[House Hearing, 119 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
A DECADE LATER: ASSESSING THE LEGACY AND
IMPACT OF THE FRANK LAUTENBERG CHEM-
ICAL SAFETY FOR THE 21ST CENTURY ACT
=======================================================================
HEARING
BEFORE THE
SUBCOMMITTEE ON ENVIRONMENT
OF THE
COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND COMMERCE
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED NINETEENTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
__________
JANUARY 22, 2025
__________
Serial No. 119-1
[GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Published for the use of the Committee on Energy and Commerce
govinfo.gov/committee/house-energy
energycommerce.house.gov
__________
U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE
58-842 PDF WASHINGTON : 2025
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND COMMERCE
BRETT GUTHRIE, Kentucky
Chairman
ROBERT E. LATTA, Ohio FRANK PALLONE, Jr., New Jersey
H. MORGAN GRIFFITH, Virginia Ranking Member
GUS M. BILIRAKIS, Florida DIANA DeGETTE, Colorado
RICHARD HUDSON, North Carolina JAN SCHAKOWSKY, Illinois
EARL L. ``BUDDY'' CARTER, Georgia DORIS O. MATSUI, California
GARY J. PALMER, Alabama KATHY CASTOR, Florida
NEAL P. DUNN, Florida PAUL TONKO, New York
DAN CRENSHAW, Texas YVETTE D. CLARKE, New York
JOHN JOYCE, Pennsylvania, Vice RAUL RUIZ, California
Chairman SCOTT H. PETERS, California
RANDY K. WEBER, Sr., Texas DEBBIE DINGELL, Michigan
RICK W. ALLEN, Georgia MARC A. VEASEY, Texas
TROY BALDERSON, Ohio ROBIN L. KELLY, Illinois
RUSS FULCHER, Idaho NANETTE DIAZ BARRAGAN, California
AUGUST PFLUGER, Texas DARREN SOTO, Florida
DIANA HARSHBARGER, Tennessee KIM SCHRIER, Washington
MARIANNETTE MILLER-MEEKS, Iowa LORI TRAHAN, Massachusetts
KAT CAMMACK, Florida LIZZIE FLETCHER, Texas
JAY OBERNOLTE, California ALEXANDRIA OCASIO-CORTEZ, New York
JOHN JAMES, Michigan JAKE AUCHINCLOSS, Massachusetts
CLIFF BENTZ, Oregon TROY A. CARTER, Louisiana
ERIN HOUCHIN, Indiana ROBERT MENENDEZ, New Jersey
RUSSELL FRY, South Carolina KEVIN MULLIN, California
LAUREL M. LEE, Florida GREG LANDSMAN, Ohio
NICHOLAS A. LANGWORTHY, New York JENNIFER L. McCLELLAN, Virginia
THOMAS H. KEAN, Jr., New Jersey
MICHAEL A. RULLI, Ohio
GABE EVANS, Colorado
CRAIG A. GOLDMAN, Texas
JULIE FEDORCHAK, North Dakota
------
Professional Staff
MEGAN JACKSON, Staff Director
SOPHIE KHANAHMADI, Deputy Staff Director
TIFFANY GUARASCIO, Minority Staff Director
Subcommittee on Environment
H. MORGAN GRIFFITH, Virginia
Chairman
DAN CRENSHAW, Texas, Vice Chairman PAUL TONKO, New York
ROBERT E. LATTA, Ohio Ranking Member
EARL L. ``BUDDY'' CARTER, Georgia JAN SCHAKOWSKY, Illinois
GARY J. PALMER, Alabama RAUL RUIZ, California
JOHN JOYCE, Pennsylvania SCOTT H. PETERS, California
RANDY K. WEBER, Sr., Texas NANETTE DIAZ BARRAGAN, California
AUGUST PFLUGER, Texas DARREN SOTO, Florida
MARIANNETTE MILLER-MEEKS, Iowa JAKE AUCHINCLOSS, Massachusetts
LAUREL M. LEE, Florida TROY A. CARTER, Louisiana
NICHOLAS A. LANGWORTHY, New York ROBERT MENENDEZ, New Jersey
GABE EVANS, Colorado GREG LANDSMAN, Ohio
JULIE FEDORCHAK, North Dakota FRANK PALLONE, Jr., New Jersey (ex
BRETT GUTHRIE, Kentucky (ex officio)
officio)
C O N T E N T S
----------
Page
Hon. H. Morgan Griffith, a Representative in Congress from the
Commonwealth of Virginia, opening statement.................... 2
Prepared statement........................................... 4
Hon. Paul Tonko, a Representative in Congress from the State of
New York, opening statement.................................... 7
Prepared statement........................................... 9
Hon. Brett Guthrie, a Representative in Congress from the
Commonwealth of Kentucky, opening statement.................... 11
Prepared statement........................................... 12
Hon. Frank Pallone, Jr., a Representative in Congress from the
State of New Jersey, opening statement......................... 13
Prepared statement........................................... 16
Witnesses
Chris Jahn, President and Chief Executive Officer, American
Chemistry Council.............................................. 18
Prepared statement........................................... 21
Answers to submitted questions............................... 133
Richard E. Engler, Ph.D., Director of Chemistry, The Acta Group.. 27
Prepared statement........................................... 29
Answers to submitted questions............................... 138
Geoff Moody, Senior Vice President, Government Relations and
Policy, American Fuel & Petrochemical Manufacturers............ 47
Prepared statement........................................... 49
Answers to submitted questions............................... 147
Maria J, Doa, Ph.D., Senior Director, Chemical Policy,
Environmental Defense Fund..................................... 59
Prepared statement........................................... 61
Answers to submitted questions............................... 157
Submitted Material
Inclusion of the following was approved by unanimous consent.
List of documents submitted for the record....................... 116
Report of the Government Accountability Office, ``EPA Chemical
Reviews: Workforce Planning Gaps Contributed to Missed
Deadlines,'' February 2023\1\
Report of the Government Accountability Office, ``NEW Chemicals
Program: EPA Needs a Systematic Process to Better Manage and
Assess Performance,'' January 2025\1\
Letter of January 22, 2025, from Blake Nanney, Director,
Government Affairs, American Cleaning Institute, to Mr.
