[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]