    [Senate Hearing 118-716]
    [From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]

                                                            S. Hrg. 118-716

                          UNDERSTANDING THE POTENTIAL
                          ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS OF THE
                                 CHEMICAL 6PPD

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

                                    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 EIGHTEENTH CONGRESS

                                 SECOND SESSION

                                   __________

                                 JULY 31, 2024

                                   __________

      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

    61-696                    WASHINGTON : 2025

                   COMMITTEE ON ENVIRONMENT AND PUBLIC WORKS

                        ONE HUNDRED EIGHTEENTH CONGRESS

                                 SECOND SESSION

                      THOMAS R. CARPER, Delaware, Chairman
              SHELLEY MOORE CAPITO, West Virginia, Ranking Member

    BENJAMIN L. CARDIN, Maryland         KEVIN CRAMER, North Dakota
    BERNARD SANDERS, Vermont             CYNTHIA M. LUMMIS, Wyoming
    SHELDON WHITEHOUSE, Rhode Island     MARKWAYNE MULLIN, Oklahoma
    JEFF MERKLEY, Oregon                 PETE RICKETTS, Nebraska
    EDWARD J. MARKEY, Massachusetts      JOHN BOOZMAN, Arkansas
    DEBBIE STABENOW, Michigan            ROGER WICKER, Mississippi
    MARK KELLY, Arizona                  DAN SULLIVAN, Alaska
    ALEX PADILLA, California             LINDSEY O. GRAHAM, South Carolina
    JOHN FETTERMAN, Pennsylvania

                   Courtney Taylor, Democratic Staff Director
                   Adam Tomlinson, Republican Staff Director

                                  ----------

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

                   EDWARD J. MARKEY, Massachusetts, Chairman

    BENJAMIN L. CARDIN, Maryland         PETE RICKETTS, Nebraska,
    BERNARD SANDERS, Vermont                 Ranking Member
    SHELDON WHITEHOUSE, Rhode Island     KEVIN CRAMER, North Dakota
    JEFF MERKLEY, Oregon                 CYNTHIA M. LUMMIS, Wyoming
    DEBBIE STABENOW, Michigan            MARKWAYNE MULLIN, Oklahoma
    MARK KELLY, Arizona                  ROGER WICKER, Mississippi
    ALEX PADILLA, California             DAN SULLIVAN, Alaska
    THOMAS R. CARPER, Delaware (ex       LINDSEY O. GRAHAM, South Carolina
        officio)                         SHELLEY MOORE CAPITO, West
                                             Virginia (ex officio)

                                C O N T E N T S

                                  ----------
                                                                       Page

                                 JULY 31, 2024
                               OPENING STATEMENTS

    Merkley, Hon. Jeff, U.S. Senator from the State of Oregon........     1
    Mullin, Hon. Markwayne, U.S. Senator from the State of Oklahoma..     3

                                   WITNESSES

    Lassiter, Katrina, Program Manager, Hazardous Waste and Toxics
      Reduction Program, Washington State Department of Ecology......     4
        Prepared statement...........................................     6
    Norberg, Tracey, Executive Vice President and General Counsel,
      U.S. Tire Manufacturers Association............................    24
        Prepared statement...........................................    26
        Responses to additional questions from Senator Capito........    31
    Fischer, David B., MPH, Counsel, Keller and Heckman LLP..........    34
        Prepared statement...........................................    36

                              ADDITIONAL MATERIAL

    Letter from The Yurok Tribe, the Port Gamble S'Klallam Tribe, and
      the Puyallup Tribe of Indians: Understanding the Potential
      Environmental Impacts of the Chemical 6PPD.....................    87
        Exhibit 1: Letter from Rob Southwick, Southwick Assocs., to
          Richard Pool, Golden Gate Salmon Association...............    92

                          UNDERSTANDING THE POTENTIAL
                          ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS OF THE
                                 CHEMICAL 6PPD

                                  ----------

                            WEDNESDAY, JULY 31, 2024

                                   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 2:29 p.m. in room
    406, Dirksen Senate Office Building, Hon. Jeff Merkley
    (chairman of the subcommittee) presiding.
        Present: Senators Merkley, Mullin.

