[Senate Hearing 117-472]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]



                                                        S. Hrg. 117-472

     A LEGISLATIVE HEARING ON S. 4244, LEGISLATION TO PROHIBIT THE 
   MANUFACTURE, PROCESSING, AND DISTRIBUTION IN COMMERCE OF ASBESTOS

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

                                HEARING

                               before the

                    SUBCOMMITTEE ON CHEMICAL SAFETY,
                WASTE MANAGEMENT, ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE,
                        AND REGULATORY OVERSIGHT

                                 of the

                              COMMITTEE ON
                      ENVIRONMENT AND PUBLIC WORKS

                          UNITED STATES SENATE

                    ONE HUNDRED SEVENTEENTH CONGRESS

                             SECOND SESSION

                               __________

                              JUNE 9, 2022

                               __________

  Printed for the use of the Committee on Environment and Public Works

				
	          [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]	
				

        Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.govinfo.gov
        
        			________
				
				
		     U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE
				
49-452 			    WASHINGTON : 2022
        
        
        
        
        
        
               COMMITTEE ON ENVIRONMENT AND PUBLIC WORKS

                    ONE HUNDRED SEVENTEENTH CONGRESS

                             SECOND SESSION

                  THOMAS R. CARPER, Delaware, Chairman
BENJAMIN L. CARDIN, Maryland         SHELLEY MOORE CAPITO, West 
BERNARD SANDERS, Vermont                 Virginia, 
SHELDON WHITEHOUSE, Rhode Island         Ranking Member
JEFF MERKLEY, Oregon                 JAMES M. INHOFE, Oklahoma
EDWARD J. MARKEY, Massachusetts      KEVIN CRAMER, North Dakota
TAMMY DUCKWORTH, Illinois            CYNTHIA M. LUMMIS, Wyoming
DEBBIE STABENOW, Michigan            RICHARD SHELBY, Alabama
MARK KELLY, Arizona                  JOHN BOOZMAN, Arkansas
ALEX PADILLA, California             ROGER WICKER, Mississippi
                                     DAN SULLIVAN, Alaska
                                     JONI ERNST, Iowa
                                     LINDSEY O. GRAHAM, South Carolina

             Mary Frances Repko, Democratic Staff Director
               Adam Tomlinson, Republican Staff Director
                              ----------                              

          Subcommittee on Chemical Safety, Waste Management, 
            Environmental Justice, and Regulatory Oversight

                     JEFF MERKLEY, Oregon, Chairman
BERNARD SANDERS, Vermont             ROGER WICKER, Mississippi, 
EDWARD J. MARKEY, Massachusetts          Ranking Member
MARK KELLY, Arizona                  RICHARD SHELBY, Alabama
ALEX PADILLA, California             DAN SULLIVAN, Alaska
THOMAS R. CARPER, Delaware (ex       JONI ERNST, Iowa
    officio)                         LINDSEY O. GRAHAM, South Carolina
                                     SHELLEY MOORE CAPITO, West 
                                         Virginia (ex officio)
                            
                            
                            
                            C O N T E N T S

                              ----------                              
                                                                   Page

                              JUNE 9, 2022
                              
                              
                           OPENING STATEMENTS

Merkley, Hon. Jeff, U.S. Senator from the State of Oregon........     1
Wicker, Hon. Roger, U.S. Senator from the State of Mississippi...     2

                               WITNESSES

Reinstein, Linda, President/CEO & Co-Founder, Asbestos Disease 
  Awareness Organization.........................................     4
    Prepared statement...........................................     6
Whu, Danny, M.D., Chief Medical Officer, International 
  Association of Fire Fighters...................................    30
    Prepared statement...........................................    32
Boone, David Lee, General Manager, Copiah Water Association......    41
    Prepared statement...........................................    43
    Response to additional questions from Senator Capito.........    48
Simon, Robert J., Vice President for Chemical Products and 
  Technology Division, American Chemistry Council................    50
    Prepared statement...........................................    52
    Responses to additional questions from:
        Senator Merkley..........................................    57
        Senator Capito...........................................    59

                          ADDITIONAL MATERIAL

Letter to Senators Merkley and Wicker from the National 
  Association of Clean Water Agencies, June 8, 2022..............    79
Letter to Senators Merkley and Wicker from the American Water 
  Works Association and the Association of Metropolitan Water 
  Agencies, June 7, 2022.........................................    81
Letter to Senators Carper and Capito from the U.S. Chamber of 
  Commerce, June 8, 2022.........................................    85
Letter to Senator Carper et al. from Richard A. Lemen, Ph.D., 
  MSPH, U.S. Assistant Surgeon General (Ret.) et al., June 8, 
  2022...........................................................    90
Letter to Senator Merkley and U.S. Representative Suzanne 
  Bonamici from the American Public Health Association, May 26, 
  2022...........................................................    93
Letter to Senator Merkley and U.S. Representative Suzanne 
  Bonamici from the International Association of Fire Fighters, 
  May 17, 2022...................................................    94
Letter to Dr. Michal Ilana Freedhoff, U.S. Environmental 
  Protection Agency, from the American Chemistry Council et al., 
  July 8, 2022...................................................    95

 
     A LEGISLATIVE HEARING ON S. 4244, LEGISLATION TO PROHIBIT THE 
   MANUFACTURE, PROCESSING, AND DISTRIBUTION IN COMMERCE OF ASBESTOS

                              ----------                              


                         THURSDAY, JUNE 9, 2022

                               U.S. Senate,
         Committee on Environment and Public Works,
         Subcommittee on Chemical Safety, Waste Management,
           Environmental Justice, and Regulatory Oversight,
                                                    Washington, DC.
    The Committee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:01 a.m. in 
room 406, Dirksen Senate Office Building, Hon. Jeff Merkley 
(Chairman of the Subcommittee) presiding.
    Present: Senators Merkley, Wicker, Carper, Markey, Kelly, 
and Ernst.

            OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. JEFF MERKLEY, 
             U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF OREGON

    Senator Merkley. The hearing will come to order.
    Welcome.
    Today's meeting is a hearing of the Subcommittee on 
Chemical Safety, Waste Management, Environmental Justice, and 
Regulatory Oversight. It is intended to enable members to hear 
and consider testimony from stakeholders in regard to Senate 
Bill 4244, the Alan Reinstein Ban Asbestos Now Act. I want to 
welcome the Committee members who will hopefully be trickling 
in, but particularly our witnesses who are here to share their 
insights, knowledge, and experiences.
    I particularly want to recognize and welcome Linda 
Reinstein, whose husband, Alan Reinstein, the bill is named 
after.
    As my colleagues are aware, this is a bill which I have 
authored with Congresswoman Suzanne Bonamici to amend the Toxic 
Substances Control Act, or TSCA, to prohibit the manufacture, 
processing, and importation of asbestos. For generations, we 
have known the harmful and lethal effects of asbestos and the 
grave threat it poses to public health, from lung cancer to 
mesothelioma, to ovarian cancer, larynx cancer, and chronic 
asbestosis.
    Any expert will convey that there is no level of exposure 
to asbestos that is safe for the human body. That is why all of 
the major countries of the developed world, over 60 nations, 
have acted to protect their citizens by banning the commercial 
use of asbestos.
    Here in the United States, however, we have failed to do 
the same. And because we have failed to do so, too many of our 
fellow Americans are forced to sit at a loved one's bedside, 
watching as they become another victim of these deadly fibers. 
It is estimated that in 2019 alone, over 40,000 Americans were 
lost due to their exposure to this carcinogen. They are fire 
fighters who have been exposed while trying to save families 
from burning buildings, construction workers exposed on the job 
site, ordinary Americans who just happened to be in the wrong 
place breathing the wrong air at the wrong time.
    Make no mistake: This situation is completely preventable. 
Yet instead of protecting our citizens from this deadly 
substance here in the United States, we are actually importing 
more of it. According to the U.S. International Trade 
Commission, 114 metric tons of raw chrysotile asbestos was 
imported into the United States over the first 3 months of this 
year. That exceeds the 100 metric ton total that was brought in 
throughout all 12 months of 2021.
    That raw asbestos is coming into ports like New Orleans and 
Houston, where the majority of the population is Black or 
Hispanic, and are at significant risk to exposure as it moves 
from port to processing. On top of that, a considerable among 
of waste generated from the processing of raw material is 
either managed on site at the manufacturing plant are at a 
disposal facility, which are more often than not found near low 
income and minority communities.
    I believe it is far past time that we follow the lead of 
the rest of the developed world and protect our citizens from 
this deadly toxic substance. Right now, the EPA is considering 
a rule banning the use, manufacture, and importation of one 
type of asbestos fiber here in the United States. This would be 
the first time since 1989 the Federal Government has worked to 
restrict this toxic chemical.
    But restricting one fiber is not enough. We need to ban all 
the forms of asbestos. And that is precisely what the Alan 
Reinstein Ban Asbestos Now Act of 2022 will do. I want to make 
it clear that I really appreciate that we are having this 
hearing to expand the conversation among my colleagues who may 
have insights and ideas that may contribute to the work on this 
bill as we go forward. I am certainly interested in working 
with everyone who wants to help improve the health of Americans 
and protect them from this deadly carcinogen.
    The threat posed by asbestos affects all Americans the 
same. It doesn't matter what party they belong to, and the 
solution should likewise protect all Americans.
    I am pleased to welcome our four witnesses. But before they 
are introduced, let me turn to Ranking Member Wicker for his 
opening remarks.

            OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. ROGER WICKER, 
           U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF MISSISSIPPI

    Senator Wicker. Thank you very much, Chairman Merkley. I am 
glad to be here and welcome the witnesses today.
    Certainly around the Nation and especially in the State of 
Mississippi, we have been faced with mesothelioma and 
asbestosis among industrial workers. It is a major problem and 
a real health care concern.
    The questions today should center around, is the 
legislation the way to proceed, or should we continue to rely 
on the scientists at the Environmental Protection Agency and 
OSHA to have the flexibility to handle asbestos. And with 
regard to providing safe drinking water, is asbestos harmful to 
the public when it is used in asbestos diaphragms to produce 
the chlorine that makes safe drinking water available? Those I 
think are the questions we are all wanting to get to the same 
place.
    Asbestos is a mineral fiber that was used for decades. It 
was discovered that inhaling asbestos can cause negative health 
effects, including lung disease. So as I said, the EPA has 
taken several actions to limit the material's use and even 
proposed two new asbestos related regulations just this year. 
So thank you, Chairman Merkley, for your work on this. I think 
it is well intended.
    We should consider the impact this bill would have on water 
treatment capacity for Americans. This bill would require 
chlor-alkali facilities to stop using asbestos within 2 years. 
Approximately one-third of chlor-alkali manufacturing plants in 
America use chrysotile asbestos to produce chlorine. The 
question is, is that dangerous, or can we separate that out and 
continue the benefits that we are getting from that. I am told 
there are nine domestic chlor-alkali facilities that use 
asbestos diaphragms to produce chlorine. According to the 
American Water Works Association, approximately 98 percent of 
public drinking water facilities use some form of chlorine 
based disinfectant.
    During this time of runaway inflation and supply chain 
challenges, any effort that would limit the supply of chlorine 
would be harmful for water utilities and their ratepayers who 
would ultimately absorb huge price increases. In communities in 
Mississippi and other States, this would threaten public health 
and the ability of low income and disadvantaged communities to 
continue accessing safe drinking water. We should keep this in 
mind when considering proposals such as this.
    Second, we should examine the impacts this legislation 
would have on chlorine used in other industries. Chlorine is 
essential for the production of pharmaceuticals, medical 
devices. It is also a critical component of certain crop 
protection tools which ensure that we have an abundant food 
supply here in the United States. Additionally, chlorine is 
utilized in the production of solar panels, wind turbines, and 
plastic foam insulation, although these are just a few uses of 
chlorine. It is clear that any impacts on chlor-alkali 
production would be far reaching, and we need to look into 
that.
    It is important to note that the use of asbestos to produce 
chlorine is heavily regulated by the Occupational Safety and 
Health Administration. Chlor-alkali facilities that use 
asbestos are required to have engineering controls in place, 
and any individuals that come into contact with asbestos must 
use personal protective equipment and receive appropriate 
training.
    Further, OSHA requires companies to monitor the health of 
their employees who have been exposed to asbestos. With these 
regulations and standards in place, there have not been any 
OSHA violations in the chlor-alkali industry since 1972.
    Finally, we should keep in mind that EPA already has the 
authority to regulate the use of asbestos under the Toxic 
Substances Control Act. In fact, EPA issued a pair of proposed 
regulations in April that seek to address some of the continued 
uses of asbestos in the United States.
    Although I have concerns about EPA's proposed 2 year phase 
out, Congress should refrain from adding even more reporting 
requirements and phase down schedules that do not consider the 
adverse effect on American consumers and the agencies' ongoing 
efforts.
    These are just some considerations that I think we should 
keep in mind, Mr. Chairman. Thank you so much.
    Senator Merkley. Thank you very much, Senator.
    Now I would like to introduce our first witness, Ms. Linda 
Reinstein. Linda became a public health advocate after her 
husband, Alan, was diagnosed with mesothelioma in 2003. She now 
serves as the President and Chief Executive Officer of the 
Asbestos Disease Awareness Organization, ADAO.
    Ms. Reinstein, thank you for joining us today.

  STATEMENT OF LINDA REINSTEIN, PRESIDENT/CEO AND CO-FOUNDER, 
            ASBESTOS DISEASE AWARENESS ORGANIZATION

    Ms. Reinstein. Good morning. It is an honor to testify 
today in support of S. 4244, the Alan Reinstein Ban Asbestos 
Now Act of 2022, ARBAN, introduced by you, Senator Merkley. And 
I want to thank all the members and their hardworking staff for 
making this important hearing possible.
    To be clear, I am neither a lobbyist nor an attorney. I am 
a mesothelioma widow and a co-founder of the Asbestos Disease 
Awareness Organization, ADAO. We are an independent non-profit, 
dedicated to preventing asbestos exposure to eliminate all 
asbestos caused diseases.
    Today I represent not only ADAO, but over 1 million 
Americans whose voices have been silenced prematurely by 
asbestos since 1991, when the EPAs asbestos ban was overturned 
in the courts. With your help, we can take an overdue step 
forward.
    Exposure to asbestos, including chrysotile, causes cancer 
of the lungs, larynx, ovaries, mesothelioma, asthma, 
asbestosis, and other pleural diseases. The current ARBAN bill 
builds on the bipartisan legislation, H.R. 1603, which was 
approved by the House Energy and Commerce Committee by a 47 to 
1 vote in 2019. This bill, S. 4244, would ban commercial 
asbestos imports and use of all deadly asbestos fibers, the 
Libby Amphibole asbestos, establishes a right to know where 
imports and use occur, and create an educational outreach 
program.
    There are three irrefutable facts that provide a compelling 
case for this comprehensive legislation. All forms of asbestos, 
including chrysotile, are a human carcinogen. There is no safe 
level of asbestos exposure, and no, there is no controlled use. 
EPA's proposed risk management rule for asbestos, while a 
landmark step, is not a complete asbestos ban as it only 
prohibits chrysotile asbestos and six conditions of use.
    Since the EPA tried to ban asbestos in 1989, we have 
implemented over 400,000 metric tons of raw asbestos. Currently 
imports come from Brazil, Russia, and China. As seen in this 
chart with the blue bars on the far right, the chlor-alkali 
producers have emerged as the only importer of raw asbestos as 
the construction, automotive, and other industries have 
embraced alternatives.
    Presently, there are only three companies, Olin, Occidental 
Chemical, and Westlake Chemical Corporation, using asbestos 
diaphragms, at a mere eight plants. In this chart, you can see 
the dramatic reduction of asbestos diaphragm as the industries 
transition to membrane technology. In fact, globally 83 percent 
of the plants producing chlor-alkali use the membrane 
technology.
    You are going to hear from the industry that transitioning 
to non-asbestos technology could place the safety of drinking 
water at risk. This is an exaggeration and a distraction. 
According to the excellent EPA economic analysis, drinking 
water treatment is a minor use of chlorine. In this slide, you 
can see that larger quantities of chlor-alkali output are used 
in profitable manufacturing of PVC, vinyl, plastics, and other 
end uses. Olin and Occidental have in the last year announced 
the reduction and/or closures of asbestos diaphragm units, 
decreasing the production of over 800 tons of chlor-alkali 
chemicals, citing economic considerations. We strongly 
encourage bipartisan dialogue to develop a phase out schedule 
that is expeditious, one that protects public health, and meets 
the practical needs of all stakeholders.
    Americans need and deserve legislation that bans asbestos 
to protect public health. With ARBAN, we can avoid time 
consuming, unproductive litigation and finally end our reliance 
on this deadly chemical.
    On a personal note, I am honored that this lifesaving 
legislation is named after my late husband. My daughter, Emily, 
was just 10 when Alan was diagnosed with mesothelioma. He opted 
for a radical procedure to remove his left rib, resect his left 
lung, strip off his pericardium and surgically replace his 
diaphragm in hopes for more time with us. Alan fought a hard 3 
year battle.
    But mesothelioma patients rarely win. Alan died 3 short 
years later with Emily and me by his side.
    This bill represents the hundreds of thousands of Alans who 
have lost their lives to preventable diseases. We urge you to 
pass ARBAN and start protecting public health and saving lives 
right away. So many organizations have stepped up on the early 
announcement of your bill like APHA, PERC, NRDC, CEH, and so 
many others.
    I want to thank you for your time today. I look forward to 
answering your questions. My 19 page written testimony is 
online and has details and citations.
    Thank you.
    [The prepared statement of Ms. Reinstein follows:]