Guthrie, et al................................................. 117
Letter of January 22, 2025, from the U.S. Chamber of Commerce to
Mr. Guthrie and Mr. Griffith................................... 119
Article of March 7, 2022, ``The Truth about Dangerous Chemicals
in Solar Panels,'' Iowa Solar.................................. 122
----------
\1\ The report has been retained in committee files and is included in
the Documents for the Record at https://docs.house.gov/meetings/IF/
IF18/20250122/117835/HHRG-119-IF18-20250122-SD097.pdf.
Article of July 3, 2024, ``PFAS waste from solar panels: `This is
something that people in the sector don't like to talk
about,''' International Chemical Secretariat................... 126
Report of the Environmental Protection Agency, ``2022 TRI
National Analysis,''\1\
Letter of January 22, 2025, from John Reeves, Chief Executive
Officer, Microporous, to Mr. Guthrie and Mr. Pallone........... 130
----------
\1\ The report has been retained in committee files and is included in
the Documents for the Record at https://docs.house.gov/meetings/IF/
IF18/20250122/117835/HHRG-119-IF18-20250122-SD097.pdf.
A DECADE LATER: ASSESSING THE LEGACY AND IMPACT OF THE FRANK LAUTENBERG
CHEMICAL SAFETY FOR THE 21ST CENTURY ACT
----------
WEDNESDAY, JANUARY 22, 2025
House of Representatives,
Subcommittee on Environment,
Committee on Energy and Commerce,
Washington, DC.
The subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 10:30 a.m., in
the John D. Dingell Room 2123, Rayburn House Office Building,
Hon. H. Morgan Griffith (chairman of the subcommittee)
presiding.
Members present: Representatives Griffith, Crenshaw, Latta,
Carter, Palmer, Joyce, Weber, Pfluger, Miller-Meeks, Lee,
Langworthy, Evans, Fedorchak, Guthrie (ex officio), Tonko
(subcommittee ranking member), Schakowsky, Ruiz, Peters,
Barragan, Soto, Auchincloss, Carter, Menendez, Landsman, and
Pallone (ex officio).
Also present: Representative Harshbarger.
Staff present: Ansley Boylan Director of Operations;
Marjorie Connell, Director of Archives; Jessica Donlon, General
Counsel; Sydney Greene, Director of Finance and Logistics;
Christen Harsha, Senior Counsel; Calvin Huggins, Clerk; Megan
Jackson, Staff Director; Adam Joseph, Digital Director; Daniel
Kelly, Press Secretary; Sophie Khanahmadi, Deputy Staff
Director; Chris Krepich, Senior Communication Advisor; Brayden
Lacefield, Special Assistant; Joel Miller, Chief Counsel; Ben
Mullaney, Press Secretary; Kaitlyn Peterson, Policy Assistant;
Seth Ricketts, Special Assistant; Jackson Rudden, Staff
Assistant; Chris Sarley, Member Services/Stakeholder Director;
Dray Thorne, Director of Information Technology; Jake Tyner,
Chief Counsel; Timia Crisp, Minority Professional Staff Member;
Waverly Gordon, Minority Deputy Staff Director and General
Counsel; Tiffany Guarascio, Minority Staff Director; Anthony
Gutierrez, Minority Professional Staff Member; Caitlin
Haberman, Minority Staff Director, Environment; Perry Hamilton,
Minority Member Services and Outreach Manager; Mackenzie Kuhl,
Minority Digital Manager; Caroline Rinker, Minority Press
Assistant; Emma Roehrig, Minority Staff Assistant; and Kylea
Rogers, Minority Policy Analyst.
Mr. Griffith. The subcommittee will come to order, and I
recognize myself for an opening statement.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. H. MORGAN GRIFFITH, A REPRESENTATIVE
IN CONGRESS FROM THE COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA
Welcome. I am really looking forward to working with you,
Ranking Member Tonko, as we start this adventure. I am hopeful
we can work together on some bipartisan legislation going
through the subcommittee.
Today is not only my first hearing as chair of this
subcommittee, but it is the first subcommittee hearing of the
Energy and Commerce Committee for the start of the 119th
Congress.
The American people have spoken loud and clear. They have
had enough of rising prices and the regulatory burden that
threatens energy reliability, reduces American competitiveness,
and in some cases makes for a stagnant economy.
In general, I have long believed Congress needs to get back
into the practice of passing regular authorizations. As chair
of this subcommittee it is my goal to modernize some of our
major environmental laws and enable predictable, commonsense
regulation. I am glad we have hit the ground running with this
hearing, and hope that we have signaled our commitment to dig
into the statutory language to find out where we can make the
law work better for all interested parties.
To that end, today's hearing will examine the Frank
Lautenberg Chemical Safety for the 21st Century Act, or the
Lautenberg Act. Nearly 10 years ago, members of this committee
worked tirelessly to develop the Lautenberg Act, to reform the
Toxic Substances Control Act, often referred to as TSCA. TSCA
governs the Environmental Protection Agency, or EPA's
regulation of new and existing chemicals in the chain of
commerce for products containing those chemicals. This was no
easy task.
The Lautenberg Act made the most significant changes to
TSCA since it became law in 1976. The Lautenberg Act enjoyed
strong bipartisan support in this committee before becoming law
in 2016, and I was proud to be a part of that process. However,
nearly 10 years have passed since the Lautenberg Act's passage.
Both Democrat and Republican administrations at EPA have had
the opportunity to implement the Act's procedures for
collecting new information on chemicals, reviewing new
chemicals, and for regulating those that the EPA determines
pose an unreasonable risk. And each administration, as we will
hear today, has encountered a number of challenges in
implementing the Act.
In 2023 the Government Accountability Office found that,
between 2017 and 2022, EPA completed only 10 percent of the
premanufactured chemical reviews within the time limit laid out
in the Lautenberg Act. With the 10-year anniversary of the
Lautenberg Act's passage quickly approaching, today's hearing
will provide us an opportunity to learn more about what is
working and what is not working at the EPA's Office of
Pollution Prevention and Toxics.
And it is important that we make the most of this
opportunity to create that record. Among other things, TSCA, as
amended by the Lautenberg Act, governs the EPA's process for
reviewing new chemicals or in allowing new uses for existing
chemicals before those products can be sold to consumers in the
United States.