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

        Senator Merkley. Good afternoon. The subcommittee hearing
    on Understanding the Potential Environmental Impacts of the
    Chemical 6PPD will come to order.
        When we think about the Pacific Northwest, we think of
    salmon. Salmon are vital to my home State of Oregon's history,
    vital to our Tribes, vital to our ecosystems, vital to our
    economy. Unfortunately, since the middle of the 20th century,
    juvenile coho salmon have been dying at extraordinary rates. In
    the 1990's, they were listed under the Endangered Species Act.
        In 2020, researchers linked some of the salmon deaths to
    the chemical known as 6PPD, and we will hear more about that
    from our witnesses. 6PPD is an additive to car tires that
    prevents the tires from wearing out as fast as they would
    otherwise. It has been used as an additive since the 1960's,
    around the same time we started noticing that coho salmon were
    suffering.
        The process for how 6PPD gets from our tires in the
    waterways is straightforward: tires wear down, they create,
    essentially, tire dust. Those little particles contain the
    chemical 6PPD, and then it rains, and the rains sweeps it into
    the streams, and then that toxic chemical kills the salmon.
        When it gets into the stream, by the way, it reacts with
    ozone, and it is that 6PPD-Q that becomes one of the most toxic
    chemicals to aquatic species ever evaluated by the
    Environmental Protection Agency.
        So, that is a challenge. The EPA reports ``concentrations
    of 6PPD-Q in stormwater in the Pacific Northwest were found to
    be lethal to coho salmon after only a few hours of exposure.''
    6PPD can be deadly to steelhead trout and deadly to other fish
    species, as well.
        It is not just marine life. These chemicals are being found
    in sediments and soils, dirt and dust, and even inside all of
    us. In one study testing 150 people, 6PPD was found in nearly
    everyone. An intriguing situation is it was found in higher
    concentrations in pregnant women, though I do not yet know that
    we have an explanation for that.
        6PPD is a disaster for the ecosystems, our economy, our
    tribes. That is why it is important as we wrestle with
    restoring salmon or recovering salmon, that we learn more about
    this issue.
        In November 2023, 15 Northwest Tribal Nations shared how
    disappearing salmon populations have affected them. They are
    asking us to stop using 6PPD immediately. Sacred salmon, trout,
    and other fish species are unlikely to recover unless we do so.
        In 2023, three tribes from across the Pacific Northwest
    petitioned the Environmental Protection Agency to establish
    regulations prohibiting the manufacturing, processing, use, and
    distribution of 6PPD in tires. Unfortunately, there is no known
    commercially viable replacements for 6PPD in tires. The U.S.
    Tire Manufacturers Association, with us here today, has been a
    strong voice to say that any replacements must provide
    equivalent tire safety while improving environmental impacts.
        In Fiscal Year 2024, Congress invested $1 million through
    the U.S. Department of Agriculture's Agricultural Research
    Service to develop an alternative to 6PPD. This research is
    being done in partnership with the company Flexsys, and we hope
    that it will accelerate the transition.
        But stopping 6PPD's use is only one piece of the puzzle. We
    also need a strategy for dealing with it in our environment. It
    has been used, as I have mentioned, on tires for more than half
    a century. My home State of Oregon alone produces four million
    waste tires per year, two-thirds of which get shredded or
    illegally dumped. Even when tires are recycled and they are
    used in playground services, they are used for erosion or flood
    control, sometimes they are burned, all these things further
    allow 6PPD and other chemicals to continue to contaminate
    ecosystems.
        The Department of Ecology for the State of Washington is
    with us here today. It and others are researching strategies to
    address these challenges, from stormwater mitigation to source
    control, street sweeping, the use of filters in water
    infrastructure, and so forth. These are difficult questions of
    science, of consumer safety, of tribal rights, of species
    extinction, so we are thankful to have today's panel of experts
    to help us understand these issues.
        Katrina Lassiter is a program manager for the Hazardous
    Waste and Toxics Reduction Program at Washington State
    Department of Ecology. Her program identifies chemicals that
    pose the greatest risk to human health and the environment and
    finds ways to mitigate them.
        Also joining us is Tracey Norberg, Executive Vice President
    and General Counsel for the U.S. Tire Manufacturers
    Association. She oversees the Association's environment,
    health, safety, and sustainability portfolio.
        Finally, we are joined by David Fischer, Counsel for the
    law firm Keller and Heckman. He has served as Deputy Assistant
    Administrator for the EPA's Office of Chemical Safety and
    Pollution Prevention from 2019 to 2021.
        Thank you all for taking the time to share your expertise
    with us today.
        Now, let me turn this over to Ranking Member Mullin for any
    opening comments.

              OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. MARKWAYNE MULLIN,
                U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF OKLAHOMA

        Senator Mullin. Thank you, Chairman Merkley, and thank you
    to all our witnesses for attending today's hearing.
        As we know, today we are here to discuss the alternatives
    to a chemical called 6PPD that has been used in automotive
    tires since the 1960's to help them last longer. In other
    words, every car on the road today, regardless if it is gas
    powered or electric powered, has tires containing 6PPD to
    protect them against oxygen exposure, which is what we call dry
    rot, which would otherwise cause them to quickly degrade.
        This protection improves passenger safety by helping to
    prevent car accidents from tire blowouts and other tire-related
    issues. This is important, given that car accidents remain a
    leading cause of death in the U.S.
        Very recently, scientists have discovered that when 6PPD
    and oxygen react, it forms a product called 6PPD-Q that can run
    off into streams, causing harm, specifically to fish like coho
    salmon. The problem is that there is no existing replacement to
    replace 6PPD currently available. The human health impacts of
    6PPD are still unknown.
        Once a science-backed replacement is found, EPA's
    unreasonable slow pace in approving new chemicals will further
    delay commercializing a replacement substance. Congress
    provided clear direction to the EPA to make determinations of
    new chemical approvals within 60 days under the Toxic Substance
    Control Act, and EPA consistently fails to meet their statutory
    deadline. Today, of the 413 new chemicals under EPA's review,
    only 48 have been under review for less than 90 days. That
    means 88 percent of those reviews do not meet the deadline.
        Here is the real problem, though. Out of those 48, what
    percentage, at day 82, will be asked by the EPA to be paused,
    which is the way EPA currently is handling business? Chairman,
    I know you and I both have had different companies coming and
    telling us about this. When they pause it at day 82, it is
    sometimes paused for an indefinite amount of time.
        This backlog is completely unacceptable from both the legal
    and domestic manufacturing perspectives. If we were to actually
    care about bringing a nontoxic replacement to 6PPD to the
    market, we also have to care about EPA's new chemical review
    failures.
        If we were to get a sustainable chemical replacement to the
    market, how long would it take to improve? How long would it
    take for it to actually go into effect?
        Today's hearing on 6PPD shows us why fixing our New
    Chemical program should not be a bipartisan fight. It should
    benefit everyone, and we should start by looking at the way the
    EPA reviews these chemicals.
        Thank you, Chairman. I yield back.
        Senator Merkley. Thank you very much.
        We are now turning to your testimony. Katrina Lassiter,
    would you like to begin?