	
	
	
	[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
    
    
    
    
    Senator Merkley. Thank you very much. With your permission, 
we will submit the entire testimony for the record. Thank you.
    I would now like to introduce our second witness, Dr. Danny 
Whu. Dr. Whu is the Chief Medical Officer of the International 
Association of Fire Fighters.
    You are now recognized for your opening statement.

     STATEMENT OF DANNY WHU, M.D., CHIEF MEDICAL OFFICER, 
           INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF FIRE FIGHTERS

    Dr. Whu. Good morning, Chairman Merkley, Ranking Member 
Wicker, and members of the Committee. I am Dr. Whu, Chief 
Medical Officer of the International Association of Fire 
Fighters, IAFF.
    Once, I had a plan to become a fire fighter-paramedic and 
gain some experience and then go to medical school as soon as 
possible. However, I fell in love with the fire fighters' 
mission of service to mankind and stayed for the next 30 years, 
becoming a division chief at a major fire department. I also 
became a member of FEMA Search and Rescue.
    My dream of becoming a doctor never left me, though. So I 
kept studying and eventually received my medical doctorate and 
a master's in public health. Presently, I have the distinct 
honor to serve my brother and sister fire fighters at the IAFF, 
which represents more than 328,000 fire fighters and EMS 
personnel in all 50 States, protecting more than 80 percent of 
the U.S. population. We are our Nation's protectors against all 
hazards, 24 hours a day, 7 days a week.
    IAFF President Edward Kelly sends his regards and regrets 
being unable to be here. Preventing cancer is one of his 
cornerstones, thus he sincerely appreciates your commitment to 
protecting fire fighters from asbestos.
    Alarmingly, cancer is now a fire fighter epidemic and the 
leading cause of line of duty deaths. In 2019, 75 percent of 
such deaths were due to cancer. Numerous studies show that fire 
fighters have a significantly higher cancer incidence than the 
general population. Many have shown asbestos to be the cause. 
Asbestos is a proven carcinogen.
    At any emergency where asbestos is present, its fibers will 
become airborne to be inhaled by fire fighters, or these fibers 
will settle on their skin, uniforms, gear, equipment, and 
apparatus. And when fire fighters return to the fire house, 
they will unknowingly bring this killer back with them and be 
silently and continuously re-exposed.
    As a fire chief, I know that any emergency of any magnitude 
that disturbs structures in any way is a potential asbestos 
exposure. As a FEMA search and rescue doctor, I experienced 
this on a massive scale at 9/11, the largest asbestos job in 
the world. While the Towers stood, there asbestos was, 
allegedly safe. But then the attack happened, and just like 
that, 100,000+ rescuers, including me, and over a half a 
million New Yorkers, including children, were exposed to 
hundreds of thousands of tons of pulverized and aerosolized 
asbestos. Everyone within a 1 and a half mile radius was 
exposed.
    Because OSHA's safe level of asbestos exposure is zero, 
every single exposure makes fire fighters more likely to 
develop lethal asbestos induced disease. Knowing that, it is 
deeply troubling that asbestos continues to be used in the U.S.
    Thank you, Chairman Merkley, for supporting the Alan 
Reinstein Ban Asbestos Now Act, which is rooted in medical 
evidence that establishes causation between asbestos and 
cancer. Over 70 nations have banned asbestos. Sadly, the U.S. 
is not one of them, costing more than 40,000 Americans their 
lives every year. Passing this Act will right that wrong. That 
is why the IAFF wholeheartedly supports it.
    As for legacy asbestos, currently the EPA focuses only on 
asbestos' present uses. However, it must also address legacy 
asbestos as it is required to do by law. We thank you again, 
Chairman Merkley, for working with us to address this danger.
    In closing, given what we know today, asbestos is public 
enemy No. 1 and must be banned now. If you have ever seen 
someone die from asbestos induced mesothelioma, like me, you 
would have banned this poison years ago.
    Asbestos proponents argue that the application of asbestos 
is safe. Yet they will never state that the asbestos itself is 
safe. Why? Because asbestos is not a possible or a probable 
carcinogen; it is a known carcinogen. My fellow fire fighters 
and I who answered the call to help on 9/11 are the poster 
children for exposure to allegedly safe turned certainly unsafe 
asbestos.
    Again, OSHA says zero exposure. That latency period will 
bring us an asbestos induced cancer epidemic in the future. We 
cannot change the past. But all of you can prevent similar 
future tragedies simply by banning asbestos today.
    Oftentimes doing the right thing is unclear. Fortunately, 
that is not the case today. With asbestos, just listen to your 
heart. The answer is already there.
    I close with a verse, ``For there is no greater love than 
to lay your life down for a friend.'' Fire fighters are willing 
and often do lay their lives down not for friends, but for 
total strangers. We owe it to them and their families to ban 
their killers like asbestos now.
    Thank you. May God bless America and all the fire fighters 
who protect her.
    [The prepared statement of Dr. Whu follows:]
    
    
    
    	[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
    
    
    
    
    Senator Merkley. Thank you very much for your testimony, 
Dr. Whu, and for your service, and the service of all our fire 
fighters.
    Now we will turn to Mr. David Boone, who is the general 
manager of the Copiah Water Association in Copiah County, 
Mississippi.
    We are now ready for your opening statement.

