[Senate Hearing 117-526]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]




                                                        S. Hrg. 117-526

                      TOXIC SUBSTANCES CONTROL ACT
                       AMENDMENTS IMPLEMENTATION

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

                                HEARING

                               before the

                              COMMITTEE ON
                      ENVIRONMENT AND PUBLIC WORKS

                          UNITED STATES SENATE

                    ONE HUNDRED SEVENTEENTH CONGRESS

                             SECOND SESSION

                               __________

                             JUNE 22, 2022

                               __________

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




                  [GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]




        Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.govinfo.gov




                                ______
                                 

                 U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE

50-067 PDF                WASHINGTON : 2023













               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













                            C O N T E N T S

                              ----------                              
                                                                   Page

                             JUNE 22, 2022
                           OPENING STATEMENTS

Carper, Hon. Thomas R., U.S. Senator from the State of Delaware..     1
Capito, Hon. Shelley Moore, U.S. Senator from the State of West 
  Virginia.......................................................     3

                                WITNESS

Freedhoff, Hon. Michal, Ph.D., Assistant Administrator, Office of 
  Chemical Safety and Pollution Prevention, U.S. Environmental 
  Protection Agency..............................................     5
    Prepared statement...........................................     8
    Responses to additional questions from:
        Senator Carper...........................................    24
        Senator Merkley..........................................    28
        Senator Capito...........................................    30
        Senator Inhofe...........................................    50

                          ADDITIONAL MATERIAL

Letter to Dr. Michal Ilana Freedhoff from the American Chemistry 
  Council et al., July 8, 2022...................................    87






 
         TOXIC SUBSTANCES CONTROL ACT AMENDMENTS IMPLEMENTATION

                              ----------                              


                        WEDNESDAY, JUNE 22, 2022

                                       U.S. Senate,
                 Committee on Environment and Public Works,
                                                    Washington, DC.
    The Committee, met, pursuant to notice, at 10:01 a.m. in 
room 406, Dirksen Senate Office Building, Hon. Thomas R. Carper 
(Chairman of the Committee) presiding.
    Present: Senators Carper, Capito, Whitehouse, Markey, 
Kelly, Padilla, Inhofe, Sullivan, and Ernst.

          OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. THOMAS R. CARPER, 
            U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF DELAWARE

    Senator Carper. Good morning, everyone.
    Let me begin by welcoming our witness, no stranger in this 
room, Dr. Michal Freedhoff, and thank you, Michal, for joining 
us today for an important hearing. Michal, we are pleased to 
welcome you back to the EPW Committee as the Assistant 
Administrator for the Office of Chemical Safety and Pollution 
Prevention.
    As we gather here today, I believe today is the sixth 
anniversary of the enactment of the Toxic Substances Control 
Act legislation, among others. Senator Inhofe, myself, and a 
lot of folks worked on it. David Vitter, Tom Udall, all kinds 
of people worked on it. It was a great bipartisan triumph at 
the time.
    As we gather here today, my hope is that this hearing will 
offer us a much needed and timely opportunity to explore one of 
the more daunting challenges that we face, and that is 
protecting our health and the health of our families while also 
preserving the capacity of chemistry to enrich our lives and 
spur innovation.
    Given the complexities of this task and the intricacies of 
the science that accompanies it, not just anyone can do that. 
It should come as no surprise that the miracle of modern 
chemistry comes with potential risks and rewards.
    In many cases, industries have invested large amounts of 
resources and expertise to develop the chemicals that surround 
us in our everyday lives and make our lives better. Having said 
that, they are not the ones we expect to tell us all we need to 
know about the potential shortcomings or negative health 
impacts that those chemicals can pose.
    So, we turn, as we often do, to our government to serve as 
our watchdog and our protector of our people. In this case, it 
is the EPA. And through the Toxic Substances Control Act, or 
TOSCA as we affectionately call it, Congress has vested the 
responsibility of protecting Americans from chemicals that pose 
an unreasonable risk to us and our environment with EPA's 
Office of Chemical Safety and Pollution Prevention.
    With that being said, I am not sure we have found a person 
more qualified to lead that effort than the witness before us 
today. Dr. Freedhoff is a Ph.D. chemist who has spent countless 
hours working with many of us to create a law that can actually 
provide the protections that Congress intended when TSCA was 
initially enacted in 1976, but fixing the law is only half the 
story.
    The harder part is dealing with the complexities, with the 
competing interests, and daunting mechanics of implementing 
that law. Senator Inhofe, Senator Markey, and a number of our 
colleagues on both sides likely recall the high expectations 
that accompanied our shared sense of accomplishment and relief 
at enacting the Lautenberg Act in 2016.
    Still, no matter how capable the leadership at EPA is, the 
agency simply cannot meet these expectations without adequate 
support from Congress and from the Administration. Implementing 
TSCA requires experts and financial resources to rigorously 
test literally thousands of chemicals, quickly turn around risk 
assessments and chemical reviews, and establish the protection 
against those chemicals that can put our lives and our 
livelihoods at risk.
    As Dr. Freedhoff will point out in her testimony today, 
EPA's staff has continually faced the high expectations and 
workloads that we created in 2016 armed with flat budgets. To 
be fair, this is a shared responsibility. Faced with the 
previous Administration's efforts to strip the agency of 
critical personnel and resources, we in Congress did not 
respond by providing EPA with the budget increases that this 
law requires. To put it frankly, we collectively dropped the 
ball.
    Not surprisingly, today, the agency is missing deadlines 
and delaying decisions, which contribute to growing grievances. 
Advocates are frustrated with EPA's delayed pace in reviewing 
and regulating harmful chemicals. Meanwhile, those in 
industries are disheartened by having to wait sometimes a year 
or more for new chemicals to be approved or not approved.
    It is clear that no one is happy with the current 
situation. This leaves advocates and companies feeling 
compelled to look for nefarious explanations for those unmet 
aspirations and expectations: Faulty science, regulatory 
overreach, skirting the law, and inappropriately close ties 
between EPA staff and industry.
    Fortunately, there is a fundamental solution to all of 
this. I am going to say that again: Fortunately, there is a 
fundamental solution to all of this, and that is to provide the 
agency the resources it needs to get the job done, the job we 
all want them to do, the job that we all need for them to do.
    We might be pleasantly surprised to see how much better 
both the law and EPA start to look if the Congress and the 
Administration actually work together going forward to ensure 
that the agency has the qualified people on board, with the 
resources needed to meet the letter of this new law.
    My suggestion is that we give them that chance. We need to 
do more. I have committed to working together with members of 
this Committee to ensure that we provide the agency with the 
resources they need in fiscal year 2023 and to then hold EPA 
accountable, going forward, in protecting us from harmful 
toxics while allowing chemistry to usher in a new world of 
clean energy and life saving technologies.
    Dr. Freedhoff, we look forward to hearing from you today, 
in no small part, because you have quite a tale to tell us. 
Before we hear from you, though, I want to hear from our 
Ranking Member, Senator Capito for her opening remarks.
    Senator Capito.

        OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. SHELLEY MOORE CAPITO, 
          U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF WEST VIRGINIA