    STATEMENT OF KATRINA LASSITER, PROGRAM MANAGER, HAZARDOUS WASTE
     AND TOXICS REDUCTION PROGRAM, WASHINGTON STATE DEPARTMENT OF
                                ECOLOGY

        Ms. Lassiter. Thank you, Chair Merkley, Ranking Member
    Mullin, and distinguished members of the subcommittee. My name
    is Katrina Lassiter, and as the Chair said, I manage the
    Hazardous Waste and Toxics Reduction Program at Washington
    State's Department of Ecology.
        I am honored to be here today, and I thank you for holding
    this hearing. Some of this may sound redundant to Chair
    Merkley's opening statement.
        For more than 20 years, scientists faced a mystery. Coho
    salmon in Washington streams and rivers were dying. The culprit
    was unknown, but it seemed linked to toxic chemicals running
    off roadways and into rivers and streams. To find the cause,
    researchers in Washington State spent 3 years searching through
    more than 2,000 chemicals that can leech from tires.
        In 2020, they finally found it, a chemical called 6PPD-
    quinone, that kills coho salmon within hours of exposure. 6PPD-
    quinone comes from 6PPD. 6PPD is a chemical used in tires to
    prevent cracking and blowouts. It has been used for decades and
    is found in tires worldwide.
        As traffic passes on roads, tire wear particles containing
    6PPD travel through the air and stormwater runoff and enter
    rivers, creeks, and streams. When 6PPD reacts with ozone, it
    transforms into 6PPD-quinone, also known as 6PPD-Q.
        6PPD-Q kills salmon at such low concentrations that it is
    one of the most toxic chemicals to aquatic life ever
    identified. I just want to repeat that for emphasis. It is one
    of the most toxic chemicals to aquatic life that has ever been
    identified. That is why we need to be doing two things. We need
    to find safer alternatives to 6PPD so we can get 6PPD out of
    tires, and we need stormwater control and treatment so we can
    reduce 6PPD chemicals in the environment.
        The need for 6PPD alternatives and stormwater control is a
    national problem. Rainbow trout, steelhead brook trout, coho
    salmon, and lake trout, which are found throughout the Country,
    all die when they are exposed to 6PPD-Q at concentrations that
    we have measured in the environment. Depleted salmon and trout
    populations have negative economic impacts on recreational and
    commercial fisheries, tourism, employment, and food supplies,
    and there are growing concerns about potential impacts to human
    health, too.
        We are still learning about 6PPD and 6PPD-Q, but tribes,
    States, and Federal agencies know enough to take action now.
    Federal agencies, including the EPA, but also NOAA, USDOT, and
    USGS are leading efforts to address 6PPD chemicals in the
    environment. Tribes are taking action to protect their treaty
    resources and have petitioned the EPA to ban 6PPD manufacturing
    and use through the Toxic Substances Control Act.
        In Washington State, we are tackling this problem head-on
    by researching and installing stormwater solutions to protect
    aquatic life now. We are developing methods to monitor 6PPD
    chemicals in the environment, and we are finding locations
    where these chemicals are causing harm. We are evaluating
    options for what to do with our used tires, and we are funding
    research to find a safety alternative for 6PPD.
        In all of this, we are working with the tribes, Federal and
    State agencies, and industry. But solving this problem does
    require a national and coordinated effort.
        Today, I ask for your support. Resource Federal agencies to
    make progress on this work. Invest in research to advance our
    understanding of 6PPD so we can find a safer alternative.
    Require nationwide transportation projects to include
    stormwater controls for roadway runoff to protect fish now.
    Help us work with manufacturers to increase transparency of
    chemicals used in products, and support legislation that
    reduces the use of 6PPD, because polluted waterways are not
    bound by State waters.
        I want to thank those who have turned their attention to
    this problem. Thank you, and I look forward to answering your
    questions.
        [The prepared statement of Ms. Lassiter follows:]

    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        Senator Merkley. Thank you very much.
        Now, we will turn to the perspective from the industry of
    making tires and the expertise they bring to bear, Tracey
    Norberg.