Chemicals are part of manufacturing and methods and
products that we depend on for our everyday life. New chemicals
utilized in a safe manner not only lead to new products that
enhance our quality of life but are also necessary for
addressing crucial challenges like harnessing energy resources
and treating disease.
Similarly, our economic competitiveness and national
security depend on our ability to innovate and bring new
technologies to market safely and efficiently. As chemicals are
part of nearly every product, and new chemistries are essential
to develop better products, the TSCA regulatory scheme has
profound impact across nearly every sector of our economy. New
chemicals and new uses for existing chemicals must undergo EPA
review. If these reviews don't take place in a timely manner,
our international competitors could gain an edge, and more
production would likely shift overseas.
We are fortunate to have a panel of experts joining us to
help pinpoint shortcomings with our current regulatory
mechanisms and to discuss potential opportunities for reform.
Today we will hear from Mr. Chris Jahn, president and CEO
of the American Chemistry Council, also known as the ACC--of
course, where I come from, that is the Atlantic Coast
Conference. The ACC serves as an organization of chemical
companies who often engage in EPA's regulatory process,
including new chemical reviews.
Also joining us is Mr. Geoff Moody, the vice president of
government relations for the American Fuel & Petrochemical
Manufacturers. He will share the experiences of refiners and
manufacturers that comply with TSCA to make the products we
depend on every day.
We are also glad to have Dr. Richard Engler. Prior to his
current role as director of chemistry at the Acta Group, Dr.
Engler served at the Environmental Protection Agency for 17
years, and will be able to share more about the agency's staff
experience in implementing the Act.
Additionally, Dr. Maria Doa, the senior director of
chemical policy at the Environmental Defense Fund, will offer
testimony. Before joining the Environmental Defense Fund in
2021, Dr. Doa served at the Environmental Protection Agency for
30 years, working on chemicals--working on chemical safety and
TSCA.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Griffith follows:]
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Mr. Griffith. So with that I will yield back and now
recognize the ranking member of this committee for his first
time this Congress as ranking member, Mr. Tonko, for his 5-
minute opening statement.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. PAUL TONKO, A REPRESENTATIVE IN
CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF NEW YORK
Mr. Tonko. Well, I appreciate that, Mr. Chair, and let me
start by congratulating you on becoming chair of this
subcommittee. I look forward to a sound working relationship
and being productive as a partnership here to move forward good
legislation that will be speaking to the needs of the American
public.
Mr. Griffith. Yes, sir.
Mr. Tonko. This subcommittee has awesome responsibilities
protecting Americans from air pollution, from drinking water
contaminants, and dangerous chemicals. It is critical to both
our quality of life and our economy, and I look forward to
working together in the 119th Congress. Similarly, I would like
to congratulate full committee Chair Guthrie.
The Toxic Substances Control Act, or TSCA, is a law that
most Members of Congress, let alone most Americans, do not
spend much time thinking about. So I appreciate the opportunity
at the beginning of this Congress for us to come together and
learn.
And I do believe that the reason this law is off people's
radars is because for the first 40 years of its history it was
fundamentally broken. America had a very limited and largely
ineffective national chemical safety program, which is why
there was a bipartisan impetus to restore the public's trust by
reforming TSCA to better protect people from both new and
existing chemicals that pose an unreasonable risk.
Ranking Member Pallone and I were directly involved in the
negotiations that led to the Lautenberg Act being enacted 8\1/
2\ years ago, and I hope that our perspectives on that
experience may help inform the committee's reexamination of the
law today.
Let me start by saying that the effort to reform TSCA was a
long and difficult process, beginning many years prior to the
enactment of the Lautenberg Act in 2016. It required a
considerable amount of Member time, of staff time, and
committee resources. And despite my opposition to the final
agreement and retaining some lingering concerns from those
negotiations, I truly believe that everyone entered into that
process in good faith, which resulted in a law that has been an
improvement over the previous status quo.
One of the reasons that the Lautenberg process was possible
was because it started with a consensus amongst industry and
environmental groups that TSCA was in desperate need of reform,
and I am curious whether we will hear a similar consensus
today. I am anticipating that everyone will agree that
implementation of the law has not been perfect, a view that I
share. However, depending on who you ask, I suspect there will
be very different examples of how EPA is failing to administer
the law consistent with the statute.
I believe the root of many of these implementation
challenges can be traced back to the first Trump
administration, which sought to deny EPA the resources and
personnel needed to make the expanded requirements of the law
work during those critical early days of implementation. Both
industry and public health stakeholders will likely agree that
EPA's Office of Chemical Safety must be provided with adequate
resources and staff for this law to be successful. And frankly,
some of the early actions of the new Trump administration are
not encouraging on this front either.
But despite some implementation challenges, I fully admit
that TSCA has had achievements that would not have happened
absent the Lautenberg Act. Among the five risk management rules
finalized during the Biden administration, the American people
are now significantly better protected from exposure to
asbestos, methylene chloride, and TCE. These are some of the
worst of the worst chemicals which are known to pose high
risks, and yet for decades they had remained in commerce with
few restrictions. In fact, it was not that long ago that any of
us could have gone to a local hardware store and purchased a
paint stripper containing methylene chloride, and dozens of
Americans died because of it, including people who took all the
recommended precautions and worked in well-ventilated spaces.
I will not deny that many chemicals play an important role
in our modern American life. I suspect we might hear about how
new, innovative chemicals are essential to semiconductor and
battery manufacturing and industries that I believe are
critically important to the future competitiveness of the
American economy. But I also believe that the people who are
literally closest to these cutting-edge industries, whether it
is the workers doing the manufacturing or the people living
next to these facilities, deserve adequate protections. No
chemical, no matter how essential it is perceived to be, should
be given a free pass from proper review.
So, Mr. Chair, I want to stress that I am always open to
examining how we can improve our Nation's environmental laws on
a bipartisan basis. However, having lived through the last TSCA
reform effort, I can say that no one should expect such a big
legislative task to be easy. The Lautenberg Act required
significant Member-level commitment and trust building over
several years to get over the finish line, and it required
consensus and a willingness to compromise amongst industry and
environmental advocates. I look forward to hearing from our
witnesses whether such a consensus exists today, because I
expect that any effort to significantly reform TSCA will truly
need it.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Tonko follows:]
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Mr. Tonko. So thank you, Mr. Chair, and with that I yield
back.