    Senator Capito. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and welcome back 
to the Committee, Dr. Freedhoff. It is nice to have you here.
    Today, we are holding a hearing, as the Chairman has said, 
on EPA's ongoing implementation of the Toxic Substances Control 
Act, TSCA. In 2016, Congress passed in a bipartisan way, 
overhauled the TSCA Program, strengthening EPA's authority to 
evaluate and regulate new and existing chemicals. These were a 
significant, as you know, working then, a significant 
bipartisan achievement.
    Among other changes, the revised TSCA Program established 
legally enforceable deadlines for EPA decisions. These 
deadlines are a key facet of the new TSCA, and one I would like 
to particularly focus on today. The Chairman has already talked 
a bit about this.
    Since being confirmed in your role, you have repeatedly 
stated, including in your testimony today, that a lack of 
resources is the reason EPA has repeatedly missed statutory 
deadlines. With regard to existing chemicals, you have said, 
``It shouldn't come as a surprise that we expect to miss every 
single deadline for the final risk management rules for these 
first 10 evaluations and every single deadline for the next 20 
risk evaluations.''
    Well, I have to be clear here. It does come as a bit of a 
surprise to hear a blanket pronouncement such as this, in 
particular, when the EPA's appropriations over the past few 
years have been developed in a bipartisan way.
    You have blamed the root cause of TSCA's delay on the prior 
Administration gutting the program, but we are 18 months into 
the Biden administration. Compared to 2016, you have dozens 
more full time equivalent employees working within the TSCA 
Program, and user fees have risen by over 600 percent.
    In 2021, EPA issued 146 final determinations on new 
chemical submissions, fewer than any other year of the prior 
Administration. The Obama administration, which was tasked with 
standing up the entire new TSCA Program, issued 92 
determinations from June 23, 2016 until the end of its final 
year in office.
    In contrast, as of last month, your office has issued final 
determinations only 23 times for 2022 submissions over a 
comparable amount of time. And that is really the crux of the 
issue that we will be talking about today.
    Previous administrations were able to do more with fewer 
resources. I guess the question would be, why is that? It seems 
that internal changes pushed by the Administration to the TSCA 
Program are undermining EPA's ability to meet its statutory 
obligation. Ten risk evaluations finalized between June 2020 
and January 2021 have all now been reopened, adding to a more 
supposedly already overstretched staff's plate.
    According to your previous statements, impacted communities 
will now have to wait until at least 2025 to see an eventual 
risk management rule for these high priority chemical 
substances.
    In your requests for more robust funding to the TSCA 
Program, you continually point to the increased workload that 
your office is facing. It kind of seems to me that a lot of the 
workload is self-generated mission creep of the TSCA Program 
that is not required by the statute.
    Under the Biden EPA, risk evaluations must now include 
exposure pathways covered by other EPA administered statutes 
like the Clean Air and Clean Water Act, as well as assess fence 
line community exposure.
    Your office has revised risk evaluation models to make 
highly questionable assumptions that OSHA standards are 
insufficient and that workers are not routinely wearing PPE.
    Finally, the agency is no longer issuing risk findings for 
individual conditions of use but is adopting a ``whole 
chemical'' approach.
    Taken together, these policy changes have created a 
situation where existing chemicals under review will most 
certainly face an unreasonable risk determination going 
forward. This expansion of your office's work beyond what TSCA 
requires has exacerbated the workload issues and is at odds 
with the intent of the statute.
    In addition, it seems staff resources have been diverted to 
programs without existing authorizations, like IRIS and Safer 
Choice, with EPA prioritizing elective programs over 
statutorily authorized programs.
    I don't have to tell you this, but in today's turbulent 
economic times, the importance of reliable, efficient domestic 
supply chains for key technologies like semiconductors and 
batteries has become increasingly apparent. Even feedstocks 
essential for the Biden administration's renewable energy 
priorities, like batteries and solar panels, are being held in 
regulatory limbo. Delays in approving new chemical submissions 
directly impact our economic and national security, and 
ultimately, will help fuel inflation and scarcity.
    We can all agree that everybody will benefit from getting 
this TSCA implementation on track. I look forward to hearing 
what specific actions you plant to take administratively, 
beyond just asking for additional resources, to fulfill the 
office's statutory obligations in a timely and cost effective 
manner.
    Thank you. I yield back.
    Senator Carper. Thank you, Senator Capito.
    We now turn to our witness, Ms. Freedhoff.
    We welcome you.
    Michal is currently serving as the Assistant Administrator 
of the Office of Chemical Safety and Pollution Prevention at 
the Environmental Protection Agency. Prior to her confirmation 
in that position, in June 2021, she joined EPA as a Principal 
Deputy Assistant Administrator for the Office of Chemical 
Safety and Pollution Prevention in January 2021, right after 
the inauguration of the President.
    Dr. Freedhoff has more than 20 years of Government 
experience, most recently, as the Minority Director of 
Oversight for this Committee. She began her congressional 
service in 1996, in then Congressman Ed Markey's office as 
Congressional Science and Engineering Fellow, after receiving a 
Ph.D. in physical chemistry at the University of Rochester. Dr. 
Freedhoff has also served on the staffs of the House Science 
Committee, the House Select Committee on Energy Independence 
and Global Warming, the House Energy and Commerce Committee, 
and the House Natural Resources Committee.
    Her environmental expertise spanning a range of policy 
areas for legislative work includes the 2016 reauthorization of 
TSCA, the 2019 legislation to address PFAS contamination, fuel 
economy provisions in the 2007 Energy Independence and Security 
Act, and a law requiring the creation of an online data base of 
potential consumer product safety defects.
    Somehow, in the midst of all that, colleagues, she managed 
to bring four children, four babies into the world and raise 
them, four children any of us would be proud to claim as our 
own.
    Once, you worked as a member of our team here on this 
Committee.
    I used to say that she never slept. My guess is she 
probably still doesn't sleep now.
    I don't know how you do it all, but we are here to figure 
out how we can enable you and the folks that you lead to do 
your jobs even better today.
    With that, your statement will be entered for the record, 
and then we will start some questions. Thank you. Please 
proceed. Welcome.

     STATEMENT OF HON. MICHAL FREEDHOFF, PH.D., ASSISTANT 
    ADMINISTRATOR, OFFICE OF CHEMICAL SAFETY AND POLLUTION 
        PREVENTION, U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

    Ms. Freedhoff. Good morning, Chairman Carper, Senator 
Inhofe, Ranking Member Capito, and other members of the 
Committee. Thanks for inviting me to testify on EPA's 
implementation of the Toxic Substances Control Act, or TSCA.
    It was exactly 6 years ago that many of us gathered at the 
White House to witness the historic amendments to TSCA being 
signed into law. For nearly 40 years, TSCA had largely failed 
to serve its purpose: To protect people and the environment 
from the risks of dangerous chemicals. I was proud to be a part 
of that bipartisan group that negotiated the Lautenberg Act.
    I was also proud a few months ago to propose the rule to 
ban the ongoing uses of chrysotile asbestos, more than 30 years 
after the previous failed attempt became the emblem for why we 
needed to rewrite the law. Unfortunately, on amended TSCA's 
sixth birthday, I think we can all also agree that things 
aren't yet working as everyone had hoped. Despite the best 
efforts of our dedicated staff, we are missing many of our 
statutory deadlines, our scientific peer reviewers and the 
courts have been critical of our work, and the public lacks 
confidence in our chemical safety efforts to date.
    Having the public's trust is essential to realize the 
promise of TSCA reform. It is in everyone's interest for the 
public to be able to trust EPA when it says that a chemical 
that industry makes and sells is safe, or when EPA writes a 
rule, to say how that chemical can be safely used. For the 
entire 6 years since the law was enacted, the agency has faced 
some major challenges, and central to all of them was a lack of 
resources.
    The 2016 TSCA amendments told EPA in no uncertain terms to 
scale up. The program's workload skyrocketed virtually 
overnight and doubled again several years later. But in the 
law's first 4 years, EPA never once made a congressional budget 
request for new resources to implement the new work. As a 
result, budgets for the new law remain just about exactly the 
same as the budget for the old, broken law. Although the new 
law gave EPA the authority to collect fees from chemical 
companies, we have only collected about half as much as 
Congress intended.
    The President's fiscal year 2022 budget request was the 
very first one that requested additional TSCA funding, but the 
agency didn't receive everything we asked for. In our 2023 
budget request, we have asked for an increase of almost $64 
million and 201 FTE for the TSCA Program. That is based on an 
extensive analysis of how much the law will actually cost to 
implement the way Congress expected it to be implemented.
    We will also update the fees rule and are doing all that we 
can to increase efficiencies and improve our processes. But the 
truth is, the years of compounding budget and workload 
challenges have taken their toll. The last Administration 
missed the deadlines for 9 of the first 10 risk evaluations, 
and for just about the entirety of the new law's existence, we 
have struggled to complete new chemical reviews as quickly as 
Congress intended.
    It is simple, elementary school math. We won't do more with 
less. We will do less with less. For instance, we are working 
as quickly as we can to put measures in place to protect people 
from exposures to dangerous chemicals like trichlorethylene, 
methylene chloride, and asbestos. The deadlines for those final 
rules and those first 10 chemicals are in just a few months, 
and we won't make a single one of them. Without additional 
resources, we won't get more than a handful of those rules on 
the books before 2025 or beyond.
    We are conducting about two dozen risk evaluations with 
statutory deadlines that start to hit later this year. Absent 
the resources in the President's budget, it is unclear whether 
we will even be able to complete half of them before 2025. 
There will be real consequences if we don't get those 
resources. Communities, workers, children, all of us, really, 
will go even longer without the health protections we need and 
deserve.
    Congress also wanted our new chemical reviews to be both 
protective and fast, but our budget for new chemicals now is 
actually less than it was before the new law because about 15 
percent of the new chemical staff were permanently moved by the 
previous Administration to work on risk evaluations. With more 
work and less staff, we will continue to fall short of 
Congress's expectations.
    It is also very clear to me that added resources are not 
just about meeting deadlines. Resources will also let us build 
the infrastructure of a well run, sustainable program. We are 
focused not just on getting the chemicals reviewed and the 
rules written, but in ways to build that infrastructure, 
maximizing use of the scientists and the resources we do have, 
and because science is the backbone of everything we do at EPA, 
we are reaffirming our commitment to scientific integrity 
across the board.
    The path forward is clear. We need to implement the law 
that Congress wrote, and to do that, we need to build a 
foundation for a sustainable program, one that delivers the 
promised health and environmental protections, one that brings 
the predictability that stakeholders expected it to bring, and 
one that can endure for years to come. I am confident that, 
with sufficient resources, the law can and will deliver on 
those promises.
    Thank you again for the opportunity to testify, and I look 
forward to your questions.
    [The prepared statement of Ms. Freedhoff follows:]
  