       STATEMENT OF TRACEY NORBERG, EXECUTIVE VICE PRESIDENT AND
          GENERAL COUNSEL, U.S. TIRE MANUFACTURERS ASSOCIATION

        Ms. Norberg. Good afternoon, Chairman Merkley, Ranking
    Member Mullin, and distinguished members of the subcommittee.
    My name is Tracey Norberg, and I am testifying today on behalf
    of the U.S. Tire Manufacturers Association.
        You have my written comments, so I will just touch on a few
    key points now. USTMA is the national trade association for
    tire manufacturers that produce tires in the United States.
    Tire manufacturing directly supports more than 291,000 U.S.
    jobs, and our 12 member companies and 4 affiliates account for
    roughly 82 percent of the 327 million tires shipped in the U.S.
    last year.
        6PPD serves an essential safety function in tires, as we
    have heard from both the Chairman and the Ranking Member and my
    colleague from Washington Ecology. Protecting the components of
    the tire from attack by ozone, oxygen, and other factors are
    key to 6PPD's function. Without 6PPD, a tire's integrity would
    be seriously and severely quickly compromised, jeopardizing
    motorists' safety.
        6PPD is currently used in all tires sold in the United
    States, including all of our member tires available for on-road
    use. We are not aware of any new motor vehicle tires available
    today that do not contain 6PPD.
        6PPD-quinone is not used in tire manufacturing. This
    material is a recently discovered transformation product of
    6PPD that may form when 6PPD reacts with ozone or oxygen under
    certain conditions. Today, there are no commercially available
    alternatives to 6PPD that both provide comparable safety and
    performance in motor vehicle tires and minimize the potential
    for environmental effects.
        Nonetheless, our industry has embraced this challenge to
    find a suitable alternative. In December 2020, the same month
    that 6PPD-quinone was first identified, USTMA requested that
    the California Department of Toxic Substances Control
    prioritize the review of 6PPD in tires under its Safer Consumer
    Products regulations. To our knowledge, ours is the only
    industry that has ever invited this regulation upon itself.
        USTMA assembled a consortium of 32 tire manufacturers from
    across the world to identify and evaluate potential
    alternatives to 6PPD in tires. In accordance with California
    regulations, each consortium member submitted the USTMA
    preliminary, or stage one, alternatives analysis this past
    spring and submitted an updated report last week in response to
    DTSC comments.
        As part of the stage one report, we screened more than 60
    potential alternatives for their suitability to replace 6PPD in
    tires, and 7 of those merited further evaluation in stage two
    of the process that will commence shortly.
        By the end of this alternatives analysis process, we are
    optimistic that we will have identified one or more possible
    alternatives that hold promise to replace 6PPD or materially
    reduce the level of 6PPD in motor vehicle tires, subject, of
    course, to future performance testing to ensure tire safety and
    performance.
        The search for an alternative is complex, and research in
    this space is continually evolving. We continue to work
    actively, transparently, and collaboratively with a broad array
    of stakeholders and academia and at the State, Federal, tribal,
    and international levels on this important work.
        Our collaboration with Washington Ecology extends back to
    2019, actually predating the identification of 6PPD-quinone,
    and includes providing information on tire materials that may
    be found in stormwater runoff, providing technical expertise on
    identifying and researching tire and road-wear particles, and
    providing samples of cryogenically milled tire tread to support
    research.
        I hope it is clear that the industry is moving forward with
    great alacrity. While efforts to find and implement a suitable
    alternative to 6PPD will take time, there are things that can
    be done now to reduce 6PPD and 6PPD-quinone in the environment.
    Those measures, some of them have already been mentioned, but
    they do include street sweeping in urban areas, choosing
    pavement surfaces such as rubber modified asphalt and permeable
    pavement that reduced tire abrasion and mitigate stormwater
    impacts, installing bioretention technologies to treat
    stormwater, and maintaining proper tire inflation pressure to
    reduce tire abrasion. Research in Oregon and Washington have
    demonstrated the effectiveness of some of these technologies in
    improving stormwater quality.
        We welcome the opportunity to collaborate with Congress as
    well as regulators, affected partners, and interested
    stakeholders to develop policies that take advantage of
    technologies to help mitigate stormwater impacts associated
    with roadways for a more immediate positive effect on the
    aquatic environment.
        We appreciate your time and the opportunity to be here
    today, and we welcome the opportunity to be part of this
    discussion moving forward. I am happy to answer your questions.
        Thank you.
        [The prepared statement of Ms. Norberg follows:]

    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        Senator Merkley. Thank you very much.
        Both of you have submitted longer versions of testimony,
    and if there is no objection, we will submit the longer version
    for the record. You are kind of amazing us up here, you are
    completing exactly under the 5-minutes allocated. Really well
    presented.
        Mr. Fischer, let's turn to you.

