[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]