  
  [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]  

    
    Senator Carper. Thank you again for joining us. Thank you 
for that testimony.
    I will start off and then yield to Senator Capito and 
Senator Inhofe and others who join us.
    You may not be surprised to know that we have heard from 
many chemical companies that the new chemical review process at 
EPA has essentially stalled. This goal to complete these 
reviews under the Lautenberg Act amendments to TSCA, as you 
know, set about 90 days. With the resources you have, how long 
is it taking to complete these reviews?
    Ms. Freedhoff. Thanks very much for that question. The 
answer is it depends on the chemical, because some are more 
complicated than others to review. But I would say that for the 
entirety of the last 6 years, the agency has had typically 200 
to 300 new chemical submittals that are waiting for agency 
action, and our backlog, so to speak, is the same as it has 
been for just about the last 5 years.
    Senator Carper. If Congress provided the full $64 million 
boost requested in fiscal year 2023 for our chemical programs, 
would that enable you and your team to meet this target?
    Ms. Freedhoff. I think it would sure help a lot. The truth 
is that the New Chemicals Program is even more challenged than 
the rest of TSCA. Before the law was changed, EPA only had to 
do reviews on about 20 percent of new chemicals that came into 
the agency. After the law was changed, EPA had to do 100 
percent.
    Not only did the last Administration fail to ask for any 
more money to complete what is about five times the amount of 
work, they actually cut the New Chemicals budget by about 15 
percent by moving the staff over to work on existing chemical 
risk evaluations instead. So that is why we are operating with 
less than 50 percent of what we think we need to review 
chemicals both quickly and protectively. It is why we only have 
two human health assessors to review the hundreds of new 
chemical submittals that come every year, and it is why we will 
continue to struggle with these new chemical reviews until we 
are able to get the toxicologists and other health experts that 
we need on board and trained and ready to do work.
    Senator Carper. All right. Is there anything that the 
chemical companies can do when they submit their applications 
that might help the process move more quickly?
    Ms. Freedhoff. Actually, there is, and I appreciate you 
asking that question. I think, a lot of times what happens is 
that companies don't give us all of their data up front, and so 
they will give us something, say, 30 days in or 60 days in, and 
then we have to basically restart the clock and redo the risk 
assessment.
    That doesn't just hold up the line for that particular 
company, it holds up the line for everybody else, because 
everybody is stuck behind them waiting for their work to be 
redone with the new information.
    One thing that we are actually doing and are getting ready 
to announce in the coming days is, we actually took a look at 
the types of data that companies weren't giving us up front and 
analyzed the reasons for delays in reviewing those companies' 
new chemical submittals. And we are going to do some pretty 
aggressive educational outreach to industry so that they can 
know what would help us get the work done more quickly.
    Senator Carper. OK. We appreciate your candor with respect 
to the budget situation facing the TSCA Program. We fully 
support getting the agency the resources that you need to 
properly implement this important piece of legislation to 
protect our communities against the risk from toxic chemicals.
    I have two questions, then I am going to yield to Senator 
Capito. Would you just give us a sense of what EPA will and 
won't be able to do under TSCA if you do not get the additional 
money and people requested for fiscal year 2023?
    Ms. Freedhoff. Absolutely. It is important to remember, 
before the law was changed, EPA did zero comprehensive risk 
evaluations under TSCA. After the law was changed, EPA was on 
the clock to do 10, and then that doubled again to about two 
dozen now. If we don't get the resources, we will not be able 
to do even half of those before 2025.
    Before the law was changed, EPA did zero comprehensive 
rules on existing chemicals because of the failed asbestos ban. 
We are now writing 10 different rules, and without the 
additional resources that are in the President's budget 
request, we will only be able to get a handful of those on the 
books until 2025 or beyond.
    With new chemicals, we will continue to occasionally be 
hindering innovation and preventing the chemicals that are 
needed to power the Nation, semiconductor, biofuels, battery, 
and other sectors onto the market as quickly as industry 
expects and as quickly as the law says.
    There are real consequences, not just to people's health 
because of the delays for protections to be put into place, but 
there will also be delays for industry for them to get their 
new chemicals to market.
    Senator Carper. One last question, and then I will yield to 
Senator Capito. Will the funding and personnel included in the 
fiscal year 2023 budget take care of the entire program, or is 
this a down payment that is going to take several years to pay 
off?
    Ms. Freedhoff. I think it is like any business. We have had 
6 years of budgets that were far too low. It is going to take 
time to dig out of that hole. I do think that any large, new 
venture requires a sustained level of resources and requires a 
sustained level of effort on the agency's part the increase its 
efficiencies and find ways to work smarter, not harder. We are 
committed to doing our part of that as well.
    Senator Carper. Thank you so much.
    Senator Inhofe.
    Senator Inhofe. OK. Michal, first of all, it is nice to see 
you again. It is kind of funny because we have always gotten 
along famously in spite of the fact that we disagree probably 
on more things than we have agreed on, but on the other hand, 
it has worked very well. I remember, and it was called to our 
attention a few minutes ago by Senator Carper, that I chaired 
this Committee back during the time that we were really busy on 
the thing, and of course, on the Lautenberg bill, another 
person that we are very fond of and worked very closely with, 
but we were able, in fact, when we would have our meetings, the 
Republicans would have a meeting once a week. They would get 
around to me at that time. I think you were with Barbara Boxer 
at that time.
    I commented to them, I said, no, from the Committee that 
actually gets things done, that was us, and we did. In fact, 
you got along famously with Ryan Jackson, Alex Hergott, 
Demetri, and all of these people. They really felt a very close 
relationship with you.
    We have some problems, and I have to say this, which will 
make it a lot easier than repeating it all. I think that 
Senator Capito, came out, and I agree with the comments that 
she made and the problems that we are having. I have talked 
also, as has the Chairman, to areas where we are having 
problems.
    I had questions that I was going to ask you, and I would do 
it, knowing full well what the answers will be. One was, Dr. 
Freedhoff, do you agree that delays in the new chemical review 
process are hampering innovation and will contribute to supply 
chain constraints and inflationary pressures?
    Ms. Freedhoff. I do agree that delays in the new chemical 
review process are delaying the introduction of new chemicals 
into commerce, but I am not sure I fully understand how a 
chemical that isn't yet in commerce could be causing supply 
chain problems. That said, we want to do better, and I am 
committed to doing what Congress expected us to do, which was 
to review new chemicals protectively and quickly, and I think 
we do have to do both of those things. Speed is important, and 
we want to do better.
    Senator Inhofe. Yes. In your opening statement, you 
commented on your frustration with not being able to get, I 
think you only got one out of 10 of the list of 10 that were in 
there. So do you really believe the system that we are using is 
the best system? There could be a frailty in that system that 
is causing some of the problems that you talked about that need 
heavier funding.
    A lot of us believe that the EPA has had kind of the hog's 
end of the funding for a long period of time. I know that you 
didn't agree with the previous President with what he was 
trying to accomplish, but on the other hand, there has to be an 
answer. And right now, I don't know how you can just go to the 
funding and say that that is where the problem is going to be 
resolved.
    What things, other than just the funding, what could be 
done better, more efficiently, to crank out more stuff than we 
are cranking out right now?
    Ms. Freedhoff. I appreciate you asking the question, 
because you are absolutely right. It is incumbent on the agency 
to try to find ways to do things faster and better. We are 
doing that.
    One example in the new chemical space was our biofuels 
initiative, because we noticed we had several dozen biofuels 
applications in. And instead of treating them all as entirely 
new things and giving them to different members of the team, we 
actually created a dedicated team and streamlined the review of 
those submittals so that we could get them out more quickly.
    Then, we are looking at different sectors as well, where we 
have a lot of applications for the same types of chemistries 
coming in, seeing if there are ways we can streamline, write 
down the process, and then the next risk assessor that sees a 
chemical like that doesn't have to start from scratch.
    We are building up our training, we are investing in the 
IT, the actual infrastructure of the agency, because one thing 
that has hindered the new chemicals program for years is 
basically crumbling information technology that crashes, in 
some cases, for weeks at a time. Whenever that happens, the new 
chemical staff can't do any of their work. We are actually 
investing some money in making sure that those systems are 
modernized.
    We are also trying to standardize our training, write down 
more of our standard operating procedures in a way that is easy 
for a new risk assessor to understand, and we are working with 
the Office of Research and Development to modernize our 
scientific approach to reviewing these new chemicals.
    Senator Inhofe. I had a question that was written down 