                 STATEMENT OF DAVID LEE BOONE, 
           GENERAL MANAGER, COPIAH WATER ASSOCIATION

    Mr. Boone. Good morning, Chairman Merkley, Ranking Member 
Wicker, and members of the Subcommittee. It is an honor to 
testify before the Subcommittee regarding one of the most 
significant public health concerns affecting every person in 
the country, the public's drinking water safety.
    I am David Boone, the general manager of Copiah Water 
Association in rural Mississippi, a non-profit and locally 
governed organization that provides public drinking water to 
our 2,400 customers and an industrial park. I have 34 years of 
experience in the water industry, and I am here also 
representing the Mississippi Rural Water Association which has 
a membership of 1,050 communities with public drinking water 
systems, and the National Rural Water Association, which has a 
membership of approximately 31,000 communities with public 
drinking water systems across the country.
    Our member communities and drinking water utilities have 
the very important public responsibility of supplying the 
public with safe drinking water and sanitation at home, work, 
and public spaces every second of every day, all the while 
complying with all applicable U.S. Environmental Protection 
Agency regulations. On behalf of every small and rural 
community in Mississippi, I want to take this opportunity to 
personally thank you, Senator Wicker, for all your help and 
support for passing a number of bills to provide us with 
technical assistance that helps us comply with all Federal 
water regulations, to help us secure funding for the numerous 
water infrastructure projects throughout the State, and 
supporting the training and employment of new water operators 
in the water work force. Thank you, Senator Wicker.
    I am here before you today because my public drinking water 
supply in Copiah County, Mississippi, like nearly all other 
49,680 community drinking water systems in the country, depends 
on chlorine based disinfection to ensure that our drinking 
water is safe for the public to drink.
    The killing or deactivation of potentially deadly 
pathogens, viruses, bacteria, and other microbes by chlorine 
based disinfection is the most fundamental and essential part 
of public drinking water treatment. There is no alternative 
disinfection treatment that is as effective, safe, or 
affordable as chlorine.
    We purchase approximately 10 150 pound canisters of 
chlorine gas each month to meet the demand. Unfortunately, when 
I put the order in 2 months ago, our local chlorine distributor 
informed us that they were out of chlorine. This problem caused 
a bit of a local panic, as many of my neighboring drinking 
water suppliers were facing the same lack of supply. We could 
not find another chlorine distributor in the State. If we did 
not find an alternative source of chlorine, we all would have 
been forced to issue boil water notices to the public, 
resulting in a public health crisis for our affected 
communities.
    After an aggressive search, we found a chlorine supplier in 
Tennessee. However, this solution came at a high cost to our 
community. Our monthly supply of chlorine gas has almost 
tripled in price. It is now over $4,000 compared to less than 
$1,500 just 2 years ago.
    We have been forced to pass on the increased costs to our 
local customers in the form of rate increases. In a rural 
community with such a high percentage of people living at or 
near poverty level, any rate increase is unaffordable for many 
residents. We managed to limit the most recent rate increase to 
14 percent for now.
    However, even with this relatively small rate increase, we 
are seeing adverse public health impacts. For the last 2 
months, we have witnessed approximately double the number of 
households that can no longer afford to pay their water bills. 
Our already financially strapped water utility has been forced 
to develop alternative payment plans for an increasing number 
of distressed customers.
    We often hear about many low and fixed income households 
choosing to pay their water bill using funds that would have 
been previously used for food, medicine, or other necessities. 
The adverse consequences of rate increases on our low and fixed 
income neighbors is the most pressing concern for our locally 
elected volunteer board of directors. These public servants 
have the very challenging responsibility of keeping a safe 
water supply operating, and at the same time, keeping the water 
service affordable for the most vulnerable households. 
Moreover, we are facing more unplanned expenditures and likely 
rate increases resulting from the current lack of a stable 
chlorine supply.
    Chlorine costs and supply are becoming a major factor in 
the sustainability of the Copiah Water Association and many 
thousands of drinking water utilities across the country. So 
you can understand our concern when we hear circumstances that 
may have the potential to decrease supply and increase the 
price of chlorine. During the pandemic, water and wastewater 
utilities were designed as essential emergency personnel by the 
Federal Government. We could not have protected the public 
health and provided safe drinking water without an adequate 
chlorine supply.
    In closing, Mr. Chairman, I would like to thank you again 
for allowing the voice of small and rural drinking water 
utilities which make up about 90 percent of the country's just 
over 49,000 community drinking water systems to participate in 
this hearing. I am very happy to answer any questions.
    [The prepared statement of Mr. Boone follows:]
    
    
    
    	[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
    
    
    
    
    Senator Merkley. Thank you very much, Mr. Boone, for 
bringing that perspective to bear.
    Now we will turn to Mr. Robert Simon, who serves as the 
American Chemistry Council's Vice President of Chemical 
Products and Technology Division.
    We are ready for your statement.

   STATEMENT OF ROBERT J. SIMON, VICE PRESIDENT FOR CHEMICAL 
  PRODUCTS AND TECHNOLOGY DIVISION, AMERICAN CHEMISTRY COUNCIL

    Mr. Simon. Thank you, Chairman Merkley, Ranking Member 
Wicker, and members of the Subcommittee. My name is Robert 
Simon, and I am testifying today on behalf of the American 
Chemistry Council. I am here to reinforce our industry's 
commitment to the safe management of chemicals and also to 
share information about the use of chrysotile asbestos in the 
manufacturer of chlorine and caustic soda.
    I want to be very clear: Our industry supports the 
effective regulation of asbestos. One of the things that is 
worth noting here is that underneath the Toxic Substances 
Control Act, EPA, the Environmental Protection Agency, has 
banned the vast majority of uses of asbestos. This is included 
in 2019 under the newly modernized Toxic Substances Control 
Act, significant new use rules for an additional 19 categories. 
So we are making some progress, and some of those restrictions 
help address the issues that the panel here today has raised.
    As part of EPA's ongoing review of all uses of asbestos now 
underneath the new Toxic Substances Control Act, it is worth 
noting that they have identified that there are only a very few 
remaining uses. One of those is the use of asbestos diaphragms 
in chlor-alkali production.
    As an industry, we support the responsible use of 
chrysotile asbestos for chlor-alkali manufacturing. Chlorine 
and its co-product are produced through a chemical process 
using salt, electricity, and water. One of the processes used 
to help safely process these chemicals is asbestos diaphragms. 
Think of that as a filter that filters out the various 
molecules as you are processing the chemical. Today, as you 
have heard, nearly one-third of chlor-alkali manufacturing 
relies on asbestos diaphragm technology.
    The use of chrysotile asbestos in chlor-alkali 
manufacturing is highly regulated, as you have heard earlier 
today. It has been safely and narrowly used in this application 
for decades. Human exposure is prevented by Federal standards, 
including required use of personal protective equipment as well 
as appropriate engineering controls, training, and other 
regulations. This includes two specific regulations by both EPA 
for emissions standards as well as OSHA for workplace 
standards. This also includes end of life issues, so there are 
strict regulations for how you dispose of asbestos diaphragms 
at the end of their life.
    Finally, the modernized Toxic Substances Control Act is 
very relevant here. Just several years ago, Congress in a 
bipartisan fashion enacted the new Toxic Substances Control 
Act. This significantly enhanced the chemical management laws 
for our system in the U.S. That law is now being implemented.
    Underneath that new law, EPA is currently evaluating 
asbestos right now. They have completed a risk evaluation; they 
have a proposed risk management approach that is out for 
stakeholder comment and review. So the regulatory process is 
currently already looking at this issue.
    I am going to close with some of the socioeconomic 
considerations that we think are important for this legislation 
and consideration of any regulation of chlor-alkali 
manufacturing. Our written testimony provides additional 
details here. But chlorine and its co-product, caustic soda, 
are used for hundreds of critical applications that are 
essential to modern life. This includes, as you have heard 
today, the support for clean drinking water.
    But it is not just that. In addition to not only supplying 
98 percent of public drinking water facilities, chlorine 
chemistry is essential to the manufacture of 88 percent of the 
top selling pharmaceuticals, both over the counter and 
prescription drugs. It is responsible for over 89 percent of 
the top selling crop protection products that are essential for 
food production.
    So it is a critical feedstock chemistry that is used in a 
lot of important applications, including things that are 
important for our climate and sustainability objectives.
    As I noted earlier, and as some of you have observed, 
nearly one-third of chlorine manufactured in the U.S. is 
produced using asbestos diaphragms. And according to the latest 
market data, U.S. demand for chlorine vastly exceeds the 
currently supply.
    With that in mind, the timeline that is set out in this 
legislation of 2 years is completely unworkable. As a result of 
the proposed legislation, you will have placed 33 percent of 
the total U.S. chlor-alkali production at risk with 
implications for public health as it relates to drinking water, 
some of the other applications that I mentioned, and also 
increasing prices and supply factors for other parts of the 
economy. And this is particularly relevant for where we are 
today. We are all familiar with some of the supply chain and 
inflation issues. But this was borne out recently with the 2001 
hurricane and winter storms that we saw in the southeast that 
reduced 15 percent of chlor-alkali production. And we heard a 
little bit of that today where that had a real impact on 
drinking water communities.
    So I just urge you, as we consider this legislation, to 
factor these things in, as it is an important, critical part of 
the economy. I will conclude with the fact that we are 
committed to the safety of our workers. We have a strong track 
record in this regard. But the U.S. should avoid policies that 
could adversely impact public health, result in shortages, cost 
increases, and supply chain disruptions of the many critical 
products that rely on chlorine and caustic soda.
    I look forward to answering any questions and appreciate 
the opportunity to share this information today.
    [The prepared statement of Mr. Simon follows:]
    