Mr. Griffith. The gentleman yields back. I now recognize
officially for the first time the chairman of the full
committee, Mr. Guthrie, for 5 minutes for his opening
statement.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. BRETT GUTHRIE, A REPRESENTATIVE IN
CONGRESS FROM THE COMMONWEALTH OF KENTUCKY
Mr. Guthrie. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and Ranking Member
Tonko, Ranking Member Pallone. I really look forward to working
with you guys in this area of the jurisdiction of this
subcommittee as we review regulations and respond to them in a
responsible manner. And this will be a busy subcommittee this
Congress, and I am really excited about it.
And so welcome, our witnesses, for being here today, and my
colleagues.
In this morning's hearing we will examine the
implementation and impact of the Frank R. Lautenberg Chemical
Safety for the 21st Century Act. This bipartisan legislation,
which became law in 2016, provided for the only major
amendments to the Toxic Substances Control Act, or TSCA, since
the law was enacted in 1976. TSCA is a unique statute. It
provides the U.S. Environmental Agency--Protection Agency,
EPA--with broad authority to regulate the entire chain of
commerce if it finds that a chemical substance poses an
unreasonable risk. But it isn't working.
So nearly a decade ago, this committee worked together to
pass the bipartisan Lautenberg Act. Unfortunately, it is still
not working, at least not how Congress intended. The EPA's
flawed decision making process has consequently inhibited
American innovation and our ability to complete--compete in the
global market.
This morning's hearing is also timely. Today the committee
will receive a report from the Government Accountability Office
requested last Congress by former Chair McMorris Rodgers and
Senator Capito, now chair of the Senate Environmental and
Public Works Committee, that assesses the EPA's new chemical
review process.
In addition, section 26 of the Lautenberg Act, EPA's
authority to collect fees from chemical manufacturing and
processors to defray certain costs of administrating--
administering the TSCA programs, will expire June of 2026. With
that in mind, both today's discussion and the GAO report will
provide this committee yet again with the opportunity to
develop a bipartisan solution to unleash American innovation.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Guthrie follows:]
[GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Mr. Guthrie. I look forward to hearing from the witnesses,
and I will yield the balance of my time to the Vice Chair of
the committee, Mr. Crenshaw of Texas.
Mr. Crenshaw. Thank you, Chairman Guthrie. Thank you,
Chairman Griffith, for holding this important hearing. And
thank you to all our witnesses for being here.
I just want to start off by noting how important chemicals
are to a strong economy, essential in making all of the
products that are necessary for our modern life in the 21st
century. Yet even the word ``chemicals'' elicits a pretty
visceral negative reaction from many. But we have to remember
that we have to put emotions aside and actually acknowledge
that chemicals play an indispensable role in creating
everything from lifesaving medical devices to computers and
smart phones and cutting-edge military platforms.
The domestic chemical industry supports hundreds of
thousands of high-paying jobs. It generates hundreds of
billions of dollars in economic activity. And unfortunately,
the prior administration poorly implemented chemical
regulations under the Toxic Substances Control Act, putting all
of this at risk. Impractical, duplicative, or overburdensome
regulations for existing chemicals threaten critical supply
chains for the products that we all know and rely upon every
single day.
Additionally, the program that allows companies to bring
innovative, safer, and greener chemicals to market has been
utterly mismanaged over the past 4 years. Nobody opposes
pragmatic regulations, but the EPA, under the previous
administration, regularly delayed approval for new chemicals
beyond when they were legally obligated to do so. And these
delays, well, they threaten American leadership on chemical
research and development, and they impose massive costs on the
American economy.
Luckily, we have an incredible opportunity on this
committee to address these issues and work with the new
administration to ensure America continues to be a thriving
economic powerhouse and a leader in industrial innovation.
I yield back.
Mr. Griffith. The gentleman yields back. I now recognize
the ranking member of the full committee, Mr. Pallone, for his
5-minute opening statement.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. FRANK PALLONE, Jr., A REPRESENTATIVE
IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF NEW JERSEY
Mr. Pallone. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Today the committee is holding its first hearing of the
Congress, two days after President Trump was inaugurated.
On day one, Trump announced his intention to withdraw the
United States from the Paris Climate Accord, signed an order
that directly questions the existence of climate change, and
illegally directed Federal agencies to bypass the law and
withhold critical infrastructure and climate investments that
people across the country are counting on. And ultimately, the
American people will be left to foot the bill for all these
Executive orders with higher energy bills, dirtier air, sicker
communities, lost jobs, a weakened economy, and a worse-off
climate to pass on to future generations.
Now, today we are actually examining the legacy of the
Frank R. Lautenberg Chemical Safety for the 21st Century Act,
and the law received strong bipartisan support back in 2016 and
was named after New Jersey's late Senator Lautenberg. He was a
champion of the right to know, the idea that if you give people
information, then they are empowered themselves to protect
their own safety. And the law updated and modernized the Toxic
Substances Control Act, otherwise known as TSCA, for the first
time in 40 years.
Since its passage, I have worked to ensure that TSCA lives
up to Senator Lautenberg's commitment to protecting Americans
from dangerous chemicals, particularly children, pregnant
women, workers, and environmental justice communities. And a
key goal of the Lautenberg Act was to finally give the
Environmental Protection Agency the ability to address the
threats of harmful chemicals on the market. The original TSCA
simply did not give EPA the tools it needed to address risks,
even though we had a long--we had long known of the dangers of
chemicals like asbestos. After decades of a broken chemical
safety law and years of negotiation, Congress enacted the
Lautenberg Act.
Now, thanks to the updated law, EPA is required to make an
affirmative determination that a chemical is safe before it can
enter commerce, and this action stems the flow of toxic
chemicals into people's homes. EPA is also required to review
and manage harmful chemicals already on the market, finally
providing EPA the ability to ban dangerous chemicals that have
harmed far too many people.