here. It is a complicated question, so I have chosen that to 
ask you so I can hear your complicated answer. How can you then 
justify regulations of chemical substances based solely on 
benefits to carbon dioxide and exhaust particulate matter 
emissions from the manufacturing of the substance, rather than 
exposures to the chemical substance itself?
    Ms. Freedhoff. The law tells us to do risk evaluations to 
look at whether there is risk to human health or the 
environment from a chemical substance under the conditions of 
use. The law doesn't say that it can only be some types of 
exposures or some types of uses. The law really pushed the 
agency to look comprehensively at the risk that a chemical 
substance posed.
    Senator Inhofe. OK. Now, what I am going to do, I do want 
to hear the questions and comments that will be made by Senator 
Capito. As you might know and you might not know that I am 
doing the Defense Authorization Bill right now, and that is 
what I am holding up.
    But I just want to hear more about what kind of, and try to 
analyze myself, knowing the successes that you and I and those 
of us here at this table have had in the past, so I can try to 
analyze why we can't do a better job in terms of cranking out 
more stuff and getting it done. I am concerned what is going to 
happen to a lot of this stuff. Is it going to go overseas, 
because there are a lot of unhealthy results and the problems 
that we are having right now, so I thank you for that.
    Senator Capito, I want to hear more of your comments.
    Senator Carper. Senator Capito. Thank you.
    Senator Capito. Thank you. I am sorry I missed your 
statement. I had to go over to Commerce, so it is just one of 
those days, which I am sure you, beyond many people, would 
understand that.
    Obviously, from my statement, it is clear from the data 
that the new determinations have slowed significantly. What 
steps are you taking to improve the pace at which these new 
chemical determinations are issued?
    Ms. Freedhoff. I appreciate the question. And it is 
certainly true that our new chemical reviews have been slow for 
more than 5 years. And we have just about the same number of 
chemicals that are waiting for EPA approval than has 
historically been the case over the past several years.
    I will note, we also have 15 percent of a smaller staff, 
because 15 percent of the new chemicals risk assessors were 
permanently moved into the existing chemicals risk evaluation 
division toward the end of the last Administration. So from day 
one, we actually had less than what both the Obama 
administration and the Trump administration had for new 
chemical reviews.
    That said, I completely agree that EPA has 
responsibilities. It is not just about asking Congress for 
money and continuing to do things the same way, and I 100 
percent agree with you. So there are a number of things that we 
have done already.
    One is the biofuels initiative that we rolled out a couple 
of months ago, where we streamlined the review of those types 
of chemistries, because we had several dozen different biofuels 
applications in front of the agency. And we realized that by 
creating a dedicated team where the same people were always 
reviewing that type of chemistry, and by streamlining the 
review of those chemicals, we could get more of them out the 
door more quickly than if we treated every one like its own new 
thing over and over again. And we will be expanding that type 
of initiative into other sectors in the coming weeks and 
months. We are just trying to sort of narrow our focus there.
    I think one thing that we have noticed over the years is 
that companies often don't give us everything we need to do a 
risk assessment that they feel reflects the real world 
conditions.
    Senator Capito. OK, so let me stop you right there, because 
isn't that on everybody's plate there? Why are they not giving 
you what you want? Are you telling them what you want in a 
timely manner so you can hit these deadlines?
    Ms. Freedhoff. I think we are realizing that is part of the 
problem. The problem is us. I think that we are, so we did an 
analysis of why we have to rework so many risk assessments, and 
it turns out that what happens is, sometimes, after a couple of 
months, a company will come and say, oh no, I am not planning 
on releasing this to water, or oh, I am not making this way, 
your risk assessment is wrong. We will say, OK, give us the 
data, but then we kind of have to start over again from scratch 
and redo the risk assessment, and that causes delays, not just 
for that company, but for all the companies waiting behind.
    What we are about to do is release the results of that 
analysis that kind of lists and documents the type of 
information that will help us if we get it on day one, and we 
are going to do some pretty aggressive and proactive outreach 
to companies to make sure that they understand what our data 
needs are. And we are really hoping that that helps us work 
more quickly as well.
    Senator Capito. Well, I do know that you have had a lot of 
outreach to companies and that there is a very open door there, 
so that is very much appreciated by everybody.
    If you have a 15 percent smaller staff over the last year 
and a half, have you hired into those positions?
    Ms. Freedhoff. So, the 2022 Appropriations Act gave us a 
modest number of new hires.
    Senator Capito. Can you not fill in the 15 percent?
    Ms. Freedhoff. We have only had that many for a couple of 
months because I think our spend plan was only approved a 
couple months ago. So we have done and we are doing an 
aggressive recruitment strategy. We have either hired or 
selected or somewhere in the process about three-quarters of 
the people that the 2022 Appropriations Law lets us hire.
    I want to say to you, because it is true, rebuilding the 
New Chemical staff is my No. 1 personal priority, and there is 
not even a close second.
    Senator Capito. Let me skip to, this is kind of my own 
personal bugaboo, and I think it is the work from home 
scenario. So EPA's YouTube channel on April 22nd had a YouTube 
that said EPA future of work: Tips and tricks, and I have 
talked to the EPA Administrator about this, returning to work. 
You said in that, I am so looking forward to meeting as many of 
you as I can. What does that mean? Have you not met them?
    Ms. Freedhoff. I hadn't met them in person.
    Senator Capito. Are they back now?
    Ms. Freedhoff. Many of them are back. Many of them are 
teleworking more than they did before. Some have applied to be 
permanently remote work. I have to say, I think the entire 
country is reimagining the way its work force is designed 
following COVID. I think the West Virginia State legislature 
just wrote a report that sounds much like what EPA has 
experienced. And I think what they said was that telework has 
proven to be beneficial and productive as a routine part of 
conducting the business of the State. It is beneficial.
    Senator Capito. I am not disputing telework, but if I had 
an organization that was falling way behind, I think I might be 
roping people back to the office and saying, look, it is not 
working this way. I understand it is a capacity thing, and I am 
not here to beat up on you. I want to help the situation, move 
it quicker, like you do.
    But I did find that, when you have that lack of connection, 
there is also a lot of stories out there, the lack of 
connection in work or people doing other things at certain 
times of the day when you are principally engaged is a problem. 
But you are right. That is a bigger problem than what is going 
on in your office.
    Ms. Freedhoff. I agree with you. It has been great to meet 
my staff in person. There are intangible benefits associated 
with in person meetings and walking down the hallway and seeing 
people. I have really enjoyed it.
    Senator Capito. Let me ask about PFAS really quickly, 
because I know you know a lot about this. There are several 
definitions, I guess, at EPA on PFAS. Do you think a clear and 
consistent definition would be useful for the EPA?
    Ms. Freedhoff. Thanks for that question. I do think so. The 
definition that EPA used in its rule that Congress actually is 
requiring us to do to collect historic information about the 
ways PFAS is made and used, that definition was first written 
by my office in 2006 for purposes of the TSCA New Chemicals 
Program. We then proposed to use that definition in that rule, 
and after we proposed it, the OECD, an international 
organization, proposed a much broader definition.
    We are now kind of looking at the public comments that we 
got on that rule, and we are looking to see what a more robust 
definition might look like, and whether we should be adding 
additional PFAS to our original proposal for that rule.
    Senator Capito. I think uniformity, obviously, is easier, 
and if you are having issues with meeting deadlines, and having 
clear roadmaps are always much, much more beneficial. But 
apparently, Radhika Fox, when she testified before the 
Committee, said that EPA was not going to be developing a 
uniform definition.
    I have gone over my time, and I see we have some other 
members here, so I will stop here. Maybe we can get back to 
this. Go ahead.
    Ms. Freedhoff. Can I get 30 seconds here?
    Senator Capito. Sure.
    Ms. Freedhoff. I think what OECD said was, they created a 
really broad definition for PFAS and then said that individual 
regulators might do different things. For example, a definition 
that would work for the Water Office would properly be focused 
on PFAS that would be expected to be in water, whereas a 
definition that worked for the TSCA Office might be one for 
PFAS that are expected to be manufactured and processed.
    I do think there will be some differences, but I think it 
is important to think about what we all mean when we say that 
something is or is not a PFAS.
    Senator Carper. I believe we have been joined, by Webex, by 
Senator Padilla.
    Are you there, Alex?
    Senator Padilla. Yes, I am.
    Senator Carper. You are recognized for any questions or 
comments you have. Go ahead, please. Thanks for joining us.
    Senator Padilla. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Greetings from 
the Judiciary Committee. Double duty here.
    Dr. Freedhoff, I would like to ask you a question about how 
the use of supercomputing and computational toxicology could 
assist your office with the assessment of new chemicals under 
