
    produce a high-quality product. They also have a business
    interest in ensuring that all the ingredients that they use are
    safe in how they are using them.
        Mr. Carter. OK. I am still a little concerned about that.
    So, please, let's take that as being noted. I appreciate it.
        Thank you very much again for being here and I yield back.
        Mr. Tonko. The gentleman yields back.
        The Chair now recognizes the gentle lady from the State of
    California, Representative Matsui, for 5 minutes.
    Representative.
        Ms. Matsui. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        You know, since this hearing was noticed my colleagues and
    I have heard from an array of industries that rely upon the
    chlor-alkali industry to produce chlorine and caustic soda.
    These industries are concerned about a possible disruption in
    the chlor-alkali industry, so I want to ask s few questions
    about how and why some members of that industry use asbestos.
        Roughly one-third of the chlorine chlor-alkali industry
    uses asbestos diaphragms in their production process. Is that
    right?
        Ms. Dunn. That, I don't have the figures in front of me but
    that sounds ballpark.
        Ms. Matsui. Does that seem right? OK.
        What information have you sought from those members of this
    industry? And what information have they given you about their
    plans to replace their asbestos diaphragms with other
    diaphragms?
        Ms. Dunn. We have collected extensive information from the
    manufacturers. I would like to be able to get back to you,
    Representative, on what information they may have provided to
    us around alternatives or plans to replace. I don't have that
    information.
        Ms. Matsui. OK. Now, several years ago a large section of
    the chlor-alkali industry changed their--changed over their
    plants to phase out dangerous mercury in their processes. Did
    that transition disrupt the chlorine or caustic soda markets?
        Ms. Dunn. I would have to check with our experts and get
    back to you on that, Representative.
        Ms. Matsui. OK. Isn't it true that non-asbestos diaphragms
    using other chlor-alkali plants are more energy efficient and
    have longer service lives than asbestos?
        Ms. Dunn. Once again, with regard to some of the technical
    questions I would be more than happy to consult with our career
    experts and provide that information back to you very quickly.
        Ms. Matsui. OK. Because my understanding is that it is more
    efficient, so that those who use asbestos could realize energy
    and climate benefits in addition to the benefits of getting rid
    of the toxic asbestos.
        So I would really like that information. I think it is very
    important.
        Ms. Dunn. Absolutely.
        Ms. Matsui. Now, your agency has extensive authority under
    the TSCA to get data from manufacturers. What information has
    your agency requested from the chlor-alkali industry about the
    exposures faced by its workers and by the workers who handle
    disposal of the diaphragms?
        Ms. Dunn. Well, in terms of preparing for our risk
    evaluation we have requested extensive information from the
    manufacturers who are using asbestos in the chlor-alkali
    production. We have a number of studies regarding exposures
    provided to us. And I can find out. We try to have a very
    transparent process and make all of our information available.
        Ms. Matsui. OK. What information have you requested about
    health monitoring and incidents of cancer among workers in the
    chlor-alkali industry?
        Ms. Dunn. So, again, in doing our comprehensive risk
    evaluation we look for all types of information with regard to
    exposures, illness, et cetera.
        Ms. Matsui. And you have that information?
        Ms. Dunn. If we have the information I will go back and
    talk to our staff and see if we can make that available.
        Ms. Matsui. OK. What can you tell us about the fate of
    asbestos diaphragms used in industry? How are they disposed?
    Have they contributed to contamination of land or water?
        Ms. Dunn. I, again that is a--I apologize, that is a
    technical question, but I would like to be able to get back to
    you on that. I do not have that information with me at this
    moment.
        Ms. Matsui. Well, I think it is very important that we
    understand the risk to workers in the industry and also the
    alternatives that might be available to members of the
    industry.
        Ms. Dunn. And the information that you are asking about is
    all included in our risk evaluation of chlor-alkali production.
    So, all of those forms of releases, disposal, manufacturing
    will all be addressed in the document.
        Ms. Matsui. In the document.
        Ms. Dunn. That we are completing and will be available for
    public review and peer review late this summer.
        Ms. Matsui. So, does that also include the information I
    asked you previously that you can get back to me on? Or is that
    additional information you need to get for me?
        Ms. Dunn. Well, I certainly wouldn't make you wait for
    that, so I will make sure that we get back to you more
    promptly.
        Ms. Matsui. OK. I expect to get it as promptly as possible.
        Ms. Dunn. Absolutely.
        Ms. Matsui. Thank you. And I yield back.
        Mr. Tonko. The gentle lady yields back.
        The Chair now recognizes the Republican leader of the full
    committee, Representative Walden, for 5 minutes.
        Mr. Walden. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        And I don't know, you may have to get back to me on this
    one for the record. I am told 36 percent of domestic chlorine
    production is manufactured using a totally enclosed process
    that does use an asbestos filter. Assuming H.R. 1603 becomes
    law and the ability to continue this process ceases, the Safe
    Drinking Water Act has provisions--and we reauthorized that in
    a bipartisan way in the last Congress--that requires access to
    chlorine, chemicals for public water systems that disinfect
    their water with chlorine.
        Do you read the language in H.R. 1603 to create a potential
    conflict between its provisions and that section of the Safe
    Drinking Water Act? I know that is pretty technical, but.
        Mr. Dunn. It is an important topic. And what I would like
    to do is bring this back to our Office of Water----
        Mr. Walden. Yes.
        Mr. Dunn [continuing]. And ask for their perspective on it
    and get back to you.
        Mr. Walden. Yes, I would like that. That would be--and I
    understand. Because we are obviously very concerned as we go
    down this path what are the unintended consequences.
        Mr. Dunn. Absolutely.
        Mr. Walden. And, you know, we don't want to get into a
    situation where water utilities may not be able to get what
    they need to be compliant with safe drinking water.
        EPA recently denied petitions for collecting additional
    information under TSCA asbestos. Why?
        Mr. Dunn. We received two petitions. We looked at both of
    them very carefully. We have published in the Federal Register
    detailed reasons why we denied. But, in short, due to our
    comprehensive assessment of the limited ongoing uses of
    asbestos today in the industrial sector we did not believe that
    the petitions would, the actions they were asking us to take
    and the information they were asking us to collect would,
    enhance our knowledge.
        Mr. Walden. OK. So that is why you would consider the
    information petitioned----
        Mr. Dunn. Would not----
        Mr. Walden [continuing]. Would not be helpful?
        Mr. Dunn. Would not add information to EPA that we did not
    already have.
        Mr. Walden. OK. All right. In carrying out its work under
    TSCA, Section 6, has EPA missed any of what some of us would
    argue are pretty aggressive timelines Congress placed on the
    Agency, either as it relates to asbestos or any of the other
    chemicals you are evaluating? Are you on target in time?