Now, despite the overwhelming bipartisan support and clear
direction from Congress, it quickly became clear that the first
Trump EPA was not interested in implementing a strong Federal
chemical program. The Trump EPA's actions underestimated
chemical risks, especially for workers and overburdened
communities; delayed health protective rules; and exerted undue
political influence on the regulatory process.
But fortunately, over the last 4 years the EPA has worked
to get back on track. The Biden EPA recommended to--went back
to scientific integrity as a basis for its actions and its
critical mission to protect public health and the environment.
And the Biden EPA conducted a second look at the flawed risk
evaluations of the Trump administration, implementing TSCA as
intended and addressing disproportionate risks for vulnerable
populations. Under Biden's leadership, EPA was finally able to
ban the use of known dangerous chemicals like new uses of
asbestos, methylene chloride, and TCE. And EPA is also well on
its way to properly addressing legacy uses of asbestos.
Now, the EPA's TSCA office has also played a critical role
in addressing the rampant PFAS contamination across the Nation,
and I was pleased to see EPA take actions to require more
testing and reporting--eliminating exemptions and restricting
certain legacy PFAS. But despite these significant improvements
during the Biden administration, the TSCA office still faces
its fair share of challenges. And I am concerned that this
hard-fraught--this progress that we had under the Biden
administration is going to be stifled under the new Trump
administration, which did not have a great record 4 years ago
and has already shown itself to be more interested in special
corporate interests than the health of American families,
workers, and communities.
Now, we have seen how vulnerable communities bear the brunt
of a weak chemical safety office. We have heard the tragic
stories of Americans gone too soon because of lax or
nonexistent chemical regulations. And we cannot afford to go
back. If my Republican colleagues want to explore the
possibility of a reauthorization of TSCA, we must work to
strengthen it to ensure that we protect the health of all
Americans, especially our most vulnerable, and at the same time
fostering innovation.
But as we examine the implementation of the Lautenberg Act
today, it is important. It is important to me and all of us
that this law live up to the government--to its environmental
legacy. That is what Senator Lautenberg left behind, this
idea--and I repeat it again--that one of the most important
things we can do with environmental protection is give people
the right to know, give them information, give them data so
they know what is necessary to protect their own health and
safety.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Pallone follows:]
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Mr. Pallone. So I look forward to today's hearing, Mr.
Chairman, and I yield back.
Mr. Griffith. I thank the gentleman for yielding back. That
now concludes Members' opening statements.
The Chair would like to remind all Members that, pursuant
to committee rules, their Members' opening statements will be
made a part of the record. I would caution you, however, do
so--file those opening statements that you wish to have--be
made part of the record in a timely fashion. If it shows up 6
months later, it is probably not going to make the record.
That said, we want to thank all of our witnesses for taking
the time to testify before the subcommittee. You will have the
opportunity to give an opening statement followed by questions
from our Members, and we do appreciate it. I introduced the
witnesses previously, so I am going to skip reintroducing them
so we can get everybody time to ask their questions and then
move along.
So, Mr. Jahn, you are going to be recognized for a 5-minute
opening statement. Thank you.
STATEMENT OF CHRIS JAHN, PRESIDENT AND CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER,
AMERICAN CHEMISTRY COUNCIL; RICHARD E. ENGLER, Ph.D., DIRECTOR
OF CHEMISTRY, THE ACTA GROUP; GEOFF MOODY, SENIOR VICE
PRESIDENT, GOVERNMENT RELATIONS AND POLICY, AMERICAN FUEL &
PETROCHEMICAL MANUFACTURERS; AND MARIA DOA, Ph.D., SENIOR
DIRECTOR, CHEMICAL POLICY, ENVIRONMENTAL DEFENSE FUND
STATEMENT OF CHRIS JAHN
Mr. Jahn. Thank you, Chairman Griffith and Ranking Member
Tonko, Vice Chairman Crenshaw, Chairman Guthrie, Ranking Member
Pallone. I appreciate the opportunity to have this hearing this
morning and the ability to testify.
I last appeared before this committee in October of 2023
based on one central theme, that American success relies on
American chemistry, and that is even more true today. Americans
want a stronger and more affordable nation. America's chemicals
manufacturers can help. Not only are we the driving force
behind the entire manufacturing economy that produces everyday
products that businesses and families rely upon, but our
members are safer and cleaner than they have ever been before.
But to provide what Americans are asking for, we need
practical policy that protects the environment and human health
without sacrificing manufacturing jobs and America's
competitive edge.
Nearly 10 years ago, Congress passed TSCA and updated it
for the first time in decades. It included in that a 10-year
expiration of the fees that our members pay to the EPA to
conduct chemical reviews. Like any other user fee program, this
gives Congress the ability to assess whether improvements to
the law are necessary.
If you remember nothing else about what I say to you today,
there are requirements--there--we need to improve TSCA. The
improvements are necessary.
So the delays and the lack of sound science are
jeopardizing chemical manufacturing here in the United States.
I want to be clear, though, in what I am saying here today. I
am not talking about opening up TSCA. What I am saying is I
would like Congress to utilize the built-in oversight through
the fees reauthorization process to assess the program and make
necessary improvements. Dr. Michal Freedhoff, who ran the
chemicals office in the Biden administration, recently
suggested that this approach was healthy and reasonable, so we
have bipartisan support for that effort.
We have a unique opportunity to reform our regulatory
environment to help U.S. manufacturing and allow us to
outcompete other countries for years to come. To accomplish
this, ACC is guided by principles that we ask Congress and the
Trump administration to consider: number 1, to put science
first, drive predictable, transparent, and facts-based
policies; number 2, create a sensible regulatory environment
that fosters innovation here in the United States, instead of
offshoring it to other countries; and number 3, safeguard our
communities and protect our environment.
Our industry is safer and cleaner than ever before because
of ACC's mandatory third-party audited program, called
Responsible Care, focused on our members' environmental health,
safety, and security performance. American innovation relies on
new chemicals that enter commerce in a timely and predictable
manner.
Unfortunately, the new chemical program at EPA is broken.
New chemicals cannot be manufactured, imported, or placed on
the market without EPA approval. The statute requires a
determination within 90 days. However, the EPA has consistently
missed that mark, hindering innovation and ceding our Nation's
competitive advantage to manufacturers overseas. Based on the
EPA's updated public data in January, there were 394 chemicals
in the queue under review: 93 percent of them were past the
statutory deadline; 63 percent of them had been under review
for more than a year. This is a permitting reform issue that
urgently needs to be addressed.