    STATEMENT OF DAVID B. FISCHER, MPH, COUNSEL, KELLER AND HECKMAN
                                  LLP

        Mr. Fischer. Thank you. Good afternoon, Chairman Merkley,
    Ranking Member Mullin, and members of the subcommittee. Thank
    you for the opportunity to participate in today's hearing on
    6PPD.
        My name is David Fischer, and I am counsel at the law firm
    of Keller and Heckman where I help clients navigate the Toxic
    Substances Control Act (TSCA). Prior to joining Keller and
    Heckman, I had the great privilege of serving as the Deputy
    Assistant Administrator for the Office of Chemical Safety and
    Pollution Prevention at EPA.
        Today's hearing on 6PPD, its environmental impacts, and
    ongoing research into potential alternatives prompts a
    discussion of EPA's New Chemicals Program and Section 5 of
    TSCA, which governs the review of new chemicals and new
    chemical uses. After all, a 6PPD alternative will need to
    undergo substantive review by EPA's New Chemicals Division
    before it can be used in tires or other applications.
        We all know this, but it is worth repeating, that nothing
    is possible without chemistry. But innovation in the U.S.
    relies on a wholly functioning and efficient New Chemicals
    Division. Under the 2016 revisions to TSCA, Congress gave clear
    direction to the EPA on the timeline in which to complete new
    chemical reviews. EPA has 90 to 180 days to render a
    determination regarding the new chemical substance's effect on
    human health and/or the environment. But until EPA makes such a
    determination, however long that may take, the submitter is in
    limbo and cannot commercially manufacture the chemical.
        Unfortunately, chemical reviews now take many months, if
    not years. If the ultimate goal is for industry to find a
    replacement for 6PPD, then we should all be concerned with a
    potential replacement getting held up in regulatory limbo at
    EPA. This is why EPA needs to amend its New Chemical
    regulations.
        Unfortunately, in proposing regulatory changes last year,
    EPA missed an opportunity for real change. EPA's final
    regulations to be issued later this year may yet reflect the
    concrete suggestions made by me and others during the public
    comment period.
        Today's hearing also prompts a closer look at the TSCA
    Section 21 petition process, which Earth Justice relied on in
    seeking a Section 6 rule to prohibit the use of 6PPD in tires.
        EPA acknowledged that petitioners have the burden to show
    why a rule for 6PPD is necessary, but then EPA considered other
    available information that it did not present in granting the
    petition. Moreover, EPA granted the petition and plans to
    initiate rulemaking this fall, even though EPA plans to collect
    data to inform a human health risk assessment on 6PPD-Q and may
    issue Section 4 test orders to require the development of new
    information.
        The petition process as currently implemented by EPA stands
    in stark contrast to the Section 6 prioritization, risk
    evaluation, and risk management paradigm for existing
    chemicals. Although EPA must seek public comment for any rule
    issued pursuant to Section 21, EPA does not need to request
    either public comment or scientific peer review on a Section 21
    petition itself or on EPA's basis for granting the petition.
        With respect to 6PPD, EPA appears to have granted the
    petition with respect to a single condition of use: 6PPD's use
    in tires. For Section 6 risk evaluations, however, EPA recently
    changed its regulations to mandate a whole chemical approach in
    which EPA reviews all conditions of use for a chemical and
    renders a single unreasonable risk determination for the whole
    chemical, rather than for any condition of use.
        My fear is that Section 21 is fast becoming an end-run
    around Section 6, especially at a time when EPA's refrain is a
    plea for more funds to implement Section 5 and Section 6. By
    granting Section 21 petitions, EPA diverts resources away from
    its statutory obligations under Sections 5 and 6.
        EPA does not collect fees from Section 21 petitioners, but
    it does collect these fees from new chemical submissions and
    Section 6 risk evaluations. It may be that Congress will need
    to further amend TSCA to address these and other ongoing
    challenges with TSCA implementation, but those are likely
    topics for future hearings.
        I thank you for the opportunity and look forward to your
    questions.
        [The prepared statement of Mr. Fischer follows:]