        Mr. Dunn. We are proud to say that we have met every
    chemical-related deadline under TSCA?
        Mr. Walden. Including asbestos?
        Mr. Dunn. We are on track to meet asbestos on time.
        Mr. Walden. All right. All right. Because those were pretty
    aggressive. I mean, sometimes when we legislate, we put down
    timelines. And some agencies are better at meeting those than
    others, and sometimes our timing is off. But you are on target?
        Ms. Dunn. We are on target. We are working very, very hard.
         Mr. Walden. All right. All right.
        Ms. Dunn. Our team is doing a great job.
        Mr. Walden. All right. Those are the questions I have for
    now. I will look forward to hearing back from you, Ms. Dunn.
    And thanks for your leadership over there.
        Ms. Dunn. Thank you.
        Mr. Walden. Mr. Chair, I yield back.
        Mr. Tonko. The Chair yields back. The gentleman yields
    back.
        The Chair now recognizes the representative from
    California, Representative Ruiz, for 5 minutes, please.
        Mr. Ruiz. Thank you, Chairman. Thank you, Assistant
    Administrator Dunn, for being here.
        I support the efforts to decrease the use of asbestos. In
    fact, eliminating the risk of asbestos causing lung cancer,
    mesothelioma, asbestosis, and other scarring of the lung tissue
    that can greatly and terribly affect a person's quality of life
    is something that we should all strive to do, given that it is
    so horrible to experience shortness of breath.
        It is devastating for families when somebody gets diagnosed
    with lung cancers only simply because they were just doing
    their job. And those responsible to ensure that they had a safe
    job to work in failed to adequately prohibit and prevent those
    risks from happening in the first place.
        It is still astonishing that in 2019 we are still
    manufacturing and just recently imported tons of asbestos from
    Russia, China, and Brazil, and still processing new asbestos
    materials in this country given all the science and all the
    public health dilemmas that our public health experts have
    already identified and are warning us about.
        Many of us have been following the court cases concerning
    exposure to asbestos as a contaminant in talc powder. You use
    that to get beach sand off your legs; use that in children, in
    babies. But I doubt many realized that it is still legal to
    have asbestos as a contaminant in consumer products.
        This bill would change that. And under this bill, the
    manufacture and processing of asbestos even as a contaminant
    would be banned. So, to me this is an incredibly important part
    of this bill. Whether it is makeup sold to kids and teenagers,
    talc powder sold for babies, potting soil or other products;
    our products should be asbestos free, period.
        And I want to make sure that we get this part right. So,
    Assistant Administrator Dunn, I have a couple of technical
    questions for you.
        The bill uses the term ``impurity'' because the term
    appears in your TSCA regulations already. How do you understand
    the term ``impurity''?
        Ms. Dunn. So, thank you so much. This is an important issue
    and I understand the concern with trace elements of asbestos in
    consumer products. We----
        Mr. Ruiz. So, the term ``impurity'', how do you define
    ``impurity''?
        Ms. Dunn. We currently define ``impurity'' as material
    containing more than 1 percent asbestos by weight.
        Mr. Ruiz. OK. And so, I heard from some of the stakeholders
    that the word ``contaminant'' might be more clear. In your
    view, is the term ``contaminant'' different from ``impurity''?
        Ms. Dunn. We have not conducted an assessment of whether
    different words would be more effective.
        Mr. Ruiz. Can you take that back and respond to my question
    in writing?
        Ms. Dunn. We could certainly take a look at that for you.
        Mr. Ruiz. All right. Because I think that would be
    important. And because I think that the question, I want to ask
    is: Would we be missing anything by not including the word
    ``contaminant''?
        Ms. Dunn. I understand your question. And we will make sure
    that we get back to you. As noted, EPA provides technical
    assistance to Congress as Congress----
        Mr. Ruiz. Does EPA have a technical definition of
    ``contaminant''?
        Ms. Dunn. We may have a definition under other programs. It
    is certainly an important term in the Superfund program. I am
    not aware of it having----
        Mr. Ruiz. OK.
        Ms. Dunn [continuing]. A meaning in this law.
        Mr. Ruiz. So, I want to make sure that this bill is clear
    that we are--what we are intending, which is to ban asbestos in
    products, whether it be on purpose or by accident, as an
    impurity, a contaminant, ingredient, anything. Just completely
    not in the products.
        In your view, is the bill clear on that point?
        Ms. Dunn. We continue to be available to provide technical
    assistance. We do think that some clarity around, for example,
    the definition would be needed; the 1 percent. How much are we
    talking about? There are trace elements, as you mentioned, of
    asbestos in a variety of products.
        Mr. Ruiz. OK, thank you. That is all my questions. I yield
    back.
        Mr. Tonko. Thank you. The gentleman yields back.
        And now the chair recognizes the gentleman from Virginia,
    the very patient Representative McEachin.
        Mr. McEachin. The penalty for being tardy, Mr. Chairman.
    Thank you.
        Assistant Administrator Dunn, I am going to ask you some
    questions about the Significant New Use Rule. Hopefully they
    will be brief and straightforward, but let's see if we can't
    work together on that.
        When EPA issues a Significant New Use Rule identifying a
    new use as significant, is that use banned?
        Ms. Dunn. The terminology can be a bit confusing. A
    Significant New Use means that the use would be new, and EPA
    would have to review it. So, the effect is that it is not
    ongoing today. And if someone were to want to commence those
    activities, they would have to come to use under the
    Significant New Use Rule and propose, essentially, a
    significant new use of asbestos. An example could be to use it
    in roofing tiles, and EPA would conduct a risk evaluation of
    whether that could be done safely.
        Mr. McEachin. So, as I hear your answer then, even when you
    issue the rule you leave the door open for some sort of use? Is
    that correct?
        Ms. Dunn. The door is open; the door is open. We are not
    aware of anyone who is planning on taking advantage of bringing
    back the dormant uses of asbestos.
        Mr. McEachin. OK. At the present time?
        Ms. Dunn. At the present time we are not aware. And EPA
    would have to review any such proposal.
        Mr. McEachin. OK. Do you foresee the possibility that you
    would approve a pre-manufacture notice for an asbestos use
    listed in a Significant New Use Rule?
        Ms. Dunn. While I can't predispose how we might come out, I
    think it would be highly unlikely that we would find some of
    those legacy uses to be able to be recommenced in a safe manner
    in the United States. There is a reason that they have been
    dormant and that no one is pursuing them.
        Mr. McEachin. And I appreciate your candor. But it still
    sounds like to me that there is that possibility, no matter how
    remote.