TSCA. Existing programs, as you know, that address 
environmental risk and consumer product exposures rely on 
scientific data, but generating this data can often be slow, 
costly, and rely on animal testing.
    I believe we can improve this by using supercomputers to 
run models to better predict adverse health effects caused by 
chemicals and to identify safer chemicals before they are in 
use in manufacturing. I have been working to advance 
legislation to create a consortium referred to as ``Supersafe'' 
to be comprised of Federal agencies, including EPA, HHS, and 
DOB, along with State agencies and academic and other research 
institutions with similar capabilities to supercomputing and 
machine learning to establish rapid approaches for large scale 
identification of toxic substances and the development of safer 
alternatives.
    This Supersafe Consortium would develop and validate 
computational toxicology methods to predict adverse health 
effects caused by toxic substances and identify the safer 
chemical alternatives for use before we have widespread 
chemical pollutions in air, water, land, and consumer products.
    With that as the background, Dr. Freedhoff, how would a 
Supersafe Consortium assist EPA in assessing new chemicals 
under TSCA, and would such a program be helpful to your efforts 
to review new chemicals and bolster the use of good science in 
EPA's decisionmaking?
    Ms. Freedhoff. Thanks very much for that question. I think 
the answer is pretty simple. We are excited by any new 
scientific tool that can speed up our reviews and help us meet 
our obligation to reduce the use of animal testing under TSCA.
    We have recently started a collaborative research program 
with the Office of Research and Development, and we are making 
some similar efforts to try to modernize the models and the 
other scientific tools that we are using for new chemicals. And 
the project that you are describing, I think, would be a really 
good complement to that.
    Senator Padilla. That is getting a little technical on you, 
but that is what happens when you have some scientists and 
engineers in the Senate and serving on this Committee.
    Ms. Freedhoff. I hear you.
    Senator Padilla. Just one follow up to the Supersafe 
Consortium concept. As you know, TSCA also requires that EPA 
reduce and replace the use of vertebrate animals in the testing 
of chemical substances to the extent that is practicable and 
scientifically justified. So can you talk just for a minute on 
how a Supersafe Consortium and the use of these computational 
tools and models help EPA meet these TSCA mandates?
    Ms. Freedhoff. I think it would be a huge help. I think we 
are working to develop similar models and tools to reduce the 
use of animals in the TSCA Program, and any additional help we 
could get through the type of consortia that you are 
contemplating, I think, would be very appreciated.
    Senator Padilla. OK. Well, thank you very much. I look 
forward to following up with you on that.
    I do have other questions, but they seem to overlap with a 
question that has been raised by other members of the 
Committee, so with that, Mr. Chairman, I will yield back.
    Senator Carper. All right. Thanks, Senator Padilla.
    I think Senator Markey is next.
    I don't know that you have ever met Dr. Freedhoff, but does 
she look familiar? How many years did you work for her?
    [Laughter.]
    Senator Markey. I think I worked for her for 16 years, and 
I think you worked for her for 4 years, yes. I think that is 
how it broke down.
    So, one particular area where additional funding and 
staffing would be very beneficial is tackling biphenyls, or 
PCBs, which have been linked to cancer, immune effects, and 
other health harms. Around one-third of all school aged 
children may be exposed to PCBs through their school 
environments, with more children likely being exposed through 
daycare and other facilities, which is why I introduced the Get 
Toxic Substances Out of Schools Act.
    Dr. Freedhoff, would additional budgetary support help your 
work with States or local educational agencies to better 
understand and work on the risks that toxic PCBs pose to 
children?
    Ms. Freedhoff. Thanks very much for that question. And that 
is an issue that comes up repeatedly whenever I talk to the 
regional staff, because they are in the position of hearing 
from schools, in some cases, where the lighting fixtures are so 
old that the PCBs are literally dripping out of them and 
exposing people. And the schools often lack the technical 
expertise that they need to be able to address and mitigate the 
problem. So in the 2023 budget request, we do have a modest 
amount of money that is designed to augment those efforts in 
the States.
    Senator Markey. As Dr. Freedhoff knows, back in 1979, a 
woman, Annie Anderson, came into my office with her 3 year old 
boy, Jimmy, who had leukemia. She was in Woburn, Massachusetts, 
and everyone was ignoring her.
    Ultimately, it became a movie, a civil action with John 
Travolta playing the lawyer, but in fact, it was Annie Anderson 
and the mothers who were the heroes. That is who the movie 
should have been about. And they identified the TCE that was 
ultimately the cause for those cancers in all of those 
children. Superfund was largely driven by that Woburn and by 
Love Canal in terms of it going on the books in 1980.
    We are still, now, dealing with the funding issues. How are 
we going to provide for the protections for these devastating 
cancers so that more children aren't exposed to them? The Trump 
administration undermined the EPA risk determination of TCE by 
refusing to look at all the negative health effects on pregnant 
women and children.
    Dr. Freedhoff, how is your office working to protect 
families from the dangers of TCE?
    Ms. Freedhoff. I really appreciate you asking me that 
question, because of all the chemicals that we are writing 
rules for under TSCA, TCE is the one that feels the most 
personal to me. And that is because of my work for you. He 
already told you some of the history of Anne Anderson with her 
little boy, Jimmy, and I was re-reviewing that case, that whole 
story, a few months ago in preparation for an agency meeting on 
TCE. And I tell you, I was blown away to realize that Jimmy 
Anderson would have been just about exactly my age, had he not 
died when he was 12 years old.
    In the four decades since he died, we have managed to 
regulate TCE under the Clean Air Act; we have managed to 
regulate it under the Safe Drinking Water Act; we have managed 
to regulate it under the Superfund Law, but we have yet to 
regulate its manufacturing use under TSCA. If there is one 
thing that drives me every day in this job, it is knowing how 
important it is to get that rule on the books.
    Senator Markey. Yes. It is absolutely critical, and again, 
there was always a lot of denial in the chemical industry on 
that issue.
    By the way, it was one of the first Superfund cleanup 
sites, and now it is called the Jimmy Anderson Transportation 
Center. It is where we built an incredible, industrial, 
commercial, and transportation center up there, named after 
that little boy.
    If you could just briefly touch on asbestos. We fought hard 
in 2016 to have asbestos included in that TSCA rewrite bill, 
and it was with the great hope that we would be able to see 
enormous progress made on asbestos, and ultimately, to see it 
banned. A lot of the countries in the rest of the world have 
done so.
    Can you talk about the progress you are making on that 
issue, and what additional resources you might need in order to 
accomplish that goal?
    Ms. Freedhoff. Absolutely. Thanks very much for that.
    Asbestos, symbolically enough, was the very first rule that 
we proposed that came from the risk evaluations under the new 
TSCA Program. We did propose a ban on the ongoing uses of 
chrysotile asbestos. We are taking comments on that proposal 
now, and we will be looking to finalize it sometime in 2023.
    As you might remember, the last Administration chose to 
exclude other fiber types of asbestos, as well as legacy uses 
of asbestos, from that risk evaluation. A court found that the 
agency had improperly excluded those uses and types. So we are 
doing a second part of the risk evaluation as a result, and 
that will be done by December 2024.
    Senator Markey. Thank you so much.
    And Mr. Chairman, that issue is personal to me as well. My 
staff director, Joe Zampitella, his father was the head of the 
Asbestos Workers in Massachusetts in the 1970s and 1980s. I 
only had two unions endorse me in my first race, the Asbestos 
Workers and the Teachers, when I ran for Congress.
    Ultimately, Mr. Zampitella passed away in 1986 from 
asbestos. One of the most powerful images I can ever remember 
is an entire church filled with asbestos workers, all sitting 
there, row after row after row after row, because he was the 
leader of the union, and he had asbestosis, and he had just 
passed away.
    For so many of them, they realized that would be their fate 
as well, because there had been no protections that had been 
put on the books.
    We just have an obligation to finish this job on asbestos. 
I thank you, Dr. Freedhoff, so much for all of your great work 
on that.
    Senator Carper. Senator Markey, thank you so much for 
joining us.
    I think next in line of questioning is Senator Kelly. I 
believe he is going to be followed by Senator Whitehouse and 
Senator Sullivan. I think that is the order.
    Senator Kelly. Am I up?
    Senator Carper. Senator Kelly, I think you are up. Go 
ahead.
    Senator Kelly. Right, thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    Dr. Freedhoff, thank you for being here today. I want to 
begin by discussing the latest drinking water advisory level 
for PFAS chemicals, and how that impacts the work done by your 
office to develop national strategies for PFAS testing and 
tracking PFAS which are still in use.
    As you know, last week, EPA updated the lifetime health 
advisories for two of the most pervasive PFAS chemicals, PFOA 
and PFOS from 70 parts per trillion to 4 parts per quadrillion 
for PFOA and 20 parts per quadrillion for PFOS. These updated 
guidelines are significant for the more than 20 communities in 
Arizona which have recorded levels of PFAS at or above these 
levels.
    As I understand it, we don't have testing technology which 
can detect PFAS in quadrillions yet, meaning many more 
communities could also be vulnerable, more than the 20 in 