    
    
    	[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
    
    
    
    
    Senator Merkley. Thank you very much, Mr. Simon.
    Now we will turn to questions from our Senators. I will 
start off.
    Mr. Simon, you mentioned the role of EPA in restricting and 
considering the uses of asbestos. The EPA acted in 1989 to ban 
asbestos, and it was thrown out in the courts in 1991.
    Is it significantly possible, then, that any action the EPA 
might take now might also be thrown out by the courts in the 
future?
    Mr. Simon. Thank you, Senator. I can't necessarily speak to 
that. I think the legal proceedings will be what they are.
    What we would say is that underneath the new Toxic 
Substances Control Act, which was just enacted by Congress 
several years ago, it has dramatically changed the process. For 
example, the risk evaluation process is very different than 
underneath the old TSCA.
    So I think some of those important changes that have been 
made to the underlying statute would serve us well here. And we 
support those.
    Senator Merkley. I will note that the process is new. It is 
relatively untested. It has all sorts of new complexities. I am 
sure that just as in the past, folks have challenged the action 
of the EPA as they do on virtually everything the EPA does, we 
can see that in the future. So EPA has certainly no significant 
guarantee of any restriction on asbestos.
    Mr. Boone, you mentioned concern about the cost. We have 
seen over the last two decades, and we saw it in the chart that 
Ms. Reinstein put forward, significant replacement of 
manufacturing with asbestos to make chlorine, with 
manufacturing not using asbestos. Is there any indication that 
the chlorine gas that is produced with cell membrane, non-
asbestos cell membrane, is more expensive than the chlorine gas 
that is purchased from asbestos diaphragm manufacturing?
    Mr. Boone. Mr. Chairman, I do not know how chlorine is 
made. And we don't know the chlorine that we purchase, whether 
it is made with the membrane or with the asbestos. We have no 
idea. We just know about the availability and the cost of it 
throughout the industry.
    So we are seeing that that supply has decreased, and the 
cost has increased throughout the entire industry.
    Senator Merkley. Thank you very much. Mr. Simon explained 
that the storm that damaged the manufacturer had that impact.
    But indeed, if the chlorine gas was more expensive, then 
the industry would not have converted over to that, because 
they wouldn't have been able to sell their chlorine gas. So I 
will just provide the answer for the benefit as, it is not more 
expensive. It is a commodity. And the industry has been moving 
toward, on its own, for its own economic reasons, moving away 
from the asbestos diaphragms to the non-asbestos cell membrane.
    Ms. Reinstein, simple question. How big a risk does 
asbestos pose to the public?
    Ms. Reinstein. To be clear, there is no safe level, as Dr. 
Whu has been talking about. What we are seeing now is cross-
contamination and lots of misinformation. So with legacy 
asbestos in homes, schools, and buildings, and products coming 
in from overseas and elsewhere, asbestos remains a huge risk.
    I think we also have to identify the fact that there are 
many pathways of exposure. It is not just engineering 
controlled chlor-alkali plants. There are many people in fence 
line communities that unload from the dock, work with it being 
distributed to the plants, also disposal. We have to look 
holistically at the entire ripple of asbestos that impacts 
Americans.
    Senator Merkley. And the way to look at it holistically is 
to say let's quit importing it, like 60+ major developed 
nations have done.
    Ms. Reinstein. Chairman Merkley, that is so true. That is 
what the United Nations ILO and WHO say, the way to eliminate 
diseases is to stop using asbestos, which is what your bill 
would do.
    Senator Merkley. Ok. Thank you. Ms. Reinstein, as noted, 
the EPA has proposed a rule under the Toxic Substances Control 
Act, under TSCA, to address the conditions and the use of 
chrysotile asbestos. Do you believe that that TSCA process will 
produce a comprehensive ban on asbestos?
    Ms. Reinstein. I want to applaud the EPA for all the hard 
work. We fought very hard to get the Lautenberg bill passed 
about 6 years ago. It is deeply disappointing to know that we 
are looking at the health risks and management for one fiber, 
and they only determined that six conditions of use pose a 
risk.
    We should be looking a ban from the EPA. Instead, we got a 
Band-Aid. We need all six chemicals banned. I know the EPA's 
hard work will probably sadly be challenged in court. I have 
attended many different webinars, and I can tell you that the 
industry is already setting up to sue. It will be highly 
litigated. The rule will come out probably next year, and then 
we will spend 2 to 3 years in court arguing why the EPA's Part 
1 is not legal.
    Senator Merkley. So, a very complicated process, subject to 
court challenges. We have been at this since 1989, and EPA has 
failed us now for 3+ decades. So no guarantee that it will 
succeed this time around.
    Ms. Reinstein. Yes, I think that is very true. I also think 
the EPA gave us a gift, too. The economic analysis is 
excellent. It discloses exactly who is importing, where the 
plants are, and about the safer substitutes that exist that are 
economically viable. But it also talks about a 2 year plan 
which is yes, very robust. But truthfully, I did research this 
weekend, when Bob and I were working. The industry has been 
talking about transitioning for almost 50 years, and I have the 
documents. This is not a new chlorine institute problem. This 
is old. We need to embrace innovative business technology to 
truly get to know asbestos.
    Senator Merkley. I know that you have been immersed in this 
issue for a long time. And I posed the question earlier, as 
industry transitioned, did the chlorine gases sold from the new 
plants that used cell membranes rather than asbestos diaphragms 
cost more to customers than the old product?
    Ms. Reinstein. I can't really speak to the cost. That is 
not my area of expertise. But I can tell you that if there was 
a problem with the asbestos diaphragm plants that they were 
reducing 800 tons of chlorine on this last year, they wouldn't 
have done it. So I believe that it is economically viable to, 
yes, use the membrane technology, and they will be enhancing 
public health by coming to the stakeholder table to work with 
you and your colleagues to move this bill forward, come up with 
a reasonable plan.
    Senator Merkley. Good. I will just note that as Mr. Simon 
testified, now two-thirds of the production is done by the new 
cell membrane. They sell it because it sells at the same price. 
It is a commodity.
    Dr. Whu, as a doctor, can you speak to how asbestos damages 
the human body?
    Dr. Whu. Yes, sir. The fibers will be inhaled. And then 
they will travel into the pulmonary system. That is just one of 
the ways that medical evidence suggests asbestos fibers cause 
disease. In there, they will hurt the lining of the lungs, the 
mesothelium, and then through the latency period, which has 
been recorded to be anywhere from 10 to 50 years, you will 
develop asbestos induced mesothelioma, lung cancers, cancers 
through all the other parts of the body, and if not cancers, 
other diseases.
    Senator Merkley. As I started to have folks educate me 
about this, what I had not realized until I was involved in 
this bill, and I will describe this, and see if I have this 
correct. You can set it straight for the record. With asbestos, 
it is not a chemical interaction, like a poison, if you will, 
but in fact the fibers are very short, very stiff, very pointy. 
And they pierce the cell membranes and start doing all sorts of 
destruction as they move through the body.
    Is that a fair way for me to describe it?
    Dr. Whu. Yes, sir. It is a mechanical insult because of the 
shape of the fibers that you described. So being microns in 
size, they travel all the way down into the bottom of all of 
our organs and lungs, mainly, as we speak to here. And then the 
shape of those fibers, the sharp edges, produce a mechanical 
insult. Because they are so small, you can breathe a lot of 
them, especially with repeated exposures. And then you compound 
the problem, because you are having more and more of those 
fibers travel down into your lungs and continuing to worsen the 
damage.
    Senator Merkley. So in a situation like 9/11, when there 
was legacy asbestos from the building materials in the air, 
could fire fighters have breathed in hundreds or thousands of 
fibers in a short period of time?
    Dr. Whu. I wouldn't preface it with the word could. We did. 
So the Towers was the largest asbestos job in the world. And 
Tower One, the north tower, was coated with asbestos for the 
first 40 floors before the builders realized, we know where 
this is going, let's stop now. So they looked ahead, and they 
said, rather than to deal with a lawsuit of 220 floors, every 
tower was 110 floors of asbestos, they stopped at 40 floors. 
They abated it in place.
    So they deemed it safe because it was abated. But then 9/11 
happened. So everything came down. An estimate of 400,000 tons 
of asbestos were released, pulverized, aerosolized, only to be 
breathed by the people that were there.
    Senator Merkley. This damage that you are describing as the 
short, pointy fibers move through the body attacking and 
damaging one cell after another, are these diseases slow 