        Ms. Dunn. Under our legal authority we have to do the risk
    evaluation before we can ban.
        Mr. McEachin. You know, I don't think we should allow the
    possibility of new uses. We should be getting asbestos out of
    our products and out of our commerce and not offering a pathway
    back to market uses that we have abandoned decades ago. Was the
    Significant New Use Rule required by statute or did you do it
    voluntarily--or did the Agency do it voluntarily?
        Ms. Dunn. The Agency undertook it to close the loophole
    left from the lawsuit that in 1991 where EPA in 1989 tried to
    ban all of these uses and was unsuccessful through litigation.
    And so, we have now closed that loophole. We are the first
    administration to take action in 30 years under TSCA on
    asbestos.
        Mr. McEachin. Did you have contacts, or did the Agency have
    contacts with the chemical industry before the rule was issued?
        Ms. Dunn. I did not have contacts. I can't speak to
    everyone in the agency, but I certainly did not.
        Mr. McEachin. Will you provide the committee with your
    office's correspondence with the American Chemistry Council and
    chemical manufacturers regarding the asbestos Significant New
    Use Rule?
        Ms. Dunn. I understand that we regularly provide documents
    to Congress, and I will ask our Office of Congressional Affairs
    to follow up to provide you what you are seeking.
        Mr. McEachin. Thank you very much. I yield back, Mr.
    Chairman.
        Mr. Tonko. The gentleman yields back.
        That concludes our first panel. And we again thank our
    Assistant Administrator Dunn. Thank you for joining us today.
        At this time I ask that staff prepare the witness table so
    that we may begin our second panel shortly.
        Ms. Dunn. Thank you.
        Mr. Tonko. Thank you, Administrator.
        OK, we will now hear testimony from private sector
    stakeholders on this legislation. And we have four witnesses on
    our second panel. And I will introduce those individuals.
        We have Ms. Linda Reinstein, Co-founder of Asbestos Disease
    Awareness Organization.
        We have Rebecca, Ms. Rebecca Reindel, Senior Safety and
    Health Specialist, on behalf of the AFL-CIO.
        We have Mr. Walls, first name Michael, Mr. Michael Walls,
    Vice President of Regulatory and technical Affairs, American
    Chemistry Council; and Dr. Celeste Monforton, Lecturer, Texas
    State University, on behalf of the American Public Health
    Association.
        We want to thank our witnesses for joining us today. We
    look forward to your testimony. And at this time the chair
    recognizes Ms. Reinstein for her opening statement. Thank you
    so much, and you have 5 minutes, with no lights.

      STATEMENTS OF LINDA REINSTEIN, CO-FOUNDER, ASBESTOS DISEASE
      AWARENESS ORGANIZATION; REBECCA REINDEL, SENIOR SAFETY AND
    HEALTH SPECIALIST, ON BEHALF OF THE AFL-CIO; MICHAEL P. WALLS,
     VICE PRESIDENT OF REGULATORY AND TECHNICAL AFFAIRS, AMERICAN
    CHEMISTRY COUNCEL; AND CELESTE MONFORTON, LECTURER, TEXAS STATE
    UNIVERSITY, ON BEHALF OF THE AMERICAN PUBLIC HEALTH ASSOCIATION

                      STATEMENT OF LINDA REINSTEIN

        Ms. Reinstein. Thank you, Chairman Tonko, Ranking Member
    Shimkus, members of the committee for giving me the honor and
    the opportunity to testify in support of H.R. 1603, Alan
    Reinstein Ban Asbestos Now Act, ARBAN. My written testimony has
    been submitted for the record.
        I am neither a lobbyist nor an attorney. I am a
    mesothelioma widow and the co-founder of the Asbestos Disease
    Awareness Organization, ADAO, an independent non-profit
    dedicated to preventing exposure to asbestos to eliminate
    deadly diseases that it causes. For the fifth time I am
    testifying on behalf of ADAO, but also your constituents who
    suffer from or have been silenced by asbestos-caused diseases.
        Today's ban assessing legislation hearing is a landmark
    step forward for public health. And I am honored to have H.R.
    1603 named after my husband, but it is really for the hundreds
    of thousands of Alans who paid a price for this manmade
    disaster with their lives.
        My daughter Emily is sitting to my left. She was just 10
    when her father Alan was diagnosed with mesothelioma. He opted
    for a radical procedure to remove a rib, resect his left lung,
    strip off his pericardium, and surgically replace his diaphragm
    in hopes for more time with us. He fought a hard 3-year battle.
    And, like we know, mesothelioma patients rarely win, he died
    three years later with Emily and me by his side.
        This picture on the table represents my husband and the
    hundreds of thousands of Americans who died painful, premature,
    and preventable deaths.
        Emily and I are not alone. Each day more than 100 Americans
    die from mesothelioma, lung, ovarian, laryngeal cancers,
    asbestosis, and other pleural disease, yet imports continue.
    Alarmingly, my new research, which you will all have on the
    back table, has revealed that since the EPA tried to ban
    asbestos and it was overturned in 1991, one million Americans--
    one million Americans--have died from these preventable
    diseases.
        This snapshot is only a small piece of time, because you
    can imagine over the past 100 years how many Americans have
    died from these preventable diseases.
        Think for just one moment not about our family, about the
    millions of families that have love lost--loved and lost loved
    ones due to the chemical while our government has done nothing.
    Thirty years after EPA, actually 30 years after EPA tried to
    ban asbestos the facts remain irrefutable. All forms of
    asbestos, including chrysotile, are a known human carcinogen.
    There is no safe or controlled use of asbestos.
        Knowing the unreasonable risk, we have allowed over 300,000
    metric tons to be imported and used in the past 28 years. Now,
    companies recognizing the risk decades ago have actually
    transitioned to safer and economical substitutes. However, the
    chlor-alkali industry has refused. Today, Olin Corporation,
    Occidental Chemical Corporation, Axial/Westlake Corporation are
    still importing, using, and lobbying, lobbying for an
    exemption. To be clear, they use chrysotile asbestos diaphragms
    to produce chlorine and caustic soda, but there are three
    methods. This is just one.
        Our research reveals only 1 percent of their chlorine
    production is for drinking water, the rest is for industrial
    chlorine uses. Last year this industry imported 750 metric tons
    of raw asbestos from Russia and Brazil. Seven hundred and fifty
    metric tons. Now, there are numerous asbestos exposure pathways
    from mining, transporting between port to plant, within the
    plant, and disposal. That is a massive amount of opportunity.
    It is beyond a glovebox.
        EPA risk evaluations are excluding the effects of asbestos
    that we find, the legacy in our homes, schools, and workplaces.