Arizona.
    Dr. Freedhoff, I understand that your office is responsible 
for developing a national strategy to test for PFAS. How do the 
new lifetime health advisories affect that work?
    Ms. Freedhoff. Thanks very much for that question, Senator 
Kelly.
    Our testing strategy is really about the thousands of PFAS 
that we don't know enough about to write health advisories or 
regulate in some way, because, as you know, there were 
thousands that were allowed into commerce or historically made 
or used in this country. And if we try to study them one by one 
by one by one, we will never get the answers that we need in 
order to take action on the ones that need action taken on.
    What we did was we divided those thousands of PFAS into 
categories based on their structure and other chemical 
properties, looked at the categories for which we had no health 
information, because that is clearly the most important 
question, is, what does this type of PFAS do to your body if 
you are exposed, and we are designing a testing strategy 
designed to fill in those data gaps.
    Our first test order went out a couple weeks ago. It was 
for a PFAS that is found in firefighting foam and other 
products. And when we get the data back for that chemical, it 
will help us understand more about the human health effects of 
500 other PFAS that are similar to it.
    I think there is not exactly a connection between health 
advisories and our testing strategy, but our testing strategy 
is designed to fill in the holes on human health data that 
exist for so many PFAS.
    Senator Kelly. Are you confident you are going to be able 
to develop the tests necessary to detect in the quadrillions?
    Ms. Freedhoff. We are not testing that way. What we are 
doing is we are using our authority under TSCA to tell 
companies to give us information and data about the chemical. 
So sometimes it is doing modeling to show us what its effect 
would be. Other times it might be animal testing, if we need to 
pursue animal testing. Other times, it is information about 
whether the chemical dissolves in water and would therefore be 
likely to be in drinking water.
    Senator Kelly. So then, my understanding is, as we test 
drinking water, we are still going to be testing in the parts 
per trillion, and the only way we are going to know if somebody 
is exceeding the lifetime health limit in the quadrillions will 
be on the data you get from companies that manufacture these 
chemicals?
    Ms. Freedhoff. I think it is a slightly different question. 
I think, sort of taking a step back, I think EPA has 
historically written a couple hundred different health 
advisories for drinking water over the years, and for 
information on these particular ones, I would say that the 
Office of Water probably has more answers than I have.
    I think, maybe one way to think about it is to think about 
the lead rules. It is generally accepted that there is no safe 
level of lead, and so the goal for lead in drinking water is 
zero.
    Senator Kelly. Yes, I got you.
    Ms. Freedhoff. But the rules are what factor in the 
detection levels, how to detect it, and how to treat it, and 
how to remove it. I think that is what you will see. That is 
sort of the difference between a health advisory for PFAS and a 
rule for PFAS.
    Senator Kelly. I got it. I am going to have my office 
follow up with yours on this to make sure that, because these 
20 communities, we know that the level is above what you just 
set the lifetime health advisory for, so we need to figure out 
how we are going to clean up this water. The drought situation 
we are facing in Arizona right now is so critical that, at some 
point here, in the near future, some communities are going to 
be relying on groundwater, and we have to make sure that water 
is clean. So thank you.
    And thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    Senator Carper. Senator Kelly, thank you so much for 
joining us.
    Now, live from the great State of Alaska, Senator Sullivan.
    Senator Sullivan. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you very 
much.
    Dr. Freedhoff, I want to just begin by commenting. You have 
a lot of experience with this Committee, correct?
    Ms. Freedhoff. Yes.
    Senator Sullivan. And TSCA?
    Ms. Freedhoff. Yes.
    Senator Sullivan. I would like to begin by complimenting 
the Chairman and the Committee's culture here of getting things 
done, big things done, big, important pieces of legislation. I 
have been on this Committee since I first came to the Senate 
over 7 years ago.
    We have our debates, and we have our disagreements, but we 
manage to actually produce legislation like TSCA. This is the 
first Committee that Senator Whitehouse and I started our 
series of Save Our Seas Act legislation, which are very 
important laws, and the Infrastructure Bill. And there is a lot 
that has happened in this Committee that I think benefits the 
country and shows our fellow Americans that the Senate can work 
in a bipartisan way.
    With that, the TSCA Bill was actually one of the first 
major pieces of legislation that I worked on as a new Senator 
in 2015, and I know that you were a part of that. I think it 
was a really good effort. But one thing that I am concerned 
about now is, I worry that it might be in line to be subject to 
abuse.
    Let me give you a little bit of context. The Biden 
administration is encouraging agencies that have no legislative 
mandate to regulate the energy sector, choke off capital to the 
energy sector, whether it is the Federal Reserve, for goodness' 
sakes, whether it is the SEC, the Chairman of the SEC put out 
an 800 page rule all about climate change, and he committed to 
me during his confirmation process he wasn't going to do that. 
He is doing it.
    Comptroller of the Currency, who was nominated by this 
President, said she wanted to put oil and gas businesses out of 
business. The Comptroller of the Currency, what the heck does 
she have to do with it? So you have this major power grab, and 
of course, this is contributing to $6 a gallon gas, which is 
crushing working families in America and Alaska and West 
Virginia.
    I was concerned to read about one of these extreme far left 
groups that just petitioned the EPA to use TSCA as a way to 
phase out fossil fuel production, use, and disposal. Now, you 
and I worked on TSCA together. We all worked on TSCA together. 
I was involved, but I am pretty darned sure that I would have 
noticed a provision that somehow gave EPA authority to do 
something like that.
    An article called this group's filing to the EPA a ``novel 
approach'' to TSCA. That is a nice way of saying that TSCA did 
not give the EPA the authority to try to phase out fossil fuel 
production.
    Can you just definitively agree with me on that, saying 
that, no, TSCA was not focused on that, we are not going to let 
that bipartisan law be abused in ways that other Federal 
agencies and the Biden administration are abusing their power 
to try to shut down American energy, which hurts our national 
security, hurts working families, drives up gas prices at the 
pump.
    Could you agree with me on that? You helped write this law. 
You did a great job. This Committee did a great job, but this 
Committee did not contemplate using TSCA to phase out energy 
production in America. Do you agree with that?
    Ms. Freedhoff. I do agree that the purpose of TSCA was not 
to phase out energy production in America.
    Senator Sullivan. And will you look at the petition, I 
forget which radical group filed it, with the discerning 
statutory authority of the EPA, which was not intended? You 
helped draft it; we all worked on it together. It was not 
intended to do that. Novel or not novel, would you agree with 
me on that as well?
    Ms. Freedhoff. I think I will just sort of take a step 
back. First of all, we just received the petition. We haven't 
reviewed it. We have an obligation to review it, and we have an 
obligation to respond. So we will do that. I will also say that 
we do, as an Administration, believe that climate change is an 
urgent threat, but when we wrote TSCA----
    Senator Sullivan. But was TSCA really focused on climate 
change? It wasn't.
    Ms. Freedhoff. Climate change was not debated when we 
negotiated TSCA. That is absolutely the case.
    Senator Sullivan. Correct. I remember.
    Ms. Freedhoff. What TSCA did say, though, was that for all 
the chemicals that are in commerce, EPA was supposed to study 
them all and put regulations in place when EPA found risk.
    Senator Sullivan. Let me just, I know I am out of time, and 
I don't want to abuse this, but these kinds of back door regs, 
particularly when we all worked on it, we know that that is not 
what TSCA was meant to do. If you have a novel approach, you 
have the President of the United States quoted recently. He is 
all over the map, but we want to lower gas prices, we need to 
have more oil supply right now.
    Geez, OK, that is different from what he said as a 
candidate, but I will take him at face value.
    But I think this is a test from this White House. If they 
accept this petition as another Federal agency overreach to 
choke off capital to the American energy sector and then have 
the President say, oh, no, we are trying to help the American 
energy sector, no one is believing it. And this is going to be 
another test case.
    I hope that you can read the statute with fidelity to what 
we agreed to here in this Committee in a good bipartisan way, 
but it wasn't meant to regulate the energy sector. By the way, 
neither is the SEC statutory authority. That chairman is way 
over his skis.
    This Administration is hurting the energy sector, hurting 
American families. But I just hope you of all people take a 
hard look, because you know what this statute was about, and it 
wasn't about the regulation of the American energy sector. And 
I hope you reject this petition.
    Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    Senator Carper. You are welcome.
    Senator Whitehouse, welcome.
    Senator Whitehouse. Thanks very much. I am extremely fond 
of my colleague, Senator Sullivan, and we work very, very well 
together on a lot of areas. But I have just got to offer some 
opposing views regarding some of the stuff that he said.
    Senator Sullivan. I am shocked, Mr. Chairman. I am shocked.
    [Laughter.]
    Senator Whitehouse. For starters, when he talks about the 
American energy sector, he is talking about America's fossil 