moving, painful, difficult, horrendous?
    Dr. Whu. Yes, sir. If you figure, let's talk about lung 
cancer and mesothelioma, the latency of it being 10 to 50 
years. If I had to put it in laymen's terms, imagine somebody 
starting to choke you, and finally kill you after 10 to 50 
years of choking you. So there is a decrease in quality of 
life. It is not just the end of life that we are talking about.
    So toward the end of that point, people are having severely 
diminished quality of life. Basically, you stop living many 
years before you actually die. So you see people that are 
walking around with oxygen concentrators. Imagine that, and 
increase it exponentially. Because that is the damage that 
asbestos will cause. Once it starts hurting the lungs, the 
lungs can no longer expand, there can no longer be the 
appropriate gas exchange. Then that is the choking that I am 
talking about.
    Senator Merkley. Thank you.
    We are now joined by Senator Carper.
    Senator Carper. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    Welcome. We have a lot of hearings going on today. I am 
sorry that we are in and out. Thank you for holding this 
important hearing and for your passion and commitment on this 
issue.
    I want to thank each of our witnesses not just for being 
here with us but also for taking the time to discuss these 
issues and better inform us as we go about our day jobs.
    I would like to ask a little bit about the health effects 
of asbestos exposure. Senator Susan Collins, a Republican from 
Maine, as you know, and I are co-sponsoring something called 
the Federal Fire Fighter Fairness Act of 2021. There are a lot 
of caucuses, as you may know, in the House and the Senate, and 
as the Chairman knows, a lot of caucuses that deal with all 
kinds of issues, maybe defense issues, maybe agricultural 
issues, maybe environmental issues.
    One of the largest caucuses is the Congressional Fire 
Services Caucus. A great majority of House and Senate, 
Democrats and Republicans, are members of that caucus. And 
Senator Collins and I are the co-chairs of that caucus.
    We are also the co-sponsors of the Federal Fire Fighter 
Fairness Act of 2021, which would create a presumption that a 
disability or death of a Federal fire fighter caused by certain 
diseases is the result of the performance of their duties. I 
will say that again. Co-sponsoring legislation, Federal Fire 
Fighter Fairness Act of 2021, which would create a presumption 
that a disability or death of a Federal fire fighter caused by 
certain diseases is the result of the performance of their 
duties.
    Among fire fighters, duties that involve increased risk of 
exposure to asbestos which pose health risks are well 
documented. I have a question of Dr. Whu. Would EPA's proposed 
Part 1 asbestos rule address health risks to fire fighters? I 
will say that again. Would EPA's proposed Part 1 asbestos rule 
address health risks to fire fighters? If not, what more needs 
to be done to address asbestos risks to our Federal fire 
fighters?
    Dr. Whu. Thank you, Senator Carper. First of all, let me 
start by thanking you and Senator Collins for championing and 
supporting the Federal Fire Fighters Support Act. Because, as 
you know, there is presumptive legislation in 49 out of 50 
States for this disease and cancers that fire fighters get that 
are now known to be occupationally acquired. The Federal 
Government, sadly, does not have that presumption. And you and 
Senator Collins are trying to change that. For that, we thank 
you.
    Right now, as it stands, Federal fire fighters have an 
impossible burden of proof. They have to prove, in order to get 
their earned workers compensation, which fires they went to 
throughout their entire careers that gave them the cancer that 
they are seeking benefits for. That is impossible, as somebody 
that was there for 30 years, I have been to one, I have been to 
1,000. How do you tell me, pick the one where you got sick? 
Other than 9/11, I can't tell you with proof positive to any 
other emergency scene that I have been at that had asbestos. 
But I am sure there was.
    So as to the EPA, I am not familiar with what they propose. 
But I am familiar with what they are doing now. Currently they 
are focusing their efforts on regulation that only deals with 
current uses of asbestos. That is great. If I can put it in 
fire fighter lingo, that is great to prevent the progression of 
a fire. But it does nothing to address the fire that is already 
there. That is legacy asbestos.
    So what we need the EPA to do, and again, Chairman and 
Senator, we thank you, we need them to address legacy uses of 
asbestos. If you look at their charge, they are required to do 
that by law.
    Senator Carper. Thank you, Doctor. Following up with a 
related question, part 2 of EPA's risk evaluation for asbestos 
will include, I am told, among other things, a description of 
legacy uses and methods of disposal of asbestos and an 
evaluation of the risks posed by other types of asbestos 
fibers, in addition to a word I can barely pronounce, 
chrysotile. EPA must publish its final part 2 risk evaluation 
by December 1st, 2024. So it will be another 2 and a half years 
until we have this risk evaluation completed. Then EPA must act 
according to the results of that evaluation.
    My question is, Dr. Whu, how will this timeline impact 
public health and the health of our fire fighters and other 
emergency responders who will continue to be exposed to these 
other asbestos fibers in the intervening years?
    Dr. Whu. So how it would affect fire fighters, we would 
continue to be exposed to a proven, known carcinogen that is 
proven to kill. How would it affect the rest of Americans? At a 
rate of 40,000 American lives lost per year, in 2 and a half 
years, for them to get the results of their report, we will 
have buried 100,000 Americans.
    So anything short of banning it is a Band-Aid. We need to 
ban it because medical evidence has already proven that 
asbestos is deadly. There are other ways to accomplish the 
things that the industry needs to accomplish. This is America. 
We have done it throughout our history. We are great 
innovators. Why continue to use something that kills fellow 
Americans when we can just put our heads together and come up 
with something that still accomplishes their needs and still 
provides for all Americans and yet saves 40,000 American lives 
every year and countless fire fighters that suffer many years 
before going into their deaths?
    Senator Carper. All right. Thank you, sir.
    Mr. Chairman, if I could, could I ask one more question?
    Senator Merkley. Absolutely. We have plenty of time for as 
many questions as you would like.
    Senator Carper. That is great. Then we will break for 
lunch, is that it?
    Senator Merkley. Something like that.
    [Laughter.]
    Senator Carper. Ms. Reinstein, when my staff told me you 
were going to be here, I thought they said Linda Ronstadt, who 
I met when she was 20 years old, fronting a group called the 
Stone Ponies with a big hit record called You and I Travel to 
the Beat of a Different Drum. I would late meet her 30 years 
later at the Grand Opera House in Wilmington, Delaware. She had 
no recollection of meeting me when I was like 21 years old.
    But I will call you by your correct name, Linda Reinstein, 
right?
    Ms. Reinstein. Reinstein.
    Senator Carper. Reinstein. Thank you. I am glad I asked.
    My question, Linda, would be, EPA appears at long last to 
have initiated a robust and comprehensive two part strategy to 
define and address the public health risks associated with 
several forms of asbestos. Could you help us understand why it 
is still important to legislate a ban on the manufacture, 
import, and use of asbestos in this country?
    Ms. Reinstein. I am happy to answer your question, Chairman 
Carper. First, the American people cannot do product testing to 
find out if product A is contaminated with asbestos. We need to 
have a full EPA ban on all six fibers to protect public health. 
And it is fair to consumers.
    Two, the EPA's six conditions of use is just ridiculous. I 
know they have worked very hard; we have put a lot of comments 
into the docket. So it is not of their fault. But we have 
talked about other products that have come in that are 
contaminated. We were unable, even their SAT committee were 
unable to broaden the scope.
    I don't fault them. This has been a daunting task. But we 
need a full evaluation of the risks.
    Last, this is going to be litigated again. I am 66 and a 
half. I am not getting younger. And the reality is, if the EPA, 
when and if they would pass their proposed rule, it is probably 
another 2 years, then it will be litigated. Let's look at the 
calendar here. I would be over 70 years old. How many more 
deaths, like Dr. Whu said, will happen? We don't need the 
imports.
    Worse yet, the EPA can't manage asbestos right now in the 
structures that they are required to investigate. So if we 
can't manage the risk that is in place, tell me why we are 
allowing one industry, the chlor-alkali industry, to import 
hundreds of tons for asbestos diaphragms? It doesn't make good 
business sense or public health sense when safer substitutes 
exist.
    Last, I think it is important to look at the patient and 
the family. These diseases can cost upwards of a million 
dollars. We call it death by a thousand cuts. The patient can't 
breathe, they can no longer work, they feel like they are a 
burden to their family, they have to go on government 
assistance many times. And why? These diseases are all 
preventable.