So what do these delays mean to our industry and U.S.
competitiveness?
First, delays mean that--create uncertainty for
manufacturers, and they are less likely to invest in R&D that
brings new, innovative, and more sustainable chemistries to
market. Their customers, whether they are producing autos,
semiconductors, or anything else, cannot wait.
Second, delays and uncertainty make it more likely that
manufacturers will bring products to market overseas. In fact,
we conducted a survey of our members, and 70 percent of them
reported choosing to introduce new products outside of the
United States due to problems with the new chemical program. So
the new Trump administration can make some changes, make things
more efficient, but we still need changes to the law so that
EPA is held accountable to the 90-day deadline.
In addition to the changes in the 2016 law and the new
chemical program, it also directed EPA to assess the risk of
chemicals already in commerce. But however, due to unrealistic
assumptions about exposures to chemicals, the EPA's approach
has resulted in unnecessary regulation that is out of step with
the rest of the world. So Congress needs to take a look at
updating and providing commonsense regulation to the law, and
strengthen the requirements for the best-available science and
interagency coordination.
So I appreciate the committee holding this hearing today. A
healthy nation, a secure nation, an economically vibrant nation
relies on chemistry. Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Jahn follows:]
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Mr. Griffith. The gentleman yields back. I now recognize
Dr. Engler for his 5-minute opening statement.
STATEMENT OF RICHARD E. ENGLER, Ph.D.
Dr. Engler. Good morning, Chairman Griffith, Ranking Member
Tonko, Chairman Guthrie, Ranking Member Pallone, and members of
the Subcommittee on Environment. I thank the subcommittee for
inviting me today.
I have extensive experience with TSCA from my 17 years at
EPA, where I participated in the review of thousands of
premanufactured notices and low-volume exemptions, PMNs and
LVEs. I participated in all aspects of those reviews, from the
initial chemistry review to regulatory decision making. I also
ran the Green Chemistry Program for many years. I left EPA in
2015 to join Acta, a firm that helps clients with global
chemical registrations. But my views today are based on my
knowledge and experience as a chemist and a TSCA expert. And
while I will focus on the TSCA new chemicals program, I can
respond to questions on any aspect of TSCA.
The new chemicals program is not working as it should.
Since 2016 the program is stifling innovation, impeding
commercialization of new chemistry, and driving sustainable
chemistries out of the U.S. in part because since 2016 EPA is
taking a hazard-based approach to chemicals rather than the
risk-based approach that TSCA envisions. The expiration of TSCA
user fees in 2026 provides Congress with an opportunity to make
TSCA work better.
It is important to understand the difference between risk
and hazard, and so let me offer an example. A shark is a hazard
to swimmers, but it is not a risk if a swimmer is not near the
shark. We do not bar swimming in the ocean just because a shark
is also in the ocean. We consider the likelihood and
aggressiveness of local sharks to be near the beach. As
practiced, EPA is effectively barring swimming unless you ask
EPA if you can swim on the beach on that day. This is not how
Congress intended TSCA to work.
Under section 5, EPA must review each PMN and make one of
several determinations on that substance: is the substance not
likely to present unreasonable risk to health or the
environment, including a risk to subpopulations under the
intended, known, and reasonably foreseen conditions of use; or
that it may present unreasonable risk; or that it will present
unreasonable risk. If EPA finds that the substance is not
likely to present risk, that substance can proceed to market
without restriction. Otherwise, EPA is required to implement
some restrictions. Currently, EPA reviews a PMN, and if EPA
finds any hazard above its low hazard thresholds, EPA concludes
that the chemical may present a risk. Any uncertainty precludes
a ``not likely'' finding.
If vinegar were to be submitted in a PMN, I expect that EPA
would bar its use by consumers. Vinegar has hazards. It is
irritating, and if it is left on the skin it causes chemical
burns. If inhaled, it will damage the respiratory tract. EPA's
current policy is that a corrosive substance may not be in a
consumer product above 3 percent. Acetic acid, the key
ingredient in vinegar, is corrosive, and vinegar contains about
5 percent acetic acid. So EPA would prohibit consumer use.
You may wonder, Don't we want EPA to protect against all
hazards? And in my view, no. Some hazards are familiar and
routine, and do not require EPA to issue restrictions, as with
vinegar.
There are also other statutes that protect workers,
consumers, and the environment. EPA simply assumes that none of
these has any protective effect. EPA has issued--as a result,
EPA has issued restrictions on about 85 percent of PMNs since
2016. Recently, that percentage is over 90 percent. Over 8\1/2\
years and three administrations later, we have seen essentially
no change. EPA clearly thinks it is implementing TSCA section 5
correctly.
You might ask, The restrictions allow you to do what you
want to do, so what is the big deal? The big deal is the effect
on the supply chain. Each company in the supply chain must
follow the restrictions and document compliance and meet other
reporting requirements.
Consider another analogy. If the new chemical is a car, EPA
would review it and find that performing routine maintenance
reduces the risk of accidents. And then EPA requires that
routine maintenance be done and that you keep records. Your
current car does not have these requirements. You do routine
maintenance, but you question whether you can document every
oil change, or be sure that you will never go over the mileage
limit. Either would be viewed as a violation. In addition, the
police, when they see that model car, are more likely to pull
it over to review the records. Wouldn't you hesitate to buy
that car? This is the bias against new chemicals with
restrictions, and this is what is happening now.
Some PMNs need to be restricted, but others do not. Take,
for example, PMNs for chemicals that are on or nearly identical
to chemicals on EPA's safer chemical ingredient list--safer
choice ingredient list, a list of the best of the best
chemicals for household products. In several cases, EPA found
that these chemicals were too hazardous to be allowed in
consumer products. This makes no sense. How can it be safer but
also too hazardous to be allowed?
Great products are being restricted in ways that offer no
protective benefit because the potential harm is just not
likely to occur. Cleaning products, chips, cars, buildings,
defense and other industries are all starved of innovations.