    And let me tell you, an impurity 1 percent by weight is not
    protective. If you have a 100-pound bag of play sand, could you
    really have a pound of asbestos and have it be legal? As a
    widow, I say no.
        They are also excluding various cancers, which you heard
    the committee describe: ovarian, laryngeal, asbestosis, other
    diseases. During the past decade since I have been coming to
    Washington--actually it is 15 years--asbestos has been the
    poster child for meaningful TSCA reform. And I agree with
    Ranking Member Shimkus: I hate asbestos. And the EPA has failed
    to do their job. We can't wait and hope that EPA with their
    risk evaluation will lead to a ban while the Agency is failing.
    And Congress must expeditiously move this bill forward.
        I look forward to answering your questions. And thank you
    for your leadership.
        [The prepared statement of Ms. Reinstein follows:]

    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        Mr. Tonko. Thank you, Ms. Reinstein, for your very
    compelling testimony.
        Ms. Reindel, you are recognized for 5 minutes, please.

                      STATEMENT OF REBECCA REINDEL

        Ms. Reindel. Chairman Tonko, Ranking Member Shimkus and
    members of the committee, I appreciate the opportunity to
    testify today on behalf of the AFL-CIO on this legislation to
    ban asbestos. My full written testimony has been submitted to
    the committee for the record.
        The AFL-CIO is a federation of 55 national and
    international unions. And we represent more than 12.5 million
    union members who work side by side millions of non-unionized
    workers. Over the last four decades, the AFL-CIO and our
    affiliated unions have acted to protect workers from the
    hazards of asbestos exposure through the development and
    implementation of asbestos regulations and legislation. We
    strongly support this Federal legislation to ban asbestos, H.R.
    1603. WE applaud the efforts of Representative Bonamici and
    this committee to champion and guide this legislation in the
    House, and the effort of Senator Merkley to initiate similar
    legislation in the Senate.
        Asbestos is the poster child of the historical failure
    under the original Toxic Substances Control Act: to protect
    people from a chemical known to have serious health effects at
    very low levels of exposure and known to be extremely difficult
    to control over its long lifespan. In the development of the
    2016 bipartisan Frank Lautenberg Act no one doubted its aim to
    fix the law to ban asbestos indefinitely, definitively.
        But we are here today because EPA has not used that new
    authority and responsibility, and we are here to further amend
    that law to finally protect working people and to save lives.
    One of the worst things about asbestos is that most people
    think it is no longer a problem in the United States, when in
    fact it is the most significant and devastating occupational
    health disaster that has lasted over a century in this country.
    Hundreds of thousands have died.
        One of the worst--Sorry. The number of asbestos-related
    deaths that continue today are worst than experts in the 1980s
    projected them to be now, tens of thousands each year. The
    number of mesothelioma cases in 2017 is actually the highest
    number of the data that is pulled since 1999.
        Especially troubling, we are seeing workers under the age
    of 55 with significant levels of asbestos disease and are
    dying. And those are workers who have entered the job market
    after the 1980s and after asbestos regulations were adopted.
        An insulator in Chicago started in the trade in 1993 and
    was screened in 2016. He recently died at the age of 45 with
    elevated levels of asbestos fibers in his lungs.
        The legacy of asbestos, unfortunately, is very much with
    us, and we are passing it on to the next generation. As other
    industrialized countries are realizing the magnitude of these
    continuing exposures and disease from legacy asbestos, the
    asbestos installed 40 to 70 years ago, they are not only
    banning asbestos from commerce, they are also conducting
    national assessments to understand where it is, how much of it
    there is, and they are developing strategic plans to safely
    remove it and dispose of it. But in the United States, we don't
    really know that information.
        And if we don't know, we can't control exposures to it.
    Workers don't know if they are repairing or installing
    something located next to asbestos material. They don't know if
    they are replacing flooring containing asbestos. The last time
    the United States has profiled the scope of the asbestos
    problem was in the 1980s despite its widespread existence
    throughout facilities all over the country, in refineries, in
    powerhouses, in schools, in hospitals, in steel factories, and
    in other structures. That material installed decades ago, is
    now falling apart and being disturbed.
        As asbestos ages and weathers different conditions such as
    moisture, vibration, it deteriorates and it becomes friable
    over time, which puts those working near it at much higher
    risk. The worst occupational exposures tend to be in
    construction, abatement, renovation, routine maintenance work,
    and custodial activities. But because there is no safe level of
    exposure to asbestos, any worker performing activities near
    asbestos is at risk.
        In its 1994 asbestos standard, OSHA recognized and fully
    acknowledged that under the standard workers exposed continued
    to be at significant risk of asbestos disease. Instead of
    banning all uses of asbestos and conducting a full assessment
    to understand the real magnitude and the real impact of the
    problem, EPA recently created a mechanism for the Agency to
    actually approve new uses of asbestos. They have misled the
    public by telling us that they are strengthening regulation of
    asbestos.
        The legislation here today is so important. It bans future
    uses of asbestos without loopholes, and it begins the very
    difficult and critical work of controlling the problem in front
    of us, the deadly consequences of legacy uses. OSHA cannot do
    this. EPA has not done this. We urge the committee and Congress
    to move forward without delay and enact this legislating bill.
        Thank you. I am happy to answer any questions.
        [The prepared statement of Ms. Reindel follows:]

    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        Mr. Tonko. Ms. Reindel, thank you.
        We now move to Mr. Michael Walls. You are recognized, sir,
    for 5 minutes.

                     STATEMENT OF MICHAEL P. WALLS

        Mr. Walls. Chairman Tonko, Ranking Member Shimkus, and
    members of the subcommittee, good morning. I am Mike Walls, the
    Vice President for Regulatory and Technical Affairs at the
    American Chemistry Council. I was the chemical industry's
    principal technical representative in the discussions that
    resulted in the 2016 amendments to the Toxic Substances Control
    Act. And I am here today to reinforce our industry's commitment
    to full and effective implementation of those amendments.
        Now, the 2016 amendments were a significant bipartisan
    achievement. In those amendments Congress established a process
    to reinforce public confidence in EPA's management and
    assessment of new and existing chemicals. The amendments
    require the Agency to have sufficient information to make an
    affirmative regulatory decision on chemicals in an open and
    transparent way. And a key element of those amendments was a
    requirement that EPA systematically evaluate the risks of high
    priority substances and regulate their uses when necessary,
    subject to strict deadlines for action.