fuel sector. If you look at America's energy sector, the Biden 
administration is working very hard to grow as fast as we can 
the renewable energy that we need for the future, because 
climate change is an actual thing, and the transition has to 
actually happen.
    I know that there are a lot of people, and particularly the 
industry, doesn't want climate change discussed by financial 
regulators, but for Pete's sake, every major central bank has 
sent out financial warnings about what climate change is going 
to do. Freddie Mac has warned of coastal property values crash, 
cascading through the economy worse than 2008. We have the 
major corporate folks, most recently Deloitte, coming out with 
a report talking about a multitrillion-dollar swing between 
getting it right on climate and getting is wrong on climate.
    So the fact that financial regulators are paying attention 
to this shows nothing more than that they are paying attention. 
Of course they are paying attention to this.
    As for the petition being filed by extreme environmental 
groups, the guy's name is Henson. He was the top scientist for 
NASA. NASA got stuff driving around on the surface of Mars. 
Their scientists are actually pretty good at stuff, and his 
testimony first came out in this room with a Republican Senator 
chairing it, John Chafee of Rhode Island, so I take this a 
little bit personally. And facts have proven his testimony in 
this room all those years ago extremely, extremely accurate. 
There is my counterpoint to my friend Dan Sullivan's point.
    With respect to TSCA and paying for it, we gave EPA 
authority to levy fees to target that 25 percent of the program 
would be covered by industry contributions. What percentage is 
now covered by user fees?
    Ms. Freedhoff. Far less than that, actually, Senator. And 
the fees rule was one of those implementation challenges that I 
am hoping we can course correct on, because the first fees rule 
didn't kick in until fiscal year 2019. It actually excluded all 
of the costs of the first 10 risk evaluations, which was the 
most expensive thing the agency was working on on TSCA at that 
time.
    As a result, it only collected about 12 or 13 percent of 
our costs, not the 25 percent that Congress expected and that 
every stakeholder supported. So in the 2022 Appropriations 
Bill, Congress directed us to write a fees rule that would 
reflect the actual cost of implementing TSCA, and that is what 
we are planning on doing.
    Senator Whitehouse. OK. Where are you in that process? 
Where are you with redoing that?
    Ms. Freedhoff. We are close to being able to send a 
supplemental proposed rule to OMB in the next couple of months. 
There was a proposed rule that went out toward the end of the 
last Administration, but it exempted the costs of rulemaking, 
so it needs to be supplemented in order to do what it was 
intended to do.
    Senator Whitehouse. You think it will get to OMB by when?
    Ms. Freedhoff. I think it will get to OMB sometime this 
summer or fall, and we are hoping for it to be finalized before 
fiscal year 2024.
    Senator Whitehouse. OK. Good. Well, I have used a good deal 
of my time.
    Senator Carper. It was time well used. Go ahead.
    Senator Whitehouse. With Senator Sullivan, but I would 
remind the Committee that there are a lot of people who don't 
seem to take climate change seriously, but for me and for 
Chairman Carper, who come from coastal States and not very big 
ones. We are looking at actual projections supported by Federal 
and State government that are unrebutted that we are going to 
have multiple feet of sea level rise along our shores. We have 
got maps that show that people who live on Warwick Neck in 
Rhode Island are going to be living on Warwick Neck Island 
soon, that people who live in Bristol are going to be living in 
Bristol Island soon. We have major thoroughfares that are going 
to be flooded out, which are also the escape routes from 
flooding.
    We have enormous, enormous risks and challenges ahead of 
us. We have enormous expenditures, and all you have to do is 
read the newspaper, whether it is wildfires or droughts or lost 
water out west or massive flooding. Things have gone haywire in 
the Earth's operating systems, and we know why. And to pretend 
that it doesn't have something to do with burning fossil fuels 
is just simply fictional, magical thinking.
    We have to address it, and I hope we will. Thank you.
    Senator Carper. Thank you so much. Thanks so much for 
joining us, Sheldon.
    Senator Capito, I have some more questions. Would you like 
to go first?
    Senator Capito. Thank you. I would love that. Thank you.
    I just wanted to clarify. I think you addressed this when 
you talked about how you are going to handle the PFAS issue, 
but I was wondering, do you intend to utilize a tiered 
approach? I think you said you would, to classifying PFAS by 
categorizing and prioritizing them based on different physical 
properties and hazards. Is that your intention?
    Ms. Freedhoff. Yes, we are.
    Senator Capito. OK. And I think that some of the confusion 
that we hear today is your office's role with PFAS as opposed 
to the health advisory that came out from the Water Office.
    This, to me, having had PFAS in our water systems and shut 
down our local water systems overnight, the risk assessments 
and the risk communications are so extremely important. And so 
I am concerned that when you have one office from the EPA 
setting an advisory level, what does advisory mean to people? 
It means that if you are in that area, that it is unsafe, and 
they are planning to come out with a safe drinking water level, 
which is going to be higher than the advisory level.
    I know this is not your problem, but it is your problem, 
because it is a chemical. I don't know, how do you message that 
to people when you are trying to tell them what is safe and 
what isn't?
    Ms. Freedhoff. I think you are absolutely right, that risk 
communication is important, and as a science based agency, we 
often speak scientifically and don't do as much work as we 
should, speaking from my part of the agency, at translating 
into words that people can really understand and access.
    I think though, on the drinking water side, it is not that 
different from the lead rules, because the maximum contaminant 
level goal for lead is zero, because it is generally accepted 
that there is no safe level of lead. The rules do factor in 
detection limits and treatment techniques and other things that 
present barriers to actually getting to zero. And I feel like 
the agency managed that risk communication well, and I have 
confidence that the agency can also succeed in the PFAS space.
    Senator Capito. OK. I am concerned, because obviously, what 
Senator Kelly was getting to is on the health advisory level, 
we can't measure that low, and so how do you know? You don't.
    Let me ask you about the PPE, because I mentioned it in my 
statement with OSHA, and I think there is some concern that you 
are drifting into OSHA regulations where making assumptions 
that people aren't wearing PPE. So a chemical may not be safe 
in a water, but if they are fully gowned up and have protective 
equipment, it is safe to be in and around.
    Why are you making assumptions that workers are not wearing 
their PPE? Isn't that OSHA's job, rather than yours? We have 
already discussed that your deadlines are last, so let us stay 
in our lane, I guess, is my message.
    Ms. Freedhoff. I appreciate the question. First of all, the 
law tells us to look at potentially exposed and susceptible 
subpopulations, and that clearly has to include workers. While 
we are in extremely close contact with OSHA and NIOSH and are 
coordinating with them really well, we can't just assume that 
OSHA will work for everyone.
    There are a few reasons for that. One is that OSHA rules 
don't apply to everybody. They don't apply to self-employed 
workers, and they don't apply to public sector workers who live 
in a State that doesn't have an OSHA approved plan, so that is 
reason No. 1.
    Reason No. 2 is when you actually go on OSHA's website for 
the chemical specific standards that they write, the very first 
sentence of that website says that they are outdated and 
inadequate for protecting worker health, because they were 
written in the 1970s.
    The last reason is, when you look at OSHA's top 10 most 
frequent safety violations, a list that they put out every 
single year, every single year, you see respirator, eye, and 
skin protections safety standards among those top 10 most 
frequent violations.
    We can't just assume that OSHA is enough, and we can't just 
assume that OSHA is used and followed by everybody. But this is 
where that risk communication point you just made is so 
important, because we know that a lot of companies, especially 
the larger manufacturers, go beyond what OSHA requires them to 
do when they are looking out for their workers, and we know 
that.
    I think it is incumbent on the agency to make sure to 
communicate that when we write our risk evaluations, so that 
people aren't unduly afraid of an absence of a safety measure 
that is actually there at their facility where they work.
    That is something that we do plan to do. As we move toward 
risk management, I think what we are striving for is 
consistency with OSHA rules when OSHA rules are enough, 
consistency with best industry practices when best industry 
practices are enough, and to basically level the playing field 
and make sure that everyone is protected, no matter who they 
work for or where they live.
    Senator Capito. I think the goal of that, obviously, is 
what TSCA is about, but we have other agencies. My concern is 
to get to your core functions and to meet those obligations 
that are outlined very specifically in the law, and that you 
have additional, whether it is OSHA or somebody else, Clean 
Water, Clean Air, whatever, entities that are tangential to 
TSCA, important.
    I am just concerned about, as the mission creep, or if you 
take on too much, you are not going to get anything done. I 
just put that on your table. I appreciate everything, you have 
been very candid in your answers. I appreciate your service. 
You are doing a good job. Thank you.
    Ms. Freedhoff. Thank you.
    Senator Carper. I have a few more questions, if your 
schedule allows.
    When I ran out of time for my question and yielded to 
Senator Capito, we were talking about resources, which you have 
been talking about literally all morning. I want to come back 