Congress needs to change TSCA to give clear direction and set
performance expectations so that EPA is making decisions based
on the best available science and reasonable predictions and
assumptions.
I look forward to your questions.
[The prepared statement of Dr. Engler follows:]
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Mr. Griffith. Thank you very much, I appreciate it.
Mr. Moody, you are now recognized for your 5-minute opening
statement.
STATEMENT OF GEOFF MOODY
Mr. Moody. Good morning, Chairs Griffith and Guthrie,
Ranking Members Tonko and Pallone, and members of the
committee. My name is Geoff Moody. I am the senior vice
president for government relations and policy at the American
Fuel & Petrochemical Manufacturers.
AFPM proudly represents the petrochemical, refining, and
midstream industries. It is a privilege to testify this morning
about our experience with the TSCA implementation over the past
10 years. Our members manufacture and transport petrochemicals
that support a higher quality of life for people around the
world, and the fuels that are the backbone of U.S. energy
security and the economy.
Our industries live the dual challenge every day of
producing the petrochemicals and fuels needed for a modern and
growing society and the need to do so evermore safely,
responsibly, and sustainably. We therefore support a balanced
and workable TSCA. I would like to spend my limited time today
summarizing a few key points from my written testimony.
First, TSCA must remain a risk-based statute grounded in
reality and underpinned by sound science, the best available
science. Unfortunately, EPA has strayed from this bedrock
principle in recent years. The administration of this program
will benefit by refocusing agency resources on the highest-risk
chemicals based on exposure. Finally, if changes aren't made
through a combination of better program management and targeted
statutory changes, U.S. manufacturing and innovation will
suffer. My testimony contains additional details, but I would
like to briefly discuss a few key points about TSCA's new and
existing programs.
Starting with the existing chemical program, section 6, the
2016 amendments require EPA to prioritize existing chemicals
based on their risk and to designate them as high or low
priority for further evaluation. They must utilize the best
available science and weight of evidence to make reasonable
risk determinations and, if needed, to promulgate mitigation
measures.
EPA has not been adhering to this. In fact, they have been
largely regulating in a vacuum, disregarding other agencies'
overlapping regulations, industrywide safety practices, and
real-world data. One glaring example is in the risk modeling,
which uses unrealistic default assumptions, ignoring OSHA's
requirements and jurisdiction over workplace protections. To
highlight just one aspect of this, EPA's modeling assumes our
industry does not use personal protective equipment when
handling chemicals at our facilities. To be clear, this does
not happen. Another--in another example, AFPM, in its
engagement with the agency, provided real-world data about how
chemical is actually managed at our facilities. And rather than
accepting real-world data, EPA relied on its own model
assumptions, which resulted in a miscalculation of risk. And
now chemicals are being prioritized incorrectly.
Of the five chemicals just finalized for risk evaluation
and the next five that EPA is currently taking comment on, all
but two are intermediates, meaning they are primarily or only
used in closed-loop systems where they are consumed during the
manufacturing process. So the general public is not likely to
ever come into contact with them. However, this approach
requires AFPM members to go through a lengthy and uncertain
process of seeking use exemptions, even though the agency knows
that our uses--again, in those highly regulated, closed-loop
systems--are well managed.
As for section 5, the new chemicals program, it is no
secret that it faces some significant challenges. The agency
routinely misses deadlines for timely review of new chemicals
and new chemical uses, and faces no real accountability for
these delays, which can leave companies waiting for years
before they can bring products to new--or new uses to the
market because manufacturing can't happen without that
approval.
We have members that have been waiting for new use
approvals that will keep plastic waste out of the environment--
help keep plastic waste out of the environment, and to build
new chemistries for things like electric vehicles and solar
panels. Many of those products are held up in the current
section 5 review process, with no end in sight. EPA's delays
and unpredictability are not reducing global demand for these
products. What they are doing is sending manufacturing
opportunities overseas.
Just closing where I started, we support a TSCA program
that determines risk based on sound science and real-world
information and impacts. We believe the experience of the past
decade has shown that a combination of implementation
improvements and targeted--I say ``targeted''--statutory
changes are needed to restore U.S. manufacturing confidence and
to promote innovation under the statute. AFPM is looking
forward--looks forward to working with the committee and other
stakeholders to find those solutions.
Thank you, and I look forward to your questions.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Moody follows:]
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Mr. Griffith. I thank the gentleman. I now recognize Dr.
Doa for her 5-minute opening statement.
STATEMENT OF MARIA DOA, Ph.D.
Dr. Doa. Thank you, Chairman Griffith, Ranking Member
Tonko, Chairman Guthrie, Ranking Member Pallone, and members of
the subcommittee for the opportunity to testify today on the
implementation of the Frank R. Lautenberg Chemical Safety for
the 21st Century Act. My name is Maria Doa. I am the senior
director for chemical policy for the Environmental Defense
Fund.
EDF works to advance transformational solutions to the most
serious environmental problems. Before joining EDF, I worked at
the Environmental Protection Agency, where for the last 22
years I held various leadership positions focused on the
regulation of toxic chemicals, including the Toxic Substances
Control Act.
For nearly 40 years after TSCA was first enacted in 1976,
it became clear that the original law fell short. Too many
chemicals entered the market without adequate assessment, and
the risks for many highly toxic chemicals remained unaddressed.
In 2016, after a decade of legislative debate, Congress took
decisive action and passed the Lautenberg Act with broad
bipartisan support. The Lautenberg Act transformed what was
once a largely ineffective law into one that set a clear
directive to protect human health and the environment.
I would like to address two of the significant improvements
in the law. The first is the requirement for an affirmative
safety determination before a new chemical can enter U.S.
commerce, and the second is how the risks of existing chemicals
are evaluated based on real-world exposures.
Prior to the Lautenberg Act, it was up to EPA to determine
whether a new chemical may present an unreasonable risk of
injury to health or the environment, not whether the new
chemical was safe to enter the U.S. market. This meant that
many chemicals, particularly those with little or no toxicity
information, made it onto the market without any restrictions.
The Lautenberg Act requires an affirmative safety determination
for market entry, yet a new chemical notice is only required to
include information that is known or reasonably ascertainable.
EPA has approved thousands of chemicals since the
Lautenberg Act passed, yet there have been claims that EPA's
new chemical reviews take too long and thus impede innovation.