        Now, you have already heard that in December 2016, EPA
    identified asbestos as one of the first ten substances
    undergoing evaluation. You know that the assessment is supposed
    to come forward for public comment later this year, that EPA
    expects to meet its deadline in December of this year. Under
    the terms of the 2016 amendments, EPA must take into account
    both the hazards and the risks of exposure under specific
    conditions of use.
        EPA cannot consider costs and benefits in the evaluation of
    those risks. But once it identifies unreasonable risk, EPA must
    then regulate to ensure that any unreasonable risks are managed
    appropriately.
        Now, our industry is committed to effective and efficient
    implementation of the 2016 amendments. In part, that commitment
    is reflected in the fact that ACC member companies provided
    information to EPA specific to the use of asbestos in chlorine
    production. This included information on the transportation,
    use, and disposal information in that condition of use,
    including exposure information. Our companies' use of asbestos
    in the production of chlorine is highly regulated and
    controlled to prevent exposures to humans in the environment.
        This includes a specific National Emissions Standard for
    Hazardous Air Pollutants, or NESHAP, under the Clean Air Act.
    You have already heard today that one-third of total United
    States production of chlorine and sodium hydroxide relies on
    closed-system chrysotile asbestos diaphragms cells. Those cells
    separate chlorine from its co-product sodium hydroxide while
    remaining, while ensuring that those substances are contained
    in the cell.
        Human exposures are prevented by the rigorous use of
    personal protective equipment, as well as appropriate
    engineering controls, routine maintenance, and rigorous
    training. Federal regulations also govern the disposal of spent
    asbestos diaphragms.
        Now, chlorine is essential to ensuring access to safe
    drinking water for millions of American families. It also
    enables life-saving healthcare and pharmaceutical products,
    energy resources like solar panels and wind turbines, and much
    more. A blanket ban that includes the chlor-alkali industry's
    use of asbestos would have, in our view, a significant impact
    on the supply of chlorine. That in turn will jeopardize public
    health and increase prices for a wide range of vital consumer
    and industrial goods.
        I want to be absolutely clear that ACC believes that EPA's
    ongoing risk evaluation of asbestos properly covers the use of
    asbestos in chlorine production. In our view, that use is and
    will continue to be appropriately controlled to ensure that it
    does not pose an unreasonable risk.
        Now, in 1989, EPA recognized that a ban on the use of
    asbestos in chlorine production was not appropriate. ACC
    opposes H.R. 1603 because it would set an unfortunate precedent
    for legislating risk management actions on substances subject
    to TSCA. We believe that EPA must be given the chance to
    complete its ongoing assessment. We believe that the system
    Congress approved in 2016 must be given a chance to work.
        Imposition of a blanket ban on asbestos use without the
    benefit of EPA's risk evaluation, and without the benefit of
    information on appropriate risk management measures undermines
    the process that was the basis for Congress's bipartisan
    agreement in 2016.
        Thank you very much for the opportunity to provide this
    testimony. I look forward to your questions.
        [The prepared statement of Mr. Walls follows:]

    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        Mr. Tonko. Thank you, Mr. Walls.
        And, finally, we will hear from Dr. Monforton. You are
    recognized for 5 minutes, please.

                     STATEMENT OF CELESTE MONFORTON

        Dr. Monforton. Thank you, Chairman Tonko, Ranking Member
    Shimkus, and members of the subcommittee. I am Dr. Celeste
    Monforton. I am a lecturer at Texas State University. I have a
    doctorate and a master's in public health, and I have worked in
    this field for nearly three decades, including at OSHA, and
    MSHA, and the Department of Labor. I am testifying today on
    behalf of the American Public Health Association. And I
    currently serve on the association's Action Board.
        I ask my written statement and attachments be included in
    the record.
        APHA's mission is to improve the health of the public and
    to achieve equity in health status. Accomplishing these goals
    requires focus and attention on numerous social determinants of
    health, including exposure to toxic substances in the outdoors,
    in schools, in homes, and in workplaces.
        A decade ago APHA called for a complete ban on asbestos. We
    have remained steadfast in this position, and it is the reason
    that APHA strongly supports H.R. 1603. There is no debate in
    the public health community that asbestos is a carcinogen and
    there is no safe level of exposure.
        The comprehensive ban required under 1603 is on very strong
    scientific foundation. APHA applauded passage of the Lautenberg
    Chemical Safety Act and the decision by the Obama
    administration to chose asbestos as one of the first ten
    chemicals subject to risk evaluation. EPA's recent decisions,
    however, call into question the current Administration's
    willingness and ability to address the threat that asbestos
    poses to the public health.
        In its Scoping Document and Problem Formulation EPA has
    essentially put a stake in the ground about what they will
    consider in their risk evaluation. These decisions include:
        Excluding cancers that are associated with asbestos
    exposure, including of the larynx, pharynx, ovaries, as well as
    pleural disease;
        Excluding the exposure to asbestos-containing materials in
    the buildings;
        Excluding exposure to asbestos in air, soil and water,
    including disposal of asbestos-containing waste.
        With respect to the reporting requirements and the analysis
    that the bill calls for with EPA, Labor Department, and HHS it
    is critically important because we cannot prevent asbestos-
    related cancers if we don't have accurate data on where it is
    located, what condition it is in, how it is handled and
    disposed, and how many people are exposed to it.
        We also don't know who is importing asbestos, where it is
    being shipped, and where it ends up. H.R. 1603 will help to
    fill the significant information gap by requiring EPA and other
    agencies to assemble data to answer these questions. The bill
    embraces the fundamental principle of the public's right to
    know and will provide the information necessary to develop
    protective risk management plans.
        Asbestos is a potent carcinogen. More than 60 countries
    have banned asbestos because they recognize its grave risk to
    public health. It is long past the United States to do the
    same. Cancer takes a physical and emotional toll on a patient
    and their family. Cancer has economic consequences, more than
    $80 billion in direct medical care costs along. Add to that the
    lost time from school and work, productivity, travel, and all
    the other expenses that go along with having a serious illness.
    Preventing cancer makes economic sense.
        On a personal note, at age 49 I developed cancer that had
    already spread to my lymph nodes. I lost more than a year of my
    life undergoing treatment. Cancer is scary. Like many cancer
    patients I wondered, how could this have been prevented? For so
    many cancers we don't know the answer, we don't know the cause.
    But for asbestos-related cancer, for mesothelioma that killed
    Alan Reinstein, it is lethal. And we know exactly how to
    prevent asbestos-related cancers: eliminating exposure to
    asbestos. And that doesn't mean continuing to import it and
    claims that it can be handled safely.
        It is for this reason that APHA supports strong and
    comprehensive legislation that will ban asbestos, address the
    risks for the millions of metric tons of asbestos that is in
    buildings, homes, schools, and other structures, and assures
    the public's right to know. H.R. 1603 accomplishes these goals,
    and APHA wholeheartedly supports it.