    As Dr. Raja Flores says, at the Mount Sinai Medical Center, 
you can do more with your pen than he can do with his scalpel.
    Senator Carper. Correct me if I am wrong, Mr. Chairman, but 
I understand that for you, this issue is not just esoteric, it 
is not a theoretical issue. For you and your family, this is 
deeply personal. We appreciate your years of commitment and 
work in this regard. Thank you, and thanks for joining us 
today. Very nice to meet you.
    Ms. Reinstein. Thank you, Chairman.
    Senator Merkley. Thank you very much, Chairman Carper.
    We will now turn to Senator Markey.
    Senator Markey. Thank you so much, Mr. Chairman.
    I agree with Senator Carper. We have to ban all types of 
asbestos. It just makes no sense that we are not going to do 
that. We have to catch up to the rest of the world on this. It 
is just so important. We are making some progress at the EPA, 
but we just have to move so much faster than we have.
    My staff director in Boston in the 1980s, Joe Zampitella, 
his father Joe Zampitella, Sr., was the President of the 
Asbestos Workers of Massachusetts. Joe Zampitella, Sr., passed 
away from his exposure to asbestos in 1985. I will never forget 
all those asbestos workers who were at that funeral, all of 
them having been exposed without any real protection, without 
any real understanding of what they were doing to themselves 
and then to their families.
    It still claims tens of thousands of Americans each year. 
And I think it is important for us to ban all of it. We have to 
move forward.
    Ms. Reinstein, I have known you for years. I am grateful 
for your longstanding advocacy and partnership on this issue. 
And I thank you for being a fighter for all the families out 
there who have been experiencing the grief and crisis due to 
asbestos exposure.
    Dr. Whu, do you agree that it is important for the health 
of fire fighters and other populations to address the legacy 
issues and disposal of all types of asbestos?
    Dr. Whu. In a word, Senator, yes.
    Senator Markey. Thank you.
    Dr. Whu. A little bit of expansion, it is asbestos; it is a 
killer; it is already here. So again, if you have a fire and 
you are able to prevent its further spread, that is great. We 
expose the forward progression. But now we have to go back and 
address what is already there.
    So after we stop the forward progression, stopping it would 
be the next step to take.
    Senator Markey. And I want to focus on the chlor-alkali 
industry. You mentioned it, Mrs. Reinstein, this is the sole 
importer of raw asbestos into the United States. This industry 
is advocating for the continued use of asbestos in order to 
make chlorine and other chemicals.
    But we don't need asbestos to make chlorine. Most companies 
and most of the world have moved on to non-asbestos 
technologies and instead found a way to be innovative and 
produce chlorine without asbestos. Besides, for the three 
remaining companies that do use the asbestos process, they have 
been permanently shutting plants because they aren't cost 
effective.
    Mrs. Reinstein, the industry has known about this problem 
for decades. There was a big discussion about it as we were 
passing the Toxics bill back in 2016. Some companies have 
transitioned to safer technologies. Other countries have moved 
on without economic harm.
    So what possible justification is there for continuing to 
use these asbestos based techniques?
    Ms. Reinstein. That is the million-dollar question. To us 
it makes no sense. I believe what they are attempting to do is 
just delay the inevitable. They know safer substitutes do 
exist. They are unable to import the right fiber type to use in 
the industry, and it is shown to import asbestos.
    I think it is important to also look at what does the 
business climate look like for the chlor-alkali industry. The 
research that we did this weekend determined that about 800 
tons of chlor-alkali was reduced or ended because of economic 
reasons from Olin and Occidental. So they understand the 
handwriting is on the wall. The real question is, how much 
asbestos have they stockpiled, how long will it take them to go 
through it, and what do they really need to transition. Because 
I think with the leadership of Chairman Merkley and yourself 
and the other members of this Committee, we could have a 
roundtable discussion and speak robustly.
    In Chelsea, Massachusetts, there was a dump outside in the 
public area from legacy asbestos. If we can't manage the risk 
of what is in legacy, why are we still allowing imports?
    Senator Markey. Yes, and that was just last month that a 
pile of asbestos contaminated concrete was dumped along the 
road in Chelsea, Massachusetts, about 2 miles from my house. 
That asbestos can easily enter the air and travel into those 
homes over such short distances. It enters our lives through 
more direct means, too, including through commercial uses and 
building materials. It is all still out there.
    So Mrs. Reinstein, the chemical industry sometimes points 
to PFAS as a reason not to transition away from asbestos 
technologies since the alternative technologies, which account 
for more than 80 percent of chlorine production worldwide, can 
include PFAS compounds. But isn't that a false narrative, since 
the asbestos methods use PFAS compounds themselves?
    Ms. Reinstein. That is a very good question. There are two 
points to that. One, about 75 percent of the existing chlor-
alkali plants do use membrane technology, which means there 
would be an element of PFAS. We know there is about 9,000 
polymers. And the EPA has already come out with a statement 
saying that the transition from asbestos to membrane technology 
is the recommended thing to do. And they actually have in their 
economic analysis described that it will be safer to transition 
from asbestos to membrane technology.
    So I am sorry to say that is just another smokescreen that 
is being used. It is not factual. If they are really concerned, 
and they talk about PFAS, then they need to look at the other 
75 percent of their plants.
    Senator Markey. Thank you.
    May I continue? I will just finish up then.
    Senator Merkley. Yes, if you could finish up. Thank you.
    Senator Markey. By pointing PFAS fingers at other 
industries while using PFAS themselves, these asbestos addicted 
corporations are throwing stones in a glass house. And in the 
meantime, more innocent bystanders are getting hurt or killed 
by this toxic product.
    As you know, because of you, Senator Boxer and I put a hold 
on that bill back in 2015 and 2016, to get the strongest 
possible asbestos protections we could at that time. But there 
is still more work to be done.
    I thank you, Senator Merkley, for your leadership, so that 
we finish the job. Thank you.
    Senator Merkley. Thank you very much, Senator Markey.
    Now we will turn to Senator Wicker.
    Senator Wicker. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate it.
    Let me direct my first question to Mr. Boone. Thank you for 
being here, and also thank you for what you do for the Copiah 
Water Association. Just so members will know, citizens in small 
and rural communities up and down the State of Mississippi and 
across from the Alabama line to Louisiana and Arkansas get 
their water in large portion from community water associations. 
So Mr. Boone, you are representative of so many people.
    What would this legislation do to your ability to have 
chlorine to purify the water? And what would it do to the rates 
that your members would pay?
    Mr. Boone. Senator Wicker, Mr. Simon has already pointed 
out that the demand for chlorine exceeds the supply. Any 
legislation that would hurt that would be detrimental to the 
safety of the citizens or those consumers on water 
associations.
    Chlorine gas is by far the most effective disinfection that 
we have. And any cause that would have us not be able to get 
it, or a price increase, would be detrimental to many, many 
water associations and their customers.
    Senator Wicker. Is there an easy source to switch to? Could 
you just switch to something else?
    Mr. Boone. No, sir. There are other ways of disinfecting 
water, but again, those are very cost prohibitive and nowhere 
near as effective as gas chlorine. We have what is called a 
residual that carries throughout the entire system. Chlorine 
gas is by far the most effective to carry that residual to do 
its job to disinfect the water through many miles of pipe, 
through tanks, all the way to the end of the system, to ensure 
that our customers are receiving safe and clean water.
    Senator Wicker. You wouldn't provide water that didn't have 
that necessary tiny bit of chlorine?
    Mr. Boone. No, sir.
    Senator Wicker. Do you have any information whatever that 
the asbestos diaphragm filter is at all harmful to water?
    Mr. Boone. No, we do not.
    Senator Wicker. OK. Mr. Simon, well first, Mr. Chairman, 
let me submit at this point, I ask unanimous consent to submit 
into the record three letters that further detail the issue 
that water utilities and other industries would face if the 
supply of chlorine were constrained. One letter is from the 
National Association of Clean Water Agencies representing 
public wastewater agencies of all sizes. Another is from the 
American Water Works Association and the American Association 
of Metropolitan Water Agencies, representing drinking water 
systems that collectively serve over 80 percent of the country. 
The third letter is from the U.S. Chamber of Commerce.
    Senator Merkley. Without objection.
    [The referenced information follows:]
    
