[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]