        Thank you.
        [The prepared statement of Dr. Monforton follows:]

    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        Mr. Tonko. Thank you, Dr. Monforton. And thank you to all
    of our panelists for your presentations.
        That concludes our witnesses' opening statements for our
    second panel. We now move to member questions. And I will
    recognize myself for 5 minutes for questions.
        Mr. Walls, I asked this of Administrator Dunn, but I
    certainly want to get your thoughts. Over 60 other countries
    have managed to ban asbestos. I believe they are still able to
    treat their water and find safer alternatives for many other
    uses. Do you see any reason why the United States could not be
    able to transition away from asbestos-containing materials?
        Mr. Walls. If your question, Mr. Tonko, is with respect to
    the chlor-alkali's industry's transition away from asbestos, we
    certainly know that there are alternatives to asbestos
    diaphragm cells. But there are no drop-in replacements for
    those uses.
        We are talking about a transition time that is significant,
    that would cost hundreds of millions of dollars. And it is true
    that in other countries they use other technologies. We even
    use some of those alternative technologies here in the United
    States, but it is not a simple matter of dropping in an
    alternative, switching the plant back on, and being able to
    produce.
        Under the bill as it has been presented, it imposes an
    immediate one-year ban--an immediate ban one year after
    enactment on all uses of asbestos. That would essentially
    create a significant shortage of chlorine in the United States
    market. It would eliminate 36 percent of United States chlorine
    in the market. The industry cannot respond in any time frame
    like that.
        Mr. Tonko. What would be a reasonable time frame by which
    to respond?
        Mr. Walls. I think it would depend on the particular
    facility in question, Mr. Tonko. When you are talking, you
    know, planning, the engineering, permitting, construction,
    testing, you know, before you start it, before you can start up
    a facility safely, et cetera, it would be a significant number
    of years.
        Mr. Tonko. I want to ask Dr. Monforton and the other two
    witnesses if they have thoughts on alternatives?
        Ms. Monforton. We do know that other countries have used
    alternatives. I actually have, I think, in my testimony
    information about one of 75 plants, only one of 75 plants in
    the European Union use chlorine in their--or use asbestos
    diaphragms in their chlorine production. Japan has banned
    asbestos, France, in specifically in the chlor-alkali industry.
        So it is obviously something we can do.
        And from the Public Health Association's position, and we
    certainly know how important clean drinking water is, and that
    chlorine is used in it, and we need chlorine as part of
    residual at the end of the process but that that can be done
    without using asbestos diaphragms.
        Mr. Tonko. Ms. Reinstein and Ms. Reindel, any thoughts on
    alternatives and perhaps how effectively and quickly others
    have moved----
        Ms. Reinstein. Thank you, Chairman Tonko.
        Mr. Tonko [continuing]. To those alternatives?
        Ms. Reinstein. I would like to respond to that on two
    points. The chlor-alkali industry has had 30 years since they
    got an exemption to embrace new technology and follow Europe to
    use membranes. And, obviously, mercury has been phased out.
        Other countries can do it. I was recently on a call, and I
    don't want to name the actual chlor-alkali producer, they said
    they can make a transition in five years. Other countries have
    done it within three. Why not start? USGS states that the
    chlor-alkali industry is stockpiling asbestos now. Seven
    hundred and fifty metric tons in one year is outrageous.
        Mr. Tonko. Ms. Reindel?
        Ms. Reindel. I don't have a comment on that.
        Mr. Tonko. Are you recommending they should start now, Ms.
    Reinstein?
        Ms. Reinstein. I think for the health of their workers,
    their industry, and the nation it would be unconscionable. I
    have to say as I flew in last night, I was shocked to read Mr.
    Walls' testimony, they actually--they wrote--they oppose H.R.
    1603. So, we are sitting at a table having a conversation
    knowing that ACC goes flat out to say they oppose banning
    asbestos, or the bill as written.
        Mr. Tonko. Yes?
        Mr. Walls. Mr. Tonko, I think I need a chance to respond to
    that.
        We have been very clear that ACC's opposition to H.R. 1603
    is exactly focused on the chlor-alkali's industry's--the impact
    on the chlor-alkali industry and the supply of chlorine in this
    nation. We certainly are not opposing a ban for all other uses
    of asbestos. And I just want to make that clear.
        Mr. Tonko. Well, I heard the hundreds of millions that it
    would cost, and I also heard the billions it will cost for
    those who have been impacted by illness.
        I have used all my time, so I will now yield to the leading
    Republican of the subcommittee, Mr. Shimkus, for 5 minutes.
        Mr. Shimkus. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        For Mr. Walls, and it is on the same topic of chlorine and
    the issues. My understanding is that the diaphragm production
    technology accounts for 50 percent of all chlorine production
    in the United States, and that 72 percent of that diaphragm
    production technology comes from asbestos diaphragms.
        Is that correct, 36 percent of all chlorine production in
    the United States would need to be replaced if this bill
    becomes law?
        Mr. Walls. Yes.
        Mr. Shimkus. What are the practical effects in the short
    term from this law?
        Mr. Walls. Well, I think the most significant effects would
    be a ban on asbestos would eliminate 36 percent of the volume
    of chlorine in the United States market in the short term.
    Because chlorine is not traded because of its properties, et
    cetera, it is not--we don't ship chlorine across the ocean, for
    example, there are no opportunities to meet the reduction in
    volume by imports. Production of chlorine derivatives would
    also be reduced, and the imports of those derivatives would be
    increased.
        The United States is also a net exporter of caustic soda,
    sodium hydroxide, which is the co-product of chlorine. Every
    time you make a ton of chlorine you get 1.1 tons of sodium
    hydroxide. Eliminating caustic production will eliminate the
    trade surplus we currently have in that good and encourage more
    imports of it.
        So, we have done a study. We believe that the direct
    economic impacts would be a total of direct, indirect, and
    payroll-induced effects of 155,000 jobs, $9.7 billion in
    payroll, and $63 billion in United States economic output.
        Mr. Shimkus. The non-asbestos diaphragm technology that
    could be more widely deployed to replace it is comprised of
    four polymer fibers or commonly known as PFAS compound; is that
    correct?
        Mr. Walls. Yes. That is one of the alternatives.
        Mr. Shimkus. And we will be talking about PFAS next week I
    guess; right?
        If non-asbestos diaphragm technology isn't used as a
    replacement, there is a mercury-cell based technology, and a
    membrane cell technology. Are these drop-in replacements?
        Mr. Walls. No. Mercury cell technology is being phased out.