    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        Senator Merkley. Yes, thank you very much, Mr. Fischer.
        As you were testifying, I was taken back to the extensive
    bipartisan discussions we had a couple years ago when we were
    kind of reformulating TSCA and trying to make it work more
    effectively. I imagine there will be future hearings like that.
    It seems to be a challenging process.
        I want to begin with some questions for you, Ms. Lassiter.
    I am trying to understand the impact of this chemical. When I
    was growing up in Oregon, we never saw raptors. The hawks
    disappeared; the eagles disappeared; the osprey disappeared. I
    say disappeared; I never saw them, and now they are abundant.
    The cause was a particular pesticide,
    Dichlorodiphenyltrichloroethane (DDT), which caused the shells
    of the eggs to be so weak that they would get crushed.
        What is the death mechanism here? What is this chemical
    doing to the fish that is killing them? Is it interfering with
    their brain, is it causing liver disease? What is going on?
        Ms. Lassiter. Thank you for that question, Senator. As you
    know, we just, in 2020, discovered that 6PPD-Q is so toxic to
    coho salmon and other fish, and so we are still learning. We
    are conducting research in Washington.
        We are funding research at other agencies, like USGS, to
    study fish and to figure out what is happening with them. We
    have a number of agencies looking into fish tissue studies to
    get a closer look at what is happening in the fish themselves,
    but we are working toward developing monitoring now.
        Senator Merkley. In short, we do not really know yet?
        Ms. Lassiter. That is right.
        Senator Merkley. Okay. Are we finding that it is toxic to
    eggs, the fish eggs?
        Ms. Lassiter. We do not know that yet, either.
        Senator Merkley. Is it toxic only to adult fish, or also to
    the small fry?
        Ms. Lassiter. It seems to be toxic to returning salmon, so
    it is pre-spawn mortality, so they are coming back in the
    streams to spawn, and that is when we see the mass mortality
    events.
        Senator Merkley. They are dying before they spawn?
        Ms. Lassiter. Correct.
        Senator Merkley. Well, that would have a big impact.
        In the Washington State area where you have these streams
    running into ocean inlets and so forth, and salt water, are we
    finding that it is also killing the salmon? Because I saw a
    reference to the impact on the orcas. Is it also affecting the
    adult fish when they are still in ocean water?
        Ms. Lassiter. We do not know that yet. What we have seen is
    where they are dying in mass quantities where they are coming
    back to spawn, and there are hotspots that we are still
    identifying, but often in urban streams.
        Senator Merkley. When it comes to salmon, I keep hearing
    the coho mentioned, but we have many types of salmon. What
    about other types of salmon?
        Ms. Lassiter. We know that there are impacts to other fish,
    like rainbow trout. But the instant mortality, the within hours
    from exposure, that is specifically coho salmon. The impact is
    not the same on other salmon, like Chinook, which, as you know,
    are the primary food source for our resident orca whales.
        Senator Merkley. OK, so a lot to be learned in terms of
    what is the mechanism that is killing them, and what other fish
    are affected. But you do not think it is having the same impact
    on Chinook?
        Ms. Lassiter. That is right.
        Senator Merkley. That is really interesting, but for
    another moment.
        Ms. Norberg, when this chemical was introduced to affect
    the oxygenation deterioration, did it, I think I saw a
    reference somewhere to, it increases the wear by about 20
    percent. Is that accurate, or how would you characterize the
    extension of life of the tire?
        Ms. Norberg. Yes, in general terms, it is at least, tires
    are lasting at least two-thirds longer than they would without
    6PPD. Before 6PPD became widespread in its use, other waxes
    were used to protect the tire, and they do not protect the tire
    from dynamic wear and ozone exposure.
        Senator Merkley. Crudely, are we talking about a tire that,
    with 6PPD, is a 50,000-mile tire, and it becomes a 30,000-mile
    tire?
        Ms. Norberg. I think it would be much more severe than
    that.
        Senator Merkley. Well, 30,000 to 50,000 would be a two-
    thirds increase of 20,000 on top. I am trying to get a general
    characteristic we can put our hands around.
        Ms. Norberg. Maybe the best way to say is that a tire would
    last a third as long.
        Senator Merkley. One-third as long?
        Ms. Norberg. Yes, typically. I may have misspoke, yes.
    Typically, a tire now, average lifespan of a tire is somewhere
    in the 40,000 mile range. We would expect a tire to last a
    third of that time on the outside.
        Senator Merkley. That is a dramatic change.
        Ms. Norberg. It is very dramatic, yes.
        Senator Merkley. For sure. I really appreciate the
    cooperation of the tire industry in tackling this challenge,
    because not every industry says yes, we recognize it is an
    issue, and we want to be partners and try to find a solution.
    That is very, very helpful.
        So, as I understand it, you presented that there were 70
    chemicals or so that were being analyzed, and now, sort of that
    ballpark, 60 or 70, and now 7 of those are promising? Do those
    seven chemicals, do we know that they do not have the same
    lethal impact on trout and coho that 6PPD-Q has?
        Ms. Norberg. In the alternatives analysis that we are
    conducting, we have identified that understanding toxicity to
    coho and other salmonids is really critical to identifying an
    alternative. The seven materials that we have moved forward to
    stage two have met our initial screening for hazard criteria,
    but we have not fully evaluated all of those chemicals for
    sensitivity to coho and other salmonids. That will be part of
    the stage two analysis, not only for those seven chemicals, but
    beyond that, as we get more toxicity and hazard data for other
    chemicals. We may be evaluating additional materials as we move
    forward.
        Senator Merkley. My time has expired, so I am going to turn
    this over to our co-chair, and then I will have some additional
    questions. Thank you.
        Senator Mullin. Did you call me co-chair? Did I get
    upgraded?
        Senator Merkley. Absolutely. Vice-chair, co-chair. Any
    title you want, Senator Mullin.
        [Laughter.]
        Senator Mullin. Thank you. My wife has some nicknames for
    me too, and they are not always good.
        Thank you guys, once again, for being here. I do appreciate
    your time. This is something somewhat new to me until we
    started actually recognizing this hearing. I had not really
    heard this problem with the coho, even though I am Cherokee,
    and I meet with the tribes on a very regular basis. Obviously,
    it is a concern to them.
        Typically, what we hear about is the habitat, that they are
    having a hard time spawning, going back upstream, because of
    dams and infrastructures put in place. That, I totally
    understand, so this is kind of new to me.
        I have some questions for you, Ms. Lassiter. Is that right?
        Ms. Lassiter. Yes.
        Senator Mullin. When they are doing the test for the 6,