    
    	[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
    
    
    
    
    Senator Wicker. Now, Mr. Simon, I will let you follow up. 
We have heard testimony from Mr. Boone about the impacts to 
water utilities of limiting the domestic supply of chlorine. Of 
course, if we can get chlorine some other way, we need to do 
that. I would be happy to do it if it doesn't cause people not 
to be able to afford their water.
    But what about the harm this would do to other industries? 
And could you give us some examples?
    Mr. Simon. Sure, thank you, Senator. Just real quick, there 
are some very legitimate issues that have been raised today. I 
want to be very clear: The use in chlor-alkali is very 
different and is not relevant for some of the issues that we 
have talked about. We have made a lot of progress to address 
some of those issues, and we want to continue to do that. I 
just want to recognize that very different use. The use in 
chlor-alkali is heavily regulated, it has been used for 
decades.
    Second, we also have an ongoing review underneath the new 
Toxic Substances Control Act. So if there are additional issues 
here, we have a process for dealing with that.
    But to your point, Senator, the socioeconomic impacts of 
this legislation, which would impose a 2 year ban within 2 
years on chlor-alkali production, is completely unworkable. It 
will have a significant impact on the availability for drinking 
water, availability for pharmaceuticals, availability for crop 
protection chemicals, and hundreds of other products that rely 
on chlorine.
    Chlorine is a key feedstock as well as its co-product, 
caustic soda. So it will have a significant impact, and you 
have to overlay that on top of where we are in the economy in 
terms of current inflation pressures and current supply chain 
constraints. It is just unworkable, and it will have those 
socioeconomic impacts.
    Our feedback to the Committee and the Subcommittee is, as 
you are considering these policies, please take into account 
these important socioeconomic considerations, because they are 
very relevant. And we factor those into our business.
    Senator Wicker. So if I might, Mr. Chairman, there is no 
evidence that anyone has ever been harmed by drinking this 
water that used an asbestos diaphragm in the process back up 
the line.
    Mr. Simon. No. And just to be clear, so the chrysotile 
asbestos used in chlor-alkali manufacturing is used in a closed 
loop process within our facilities. It does not leave that, it 
does not enter. So no.
    Senator Wicker. OK.
    Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    Senator Merkley. Thank you very much.
    If we turn to Europe and its production, Mr. Simon, since 
you are the expert on chemicals here, how much of the European 
production is produced with asbestos diaphragms?
    Mr. Simon. Thank you, Senator. As you have heard today, 
there is transition underway in the marketplace. I have worked 
with some of you over the years. We transitioned from mercury 
cell technology not too long ago, and we worked with Congress 
to advance that. So there are alternatives, as you have heard. 
I would just reiterate our point that as you are making these 
transitions, it is important to consider the socioeconomic 
considerations, including the determination that this can be 
used safely.
    But to your point, both the EU and Canada have issued phase 
outs for the use of asbestos diaphragm technologies. What I 
would like to emphasize, though, in the case of Europe, it was 
25 years. That was for essentially a very limited amount of the 
production. Also in Canada, that was 11 years, and that was for 
one facility.
    So these socioeconomic considerations are very relevant 
here. And while the industry is under transition, factoring 
those into any policy is absolutely critical.
    Senator Merkley. You also heard the testimony about 
Occidental and Olin announcing that they are shutting down 
their asbestos diaphragm units. Why have the companies that 
have transitioned in the last two decades here in the United 
States, they have transitioned from asbestos diaphragms to 
membranes that do not have asbestos, how have they succeeded in 
the marketplace? You are not contending that their product is 
more expensive, or they wouldn't be able to sell it, right? So 
they have done quite well. Two-thirds of the manufacturing has 
already transitioned.
    Mr. Simon. Thank you, Senator. So just to be clear, there 
is a very significant economic cost for the transition. So 
while there are replacement technologies, one, they are not 
inexpensive, and they are not a drop in replacement. This 
requires complete redesign of manufacturing facilities.
    So there are millions of dollars of cost to making that 
transition. That is partly why our industry, as companies make 
individual decisions regarding the technologies they use, they 
factor in those business conditions, they factor in those 
socioeconomic considerations. You have seen this phased 
approach as they evaluate this.
    Senator Merkley. But those companies that transitioned, did 
they go out of business because of these higher costs you are 
referring to?
    Mr. Simon. Not that I am aware of.
    Senator Merkley. No. They took over two-thirds of the 
industry. So my point is that we know that we have a commodity 
in this marketplace that is produced at a market price 
effectively, and that the industry has chosen for economic 
reasons, because they are not required to do so by law, to 
transition, and that two-thirds of the industry has already 
transitioned. We are talking about this final third. So I just 
wanted to make that piece of the puzzle clear.
    Ms. Reinstein, you have heard the concerns about the speed 
of transition for the remaining one-third of the industry. And 
in this bill, we have the same 2 years that EPA has. Is that 
timeline something we should wrestle with any flexibility on?
    Ms. Reinstein. There are two points. And I thank you for 
asking the question, Chairman Merkley. One is, there are only 8 
plants left that use asbestos diaphragms. Only 8 out of 42. So 
we are on the downhill side of that.
    As far as time, we know that from the EPA economic 
analysis, EPA actually has noted that there could be a cost 
savings if the industry does transition because it will be more 
efficient using membrane technology.
    I am very concerned when we talk about the socioeconomic 
impact on other fence line communities. I want to be clear: 
These tons of asbestos coming into different cities like New 
Orleans, Houston, elsewhere, these communities are dangerously 
impacted by raw asbestos. And it can be different.
    I am hopeful that with this conversation today that we can 
look at all communities and come to the table for a transition 
period that works for everyone. I think you have opened up the 
discussion, Senator, and it is time that the eight plants end 
the imports and use.
    Senator Merkley. Thank you very much. I appreciate that.
    It has become quite clear that the U.S. industry has been 
transitioning, and economically successfully. You pointed out 
that actually EPA analysis shows that there are cost savings to 
the transition which explains why companies not required to do 
so switched technologies already.
    So if there are cost savings, and the companies that have 
transitioned have demonstrated that path, they did not go out 
of business, they did not have to sell their product at a 
higher market price, which would have put them out of business, 
then why are we continuing to import huge amounts of asbestos 
with all the problems that we know that are associated with it? 
The answer is, because this Congress has failed to act, and 
because when the EPA acted, they were struck down by the 
courts. And may will be struck down again.
    So I conclude with the notion that it is way past time that 
America joined the other developed nations and end the 
importation and use of asbestos in manufactured products. And I 
hope the entire committee will take to heart all the testimony 
they have heard today.
    I do thank our witnesses for bringing your information 
forward. I ask unanimous consent from the members for the 
record to include materials that are being submitted relevant 
to today's hearing.
    Hearing no objection, so ordered.
    [The referenced information follows:]
    
    
    
    	[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
    
    
    
    Senator Merkley. Senators will be allowed to submit 
questions for the record through the close of business on June 
23rd, 2022, with responses to be returned from witnesses. We 
would ask for your cooperation in this to the committee by July 
7th, 2022.
    With that, the hearing is adjourned.
    [Whereupon, at 11:18 a.m., the hearing was adjourned.]

                                 [all]