    Very little, if any, of United States production is produced
    with mercury cells.
        There is no currently available drop-in technology for
    asbestos diaphragms.
        Mr. Shimkus. And I was talking to some colleagues on this,
    it is not like replacing, we are not talking, like, replacing a
    coffee filter? I mean, we are----
        Mr. Walls. No. These are typically--so, just to explain the
    process, from the time this imported asbestos arrives in a
    container. That container is sealed, the asbestos within it is
    packaged in roughly 40-pound plastic packages put on a pallet.
    The pallet is wrapped in very heavy-duty plastic. The container
    is sealed and cannot be opened until it is at the facility and
    under conditions in which the expose--potential exposures to
    asbestos can be controlled.
        The asbestos is wet deposited with complete protective
    equipment for the workers in an environment where exposures to
    the air are minimized.
        So, what happened is these--this asbestos is wet deposited
    onto a frame. And when it is dried, before it is put into the--
    to the cell itself, this is essentially non-friable asbestos.
    It is in a matrix and bound in that matrix.
        Mr. Shimkus. Going back just to the 36 percent, do Canada
    and Mexico produce enough chlorine to replace the 36 percent
    that could get lost if this became an immediate law and there
    would be an immediate ban?
        Mr. Walls. No, Canada and Mexico's chlorine production are
    typically used for their domestic purposes. They don't have the
    excess supplies to be able to replace that in the United States
    market.
        Mr. Shimkus. If not these countries, where else might we
    seek importation from?
        Mr. Walls. Again, in elemental chlorine you would not see
    imports. You would see an increase in chlorine derivative,
    imports of chlorine derivatives. And those could come from any
    country. China has ramped up product--China, among others, has
    ramped up production of those products.
        Mr. Shimkus. Well, thank you. This is a tough committee to
    be on. We are trying to balance public health. And we get it
    right every now and then. Sometimes we don't, and sometimes in
    litigation and lawsuits, like this issue, took the work and
    unraveled it again.
        I would encourage those following this hearing to try to
    get this out of our commercial use. And the industries that are
    part of the ACC, which I am a pretty good fan of, as everyone
    knows, that they look for other opportunities that would make
    our lives a lot easier.
        And, Emily, you have a very brave mom. And thank you for
    your service, too.
        Mr. Tonko. The gentleman yields back.
        I believe Dr. Monforton wanted to respond to something she
    had heard?
        Ms. Monforton. Yes. So, Ranking Member Shimkus, I really
    appreciate you saying that we really want to get it out. And
    maybe we can figure out what the economic impact would be and
    what the timeline would be. But I think that really not having
    asbestos imported to our country is very, very important.
        With respect to asbestos in the chlor-alkali industry being
    handled safely, I think we have to think about where the
    asbestos comes from. You know, coming from Brazil, coming from
    Russia, we should have no confidence that the workers that are
    mining, and milling, and processing, and shipping are being
    protected from asbestos. And United States companies have a
    responsibility that if they are going to be importing a potent
    carcinogen, you know, they can't just dismiss those exposures.
        And then, in addition, you know, one can set up all kinds
    of policies and procedures to try to ensure that the asbestos,
    you know, doesn't--the bags don't break, or when you are
    inserting it into the closed system. But there are so any
    opportunities for the exposures to occur. And on the hierarchy
    of controls, the very best way to protect health is to
    eliminate the exposure.
        Mr. Tonko. Thank you so much.
        We now recognize the gentleman from Missouri, Mr. Long, for
    5 minutes, please.
        Mr. Long. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Ms. Monforton is it?
        Ms. Monforton. Yes.
        Mr. Long. You don't have to answer this if you don't want
    to, but you said that you had a cancer. Can you share what type
    that was? And like I said, if you don't want to, that is fine.
        Ms. Monforton. No, I am happy to. I had Stage 3 breast
    cancer.
        Mr. Long. OK.
        Ms. Monforton. And I have no risk factors in my family.
    Very healthy. I don't have any, you know, I am not overweight,
    I exercise. All the only things they can tell us to do to
    prevent cancer, but nothing about exposure.
        And when we have exposure to carcinogens and we know what
    they do to people, you know, that should be the low hanging
    fruit for us.
        Mr. Long. Right, right. Cancer is near and dear to my
    heart. Our youngest daughter had lymphoma and she is fully
    recovered five years later here after all the chemo and
    everything. I do a lot of work with St. Jude Children's
    Research Hospital.
        Ms. Monforton. Excellent.
        Mr. Long. So I am just always, you know, a little curious
    as to, you know, what types and what is causing what.
        So, we had an earlier meeting today with Francis Collins of
    NIH. And that is like, you know, sitting down with the master.
        Ms. Monforton. Brilliant, yes. Brilliant.
        Mr. Long. So, yes, yes. So, but anyway, thank you.
        Mr. Walls, Mr. Shimkus was asking you kind of a line of
    questions I was interested in. I mean, it used to be illegal to
    import LNG--I mean to export LNG, liquified natural gas, out of
    this country. There was a law again it. We couldn't do it. This
    committee fixed that a couple years ago. We are able to export.
        You say we don't import chlorine. Is it--is there not a
    demand for it? I mean, if there was, I mean, if we quit
    manufacturing could we not import chlorine?
        Mr. Walls. We could. But because of the properties inherent
    in chlorine and the method of transportation, the logical
    export countries of origin for chlorine would be Canada and
    Mexico. And they don't have the capacity to meet the excess,
    what would then be the diminished United States demand.
        Mr. Long. I just got back from a trip with the Agricultural
    Committee to Brazil. And they didn't have the capacity to
    produce soybeans that China wanted. But guess what, they are
    ramping up. So I was just curious if, you know, there was a
    market from Canada and Mexico for chlorine----
        Mr. Walls. Right.
        Mr. Long [continuing]. If they would not ramp up and be
    able to?
        Mr. Walls. I think they would attempt to. But, again, I
    think the properties of chlorine are such that you wouldn't see
    elemental chlorine imported, you would see products made from
    chlorine being the principal subject of increased trade.
        Mr. Long. You are getting above my pay grade now.
        Mr. Walls. We wouldn't, in other words, we wouldn't be
    making those products here in the United States. They would be
    manufactured elsewhere and imported into the United States
        Mr. Long. H.R. 16--Mr. Walls, sticking with you there--H.R.
    1603 requires anyone who in the three years prior to enactment
    and one year after it manufactured, imported, processed or
    distributed even an incidental amount of asbestos to report
    this to the EPA. How do you quantify an incidental amount of
    asbestos? And how likely is it that all entities subjected to
    the requirements can maintain records to show the amount of
    asbestos used or produced so they can accurately report it?