    what is it, 699? I am looking at my notes here. What is it?
        Ms. Lassiter. 6PPD-Q.
        Senator Mullin. 6PPD-Q. Thank you. When they are doing the
    tests on that, what was the concentration rate of it? Was it
    tested in open streams, was it tested in concentrated pools?
    Then what was the mixture rate that we are looking at?
        Ms. Lassiter. We have tested at concentrations that are
    found in the environment. I do not have the exact numbers in
    front of me. I do not know how meaningful they would be.
        Senator Mullin. Was it tested in the environment or in a
    moving body of water, or was it a concentrated pool?
        Ms. Lassiter. Mostly, we have been testing in labs. There
    has been a lot of different testing happening, not just at my
    agency, so I can not speak to that. But we have tested in the
    lab at concentrations that have been found in the environment.
        Senator Mullin. But not in the environment. We have not
    actually tested this in the moving water environment to see how
    fast this actually diluted inside the moving water, and then
    what is the concentration rate per acreage of water per fish.
        Ms. Lassiter. Okay. We have sampled for 6PPD-Q in our
    moving waterways, but when we are doing the tests on fish, that
    is happening in a laboratory environment.
        Senator Mullin. Listen, I am all about finding
    alternatives, I really am, but we also need to understand the
    impact of it, too.
        Ms. Lassiter. Absolutely.
        Senator Mullin. Mr. Chairman, I think what Ms. Norberg was
    referring to by a third less, remember, this is affected by
    oxygen when it interacts with it. You can not just look at the
    tire based on the miles because it is the exposure rate, it is
    the dry rot.
        It is the same thing if a car is sitting there in the
    environment for 4 years, 5 years, even though it is not driven,
    it can be a brand new tire that will create dry rot, which
    makes it not safe to drive anymore. It is the amount of time it
    can be exposed, and I think that is what we need to be looking
    at here.
        If people that are, today, just used to look at the tread
    rate on it, then you are not going to understand the dry rot,
    the cracking, that is happening on the sidewalls, which is
    where the dangerous part happens. It blows out on the front
    axle; you have all types of issues. Then, it is the effect that
    happens not just to the driver, but then everyone around the
    vehicle.
        I do feel very strongly that we need to find the
    alternatives, but we also need to find the true impact of this.
    As the industry is looking for an alternative, we need to
    actually understand the science and the impacts of it, too, and
    the cost to consumers. My Lord, we are all dealing with massive
    inflation rate, the way that we are dealing with today, and
    that is no, I am not making a political point, I am just
    telling you, that is the fact of the matter, and this would
    just add to it if we do not understand the cost.
        When Congress first set this up, we had to have a
    reasonable impact of what it was going to be to the consumer
    moving forward. All this needs to be understood.
        Mr. Fischer, you talked about something I was talking about
    with the EPA and the fact that they are not able to get these
    approvals done, to actually make the change we need to. Can you
    elaborate a little bit more on that?
        Mr. Fischer. Yes. As I mentioned in my testimony, the
    statute says 90 days to 180 days. I would say, on average, if
    you have a Premanufacture Notice (PMN) going under review at
    EPA and the review concludes and there is a consent order,
    attached to that review, we are talking up to a year and a
    half, maybe longer. If you then add a SNUR to it, a Significant
    New Use Rule that would follow that approval process, then you
    are adding on another, probably, 2 years.
        It has now become sort of a multi-year endeavor, versus the
    90 days to 180 days that was in the statute. Even when Congress
    amended the statute in 2016, it did not change those timelines.
    Congress still assumed EPA would meet the 90 days to 180 days.
    As you mentioned, or what was mentioned earlier today, is a
    rare event. Most of the time, submitters need to anticipate it
    taking at least a year. In fact, I advise folks, do not expect
    anything under a year.
        Senator Mullin. Mr. Chairman, I think this leads to
    something that we should be looking at too, that maybe we need
    to have a hearing with EPA to hold their feet to the fire, so
    to say, for getting these out. This is important for safety
    perspectives. This is important to the tribes. This is
    important to the consumer, and there is no reason why they can
    not do this.
        I know they talked about not having enough money, but my
    Lord, it seems like every year we are raising their budget to
    begin with. They are just not prioritizing the way that
    Congress has asked them to do.
        With that, I yield back.
        Senator Merkley. Thank you very much. I will get you a new
    nameplate, if you would like.
        [Laughter.]
        Senator Mullin. Thank you.
        Senator Merkley. I want to turn back to this question of
    the coho being affected. You say in the laboratory, so where is
    this laboratory where the fish are being tested against the
    chemical?
        Ms. Lassiter. We are doing the studies in Washington, I
    believe, at the Washington Stormwater Center, so associated
    with WSU, and we have researchers at UW as well.
        Senator Merkley. I will followup, because I want to come
    see the testing, obviously, close by in Oregon. We talk about
    salmon so much, and we talk about how much we are spending to
    move the small fry over the dams or around the dams and all
    sorts of challenges, obviously. This issue is really a
    significant new addition to the discussion of the challenge we
    are facing.
        I am wondering if we are seeing similar impacts, say, that
    are being reported from Alaska or from the east coast or from
    Norway, or other places where there are salmon runs. Has this
    identification of a challenge occurred in Washington State,
    really a diligent observation that the fish were dying after a
    rainstorm, and what is going on? But are we seeing hints of
    this happening in other areas where there are salmon?
        Ms. Lassiter. Certainly, actually being able to see the
    mass mortality events has been most dramatic in Washington. We
    do have researchers across the Country with USGS studying this
    phenomenon and studying it on other fish, and there is research
    underway in Europe, as well.
        Senator Merkley. What made it easier to detect in
    Washington? Is it because the streams are shorter, so the adult
    coho are concentrated, and in an urban area, where they can be
    easily observed, as opposed to 1,000 miles up the Columbia
    River, or so forth? What, why?
        Ms. Lassiter. That is such a good question, and that is why
    we are conducting research and monitoring now. We do not have
    those answers.
        Senator Merkley. Okay. I will really want to followup with
    this question of the kill mechanism, why it is killing. If we
    do not understand why it is killing them, I mean, it must be
    something that is common to the rainbow trout and the coho and