to this just for a minute. The question is regarding the fiscal 
year 2023 budget. And my question is pretty straightforward.
    Will the funding and the personnel that are included in the 
fiscal year 2023 budget take care of the entire challenge of 
the problems you face in doing your job, or is this a down 
payment that will take several years?
    Ms. Freedhoff. I think, in order for the program to work 
sustainably, it will need a sustainable investment of 
resources. It will need an updated fees rule, and it will need 
us to work on modernizing our approaches and streamlining them 
when we can so that we can make the costs of our work go down 
using the lessons we have learned over the past 6 years.
    Senator Carper. OK. With respect to work force, I suspect 
Senator Capito has experienced the same thing, I like to do 
customer calls in Delaware. A lot of them are to businesses.
    Now that we are both back up for business here, we have a 
lot of folks who want to come and meet with us. Just before I 
came to this hearing, I had a significant American business 
that came in and talked about how they are doing and what their 
challenges are. And they said work force. They just can't find 
folks with the kind of training, the interest, and the will, 
the ability to do the jobs that they need to fill.
    I hear that all over the country, all over the country. I 
am sure it is something that you face. Talk a little bit about 
the expertise that you are looking for to meet your ability to 
do your job. Talk about the skills that you are looking for and 
are maybe find the hardest to fill. Is there anything, is there 
something that we need to be doing about the hiring process 
that exists?
    We tried; I think we had a situation at the IRS that they 
took forever to hire people. Some good work has been done and 
that has been addressed, at least in part, but we need to focus 
on this. What can we do, what are the needs, the expertise, 
what are you looking for, and how are you trying to find it? 
What can we do to help?
    Ms. Freedhoff. I appreciate the question. It is daunting to 
think about staffing up so quickly. We are putting together a 
pretty aggressive recruitment strategy, particularly for New 
Chemicals, because we don't just want a handful of 
toxicologists now. We want to build relationships with 
universities so that we have a steady stream of people that we 
can draw from to perform that role, because it can be a pretty 
specialized role.
    I also think the Title 42 authority that Congress provided 
the agency with, which lets us hire a small number of much more 
senior scientists in a much more streamlined hiring process, is 
actually going to be really helpful to the agency moving 
forward. But I agree with you, we will need to really work hard 
to tell people how exciting an opportunity it is to come and 
work on a new law that has barely scratched the surface of its 
potential. I think that will be appealing to a lot of the 
Nation's younger scientists and engineers.
    Senator Carper. When I talk to people, a lot of times, at 
some point in our conversation, when they are talking about 
what they do for a living and their careers and all, and I will 
ask them, what gives you joy in your work. That is what I ask 
them, what gives you joy in your work.
    A lot of times, what I hear from people, basically, is they 
like helping people. They like helping people. I think there is 
a great opportunity for folks who work with you, for you to 
help people, not just to help make sure that we are looking out 
for folks and their families on the safety side, but also to 
make sure that we are providing economic opportunity and job 
creation on the economy side.
    The world has changed a lot since I was graduating from 
school and going off to be in the Navy in the Vietnam war. But 
I am convinced that there was a generation of young people 
coming out of high school, colleges, and so forth these days 
that want to help people. And if they had some idea that they 
could do it through an endeavor, really, the endeavor that you 
are leading, I think they would want to do that.
    I would just urge you to find ways to communicate that 
clearly, maybe. Ask most people in colleges: How would you like 
to work on TSCA? I haven't a clue. I think there is something 
to be said for being able to message better.
    Is the expertise that you need, is it out there?
    Ms. Freedhoff. It is out there. It is out there. I think 
there are people graduating from college every year with 
amazing education in environmental science and toxicology and 
ecology. I really do think the work force is there, and I agree 
with you. The people at EPA are incredibly excited and 
committed to the mission of the agency, and really do get 
excited by the opportunity to help people, as you said.
    Senator Carper. Let's talk a little bit about good science, 
and perhaps a good example is your decision to consider risks 
of a chemical broadly rather than consider the so called 
conditions of use. When you assess the risk of a chemical, as I 
understand it, the conditions of use refer to the processes or 
protections that companies might use to minimize releases and 
exposure to the chemical. I believe you would assert that the 
decision to consider risks broadly is the scientifically sound 
way to proceed. I may be mistaken there, but I understand the 
industry feels that good science dictates that you consider 
conditions of use in these risk evaluations.
    Question: Would you help us understand this disagreement 
over how science should be used to assess chemical risk?
    Ms. Freedhoff. Absolutely. So, the law does says study the 
chemical substance over its conditions of use, and the risk 
evaluations do look at the risk attached to each condition of 
use. And they analyze that risk, and we are going to continue 
to do that.
    I think where industry is not in full agreement with our 
approach is they think that when we say that an entire chemical 
substance poses unreasonable risk, they think that is unfair, 
because they think that there are some risks and some 
conditions of use that are not risky at all. There are some 
conditions of use that are very risky, and there are some 
conditions of use that are less risky. And they want everyone 
to know which those are.
    We agree with them on that, and we are going to continue to 
tell people which of the uses are more risky than others and 
which are the ones that are most likely to be regulated. But I 
do think that people have the ability to sort of understand the 
agency's process. It is kind of like Americans know how much 
junk food is too much. They know how much medicine is too much. 
They know how much sun is too much, and when it is time to put 
sunscreen on.
    Ultimately, what our risk evaluations are saying to people 
is how much of a chemical is too much and what are the ways 
that that chemical is used that are too risky. Then, when we 
get to rules, what we want is for the public to trust that we 
have evaluated the risks, that we have properly addressed them, 
and our rule says to people, this is how this chemical can be 
used safely.
    I think that is on us to communicate properly, and we do 
plan on doing a better job in this regard and also would 
absolutely welcome industry's feedback when they think we have 
missed the mark on the communications front.
    Senator Carper. OK. One of the things that gives me joy is 
working with my colleagues across the aisle to take on 
challenging issues and getting input from all directions and 
all different quarters and being able to enact meaningful 
legislation, thoughtful legislation. As you will recall, I was 
so proud of this Committee and the Congress and the 
Administration at the time for our ability to collaborate with 
industry and with the folks at EPA in order to enact 
legislation. Very proud, a high moment from the years that I 
have been here.
    I am just, as we sit here today, 6 years later, to see how 
that dream, the hope that we had, is not being realized. It is 
deeply troubling to me. I know it is to my colleagues. This has 
not been a Committee--this has not been a hearing. It is not 
our nature to cast aspersions at you or the folks that you lead 
and the folks at EPA, but we have got to do better. I like to 
say, and Senator Capito has heard me say more often than she 
wants, everything I do, I know I can do better. Everything I 
do, I know I can do better.
    This is a shared responsibility. One member of our staff 
likes to say, ``Teamwork makes the dream work.'' I think there 
is a lot of good intention here to get this right. And we need 
to. A lot of people are counting on us, and we need to get it 
right.
    With that, I want to thank you, Dr. Freedhoff, Michal, 
thank you for sharing your experience and your expertise with 
us today. Thank you for all that you did to help make this 
legislation a law in our country and try to enact it.
    There is, surely, no road to success without a full 
understanding of the challenges that you face in implementing a 
critical Federal law. This is not easy. This is hard. And the 
implications couldn't be greater. They include the health of 
our families, the health of our communities, and include our 
environment and our ability to tap novel chemistries to hasten 
our transition to a more stable climate, to obtain medical 
breakthroughs, and hopefully, someday, a litter free circular 
economy.
    I look forward to much help across the dais, and I think I 
have heard from our colleagues here that there is a strong 
interest in doing that, and help throughout the Senate to 
ensure that you get the resources that you and your colleagues 
need to succeed and help all of us succeed.
    With that, a little bit of housekeeping. I would like to 
ask unanimous consent to submit for the record materials that 
relate to today's hearing.
    Hearing no objections, so approved.
    [The referenced information follows:]

  [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]  
  
    
    Senator Carper. Senators will be allowed to submit written 
questions for the record through the close of business on 
Wednesday, July 6th, 2022. We will compile those questions, 
send them to our witness, and ask Dr. Freedhoff to reply by 
Wednesday, July 20th, of this year, if you would.
    With that, this hearing is adjourned. Thank you again so 
much.
    Thank you.
    [Whereupon, at 11:28 a.m., the hearing was adjourned.]

                            [all]