    Again, they have to go back three years.
        Mr. Walls. Well, Mr. Long, I would assume that EPA would
    set that, would set a standard. I think we heard testimony from
    Ms. Dunn before on what the current EPA limit is.
        My concern would be the reach-back for three years. I don't
    believe that companies or establishments across the country are
    keeping those records. I think it was noted earlier that even
    potting soil would be subject to the reporting requirements of
    this bill. I am not sure that every garden shop in America has
    been keeping records on trace amounts of asbestos for the last
    three years and would be prepared to report it to EPA.
        Mr. Long. OK. As far as the bill requires the reports be
    released to the public, are there any concerns about
    confidential business information or personal things being
    disclosed through that process?
        Mr. Walls. Yes, perhaps. And it is an uncertainty raised by
    the drafting of the bill. The bill amends TSCA, which does
    contain strong confidential business information protections.
    And it is not clear whether those provisions would be
    overridden by this bill.
        There is a simple legal principle that legislation later in
    time trumps the earlier in time statute, so we would have to
    have a better understanding of what the intention and impact
    would be.
        Mr. Long. OK. And I just want to thank all of you
    individually for being here today and testifying, and Emily.
    And it is, you know, things like this are just hard to deal
    with. And any time someone loses their life to whatever it is
    that was preventable is, you know, not, not acceptable.
        I yield back.
        Ms. Blunt Rochester [presiding]. I would like to recognize
    myself for 5 minutes. And I want to focus on Section 3 of the
    bill because I think it is so important.
        We heard from EPA on the first panel that they are focusing
    their attention on ongoing uses of asbestos and excluding so-
    called legacy asbestos from their consideration. We should ban
    ongoing uses of asbestos, but we must also do more to address
    the toxic legacy of asbestos still installed in buildings
    across the country.
        And I am going to start my questioning with Ms. Reindel.
    How are the members, how are your members impacted by so-called
    legacy asbestos, the asbestos that was already installed?
        Ms. Reindel. Thank you for the question.
        We have a variety of members, not just our members and also
    other workers who work alongside of our members, ranges from, I
    mean it is really--I mean workers who are working near
    asbestos. The insulators' union did a report recently out of
    Chicago. They have an early screening, lung cancer screening
    protection program. And they reported that about 50 percent of
    workers who started work in 1980s or later are showing up with
    asbestos-related pleural disease.
        These members are, you know, they are the ones putting up
    insulation, working near existing insulation. So even though
    the products used now might not have asbestos in them, they are
    working near asbestos that is deteriorating, that is getting
    wet, that is falling apart, that is crumbling, it is falling on
    plant floors. You are seeing this in schools. You are seeing
    this in demolition of buildings.
        There have been reports from some of our teachers' unions
    that in schools, you know, buffing and polishing asbestos-
    containing floors disrupts asbestos. Any kind of maintenance
    work, kids playing basketball in a gymnasium rattles it.
        So, when you have, when you have asbestos that is 50 years
    old it is going to start falling apart. The stuff doesn't last
    forever, and it exposes a lot of workers.
        Ms. Blunt Rochester. And, you know, under Section 3, EPA
    would have 18 months to prepare and submit a congressional
    support addressing the presence of asbestos in residential,
    commercial, industrial, public, and school buildings, along
    with an assessment of the human health risks from that
    asbestos. How would this report help your members?
        Ms. Reindel. Yes, this report is necessary. There has been
    no profile of where asbestos is and its conditions since the
    1980s. We don't know--we know what asbestos does to people, and
    we know how people are being exposed roughly. But we don't know
    where it is in order to do anything about it.
        We need a complete assessment in order to actually address
    the problem, in order to assess the risks and development
    recommendations as to what we can actually do about that. And
    those recommendations can include a variety of things, but that
    is something that report would have to come out with.
        Ms. Blunt Rochester. And, Ms. Reinstein, first I send my
    heart to you. I also lost my husband, and I know coming to
    Congress has given me my joy and my purpose back, so I thank
    you for what you are doing for the American people. And maybe
    you could spend a moment talking about just the impact on
    families and on your husband.
        Ms. Reinstein. I am sorry for your loss, too.
        When I speak for myself, I really speak for the hundreds of
    thousands of others. For those of us who have buried, cared
    for, buried a loved one it is a measurable pain. We look at
    calendars, we look at empty chairs, we look at father-daughter
    dances, and those have changed forever.
        I feel that 15 years of my work in Congress we have made
    significant progress. You should be so proud, this is the first
    legislative ban asbestos hearing I have ever attended in the
    House. And I think it fuels our fight, like your member from
    Missouri said, but most importantly I guarantee you there are
    people around the world watching this hearing today and
    applauding you as House members for moving this forward.
        Ms. Blunt Rochester. Thank you.
        Ms. Reinstein. So, there is no rewind button, but we can go
    forward together. I hope it is a bipartisan movement forward.
    We need that desperately.
        Ms. Blunt Rochester. Thank you so much for sharing that.
    Thank you so much.
        And I am going to close with a question to Dr. Monforton
    about just the public health aspect of this and the impact?
        Ms. Monforton. So, the key principle of public health is
    protecting people's health. And having information about what
    those exposures are and knowing how to prevent them is what our
    work is about in really savings lives.
        Ms. Blunt Rochester. Thank you so much. And now I would
    like to thank all of our witnesses for joining us at today's
    historic hearing.
        I remind Members that pursuant to committee rules they have
    ten business days to submit additional questions for the record
    to be answered by our witnesses. I ask each witness to respond
    promptly to any such questions that you may receive.
        And at this time the subcommittee--and at this time I
    request unanimous consent to enter the following documents into
    the record. These are the following documents: A statement of
    support from Representative Bonamici, one of the lead sponsors
    of H.R. 1603; a letter of support from the International
    Association of Firefighters; New York Times article published
    this morning titled ``EPA Leaders Disregard Agency's Experts in
    Issuing Asbestos Rule Memos Show''; A New York Times article
    published in August 2018, titled ``EPA Staff Objected to
    Agency's New Rules on Asbestos Use Internal Emails Show;'' A
    letter from the National Association of Home Builders; A letter
    from the Chlorine Institute; A letter from the American
    Alliance for Innovation; A letter from the National Rural Water
    Association; A letter from the National Demolition Association;
    A letter from the American Waterworks Association.
        Without objection, so ordered.
        [Material submitted for inclusion in the record follows:]
        Ms. Blunt Rochester. OK, and let's see, and at this time
    the subcommittee is adjourned.
        [Whereupon, at 12:37 p.m., the subcommittee was adjourned.]

    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]