    the brook trout, I think you mentioned lake trout, that is
    something different if it is not affecting the Chinook.
        Have we had Chinook in the laboratory and these aquariums
    and they are not affected?
        Ms. Lassiter. Yes, they have been tested in the same way.
        Senator Merkley. That is really fascinating.
        Ms. Norberg, I wanted to turn to the question of whether
    the tire industry in other countries is also doing research on
    this.
        Ms. Norberg. Yes, we are working as a global tire industry
    on both this issue, and then the broader issue of tire and road
    wear particles. There is a global industry organization called
    the Tire Industry Project that is based in Switzerland. It is
    part of the World Business Council for Sustainable Development.
    They have been studying tire and road wear particles for many
    years and continue that work.
        Because 6PPD, really the issue originated here, we are at
    the tip of the spear when it comes to the 6PPD specific issues,
    but we are coordinating as a global industry on this issue.
        Senator Merkley. Is the primary research on this issue
    happening in Switzerland?
        Ms. Norberg. Broadly, on tire and road wear particles, they
    continue that work, yes. Then, we on 6PPD and 6PPD-Q are really
    in the lead here in the U.S., but coordinating with our global
    counterparts.
        Senator Merkley. The scientific research that took this
    many dozens of chemicals, 60, 70 chemicals, and reduced it to 7
    promising, that research happened in Switzerland?
        Ms. Norberg. No, that research happened here in the U.S.,
    and I led that project. It is ongoing.
        Senator Merkley. Okay. When you get down to those seven
    chemicals, and the question is, do these chemicals also have an
    impact on fish, are you transporting those chemicals to Ms.
    Lassiter's Washington State laboratories to be tested, or how
    are you determining the impact?
        Ms. Norberg. The work that we have been doing is pursuant
    to the California regulatory requirements as part of the Safer
    Consumer Products regulations. That regulation is a very
    rigorous, very prescribed process for evaluating alternatives
    to identify safer chemicals in products.
        The stage one, which we have completed, is basically a
    screening step, and then we will continue to do more in-depth
    research of not only those seven chemicals, but any others
    where we can garner additional research. The ones we are moving
    forward do not have indications of negative impacts on
    salmonids or other species yet to date, but we will continue
    that evaluation as we move forward.
        Senator Merkley. That screening process--cloakroom needs us
    to vote, I am informed.
        Senator Mullin. I guess so. I can make my last question
    very quick.
        Senator Merkley. I am going to stop and turn it over to our
    Vice Chair, co-chair, Ranking Member, all of the above, and
    then we will adjourn the hearing. I really appreciate you all
    bringing your information to bear, because this situation where
    the high lethality of this particular chemical in regards to
    the coho is a super big deal, and we have to solve it.
        Thank you.
        Senator Mullin. Thank you once again.
        Just real quick, Ms. Norberg, how many other things is 6PPD
    found in? Are there other products?
        Ms. Norberg. I am sorry, I missed the last part of your
    question.
        Senator Mullin. What other products is 6PPD found in, other
    than just tires?
        Ms. Norberg. I do not think I can give you the full list. I
    am most familiar with tires, but other rubber products most
    likely contain 6PPD.
        Senator Mullin. Ms. Lassiter, do you know? I am just
    curious; I do not know the answer either. I am just asking.
        Ms. Lassiter. Oh, right. No, that is certainly Ms.
    Norberg's area of expertise.
        Ms. Norberg. Yes, I am aware of one study in Washington
    State that looked at seals for water systems, but I could not--
    we are happy to followup.
        Senator Mullin. I would assume so. I would assume they
    would be in seals.
        Mr. Fischer, do you know? I think that is something we need
    to find out, too, other places it is found.
        My last question that I have, real quick, what steps, Mr.
    Fischer, what steps do you recommend the EPA could do
    administratively to improve their timeline?
        Mr. Fischer. Thank you for that question.
        In my written submission, I included a fairly lengthy
    petition for rulemaking, where we basically took Part 720,
    which are the regulations that govern new chemical reviews, and
    made a lot of substantive changes.
        But a couple would be sort of requiring EPA to take a much
    more reasonable approach when they are reviewing a new chemical
    submission. For example, if they do not have data, their
    defaults should be reasonable. Right now, they tend to be
    worst-case scenarios, which are completely unrealistic,
    implausible, et cetera. I think EPA needs to sort of bring that
    thinking back into more reasonable areas.
        The concept of reasonableness, I think, should be really
    instilled in how EPA reviews new chemicals.
        There are a lot of other suggestions as well in the
    petition that you now have as part of the record. Another one I
    would like to mention is, there should be much more of a
    collaborative exchange between the submitter and EPA staff.
    There should be an understanding of, if EPA needs more data, if
    there are issues with the data that have been submitted. That
    should be conveyed to the submitter on a more timely approach
    or basis.
        Right now, it tends to, you submit, and it tends to go in a
    bit of a black box. I think that can both frustrate the
    submitter, and it also may prolong the review process if EPA
    could have obtained answers to its questions a lot earlier. I
    really believe there should be much more of a collaborative
    approach to getting new chemicals reviewed and hopefully
    approved.
        Senator Mullin. Thank you. Thank you guys for being here.
        Senator Merkley. Ms. Lassiter, is it appropriate for me to
    say that 6PPD is to coho as DDT was to eagles? A very short
    answer. Fair or unfair?
        Ms. Lassiter. It is fair. It is considered highly toxic.
        Senator Merkley. Given that we are supposed to be voting, I
    have to run.
        Ms. Lassiter. Thank you, Senator.
        Senator Merkley. Before we adjourn, I ask unanimous consent
    from all of the members present to submit for the record a
    variety of materials that includes letters from stakeholders
    and other materials related to today's hearing.
        [Laughter.]
        Senator Merkley. Hearing no objection, so approved.
        [The referenced information follows:]

    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        Senator Merkley. Additionally, Senators will be allowed to
    submit questions for the record through the close of business
    on Wednesday, August 14th, 2024. We will compile those
    questions, send them out to all of you, and we will ask for a
    reply, if possible, by Wednesday, August 28th, 2024.
        With that, the hearing is adjourned. I apologize, we will
    not be coming down to say hello, because I am running out the
    door. Take care, and thank you.
        [Whereupon, at 3:16 p.m., the hearing was adjourned.]

                                [all]