However, the delays in new chemical reviews are often caused by
the new chemical submitters themselves when they fail to
provide sufficient information up front. This results in the
submission of additional information later in the process that
requires reassessment and slows down the review.
Innovation by itself should not be the determining factor
for entry onto the market. We have learned expensive, damaging
lessons from toxic, innovative chemicals of the past like PCBs
and the forever chemicals, PFAS, that have resulted in hundreds
of millions of dollars in cleanup costs. TSCA explicitly
recognizes that innovation cannot occur at the expense of
health and the environment. It is the industry that pits
innovation against chemical safety. This is not a valid
dichotomy.
We support true innovation that embraces functionality and
health and safety. EPA must be given sufficient information up
front to make adequate, efficient, and expeditious reviews and,
where necessary, allow for restrictions to protect health and
the environment while supporting innovation.
Another significant improvement is for how existing
chemicals are managed. Under the Lautenberg Act, EPA took the
first meaningful action in 25 years to address the unreasonable
risks of some of the worst chemicals, including asbestos,
trichloroethylene--or TCE--and methylene chloride. These
chemicals cause harmful effects on our health, including
cancer, birth defects, and even death. In the last 2 years, EPA
finalized five new risk management rules for these harmful
chemicals, banning many unsafe uses, dramatically strengthening
worker protections, and providing greater protections for
families and children. In developing these regulations, EPA
used the best available science to determine the risks
presented by the real-world exposure to the chemical rather
than examining the risk of exposure to an individual use.
The Lautenberg Act fundamentally improved our Nation's
approach to chemical safety and is the driver in reducing
unreasonable risks from toxic chemicals. Maintaining these
aspects of the law is essential for safeguarding public health
and supporting smart innovation. Reopening the Lautenberg Act
would undermine these critical achievements.
Thank you for your time, and I look forward to your
questions.
[The prepared statement of Dr. Doa follows:]
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Mr. Griffith. I thank the gentlelady. We will now begin
questioning, and I recognize myself for 5 minutes.
Dr. Engler, in your testimony today you talked about new
chemical--the new chemicals program, and you implied that EPA
misinterpreted the TSCA risk-based standard. For my
constituents watching at home, could you explain how exactly
chemical exposure is defined, how it relates to risk, and how
you feel the EPA misinterpreted TSCA?
Dr. Engler. So when EPA reviews a new chemical, they look
at all the hazards. They also--they look at the information
provided by the submitter. If the submitter provides or has
information about releases and exposures, they will review
that. If that information is not provided, EPA will predict
releases and exposures using its own models and worst-case
assumptions.
And so this has been routine, and this has been done for as
long as I have been working on TSCA, which is 27 years now.
What happens now is, regardless of the outcome of EPA's models,
even if EPA does not find risk using its worst-case
assumptions, if there is a hazard above EPA's low-hazard
threshold EPA, issues a restriction of one form or another. So
the risk is gone from the equation. If there is a hazard there,
EPA views that there must be a restriction. Any uncertainty
leads to a restriction.
Mr. Griffith. And so you are not talking about unreasonable
risk. You are just talking about--
Dr. Engler. Any possible risk.
Mr. Griffith. Any possible risk.
Dr. Engler. Yes. So the--I mean, EPA uses thresholds, they
compare numerically, they compare exposures to the hazard
thresholds. So they look and compare, this is what--this is the
concern level. Where is the exposure level? If the exposure
level is below the concern level, there is no unreasonable
risk. Even when EPA finds that the exposure is below the
concern, they still issue a restriction.
Mr. Griffith. So thus your shark analogy, which I loved,
and your vinegar analogy. And I think in your written testimony
you mentioned lemon juice might not make the cut.
Dr. Engler. Lemon juice would also probably be banned from
consumer use, yes.
Mr. Griffith. And I got to ask because I eat too much of
it, I am sure, but how about my sodium chloride that I love?
Dr. Engler. I will leave that to you and your doctor.
Mr. Griffith. All right, so you don't think TSCA would get
involved in that if it were a new chemical suddenly?
Dr. Engler. Sodium chloride might pass.
Mr. Griffith. It might pass? All right, well, that is good
to know.
Dr. Engler, do you believe EPA's new chemicals division
follows basic evidentiary procedure in its decision-making
process, yes or no?
Dr. Engler. Generally--we have had mixed results, and it
depends a lot on the--on who is reviewing the case, which is
one of the problems we have. It should--your--a review of a
particular case should not depend on the reviewer. The system
should be predictable and consistent.
Mr. Griffith. Yes.
Dr. Engler. In some cases we provide data, we provide
measured data, and EPA will use that data and assess the risk.
And they will still issue a restriction if it is above the low-
hazard threshold. In other cases we provide data and the
assessors ignore the data or they dismiss the data. They don't
necessarily explain why, and they just use whatever
conservative assumption. And again, we end up with a
restriction.
Mr. Griffith. As Chairman Guthrie alluded to in his opening
remarks, we have just received an additional report from the
GAO this morning. While we haven't had time to fully review all
of its implications, the GAO does make it clear that the new
chemicals division does not follow most key practices for
managing and assessing the results of its new chemicals program
and does not make use of evidence to learn or uses practices
that would allow ``apply learning to decision making'' at the
division. I am sure that has to do with different people making
different decisions.
Based on reading the testimony, I am not surprised by this,
and I look forward to working with all of our witnesses to
improve the new chemicals program. But it just goes to show
that we probably ought to open it up, as Congress often ought
to do with a lot of different bills every now and then, and
say, ``Is it working?'' Check the engine, so to speak.
Dr. Engler. Yes.
Mr. Griffith. Mr. Jahn, could you expound some on what, in
your opinion, should be considered the best available science
for evaluating new chemicals?
Mr. Jahn. So, as you just said the GAO report, I found out
about that on the way over. I am not surprised----
Mr. Griffith. So did I.
Mr. Jahn [continuing]. Were interviewed in that process.
And, you know, they provide science, for example, for the EPA
to use that they request. However, very often what EPA ends up
doing is doing its own modeling and using that data rather than
the real-world data that our members provide to EPA for the
assessment. That is one of the reasons that the new chemicals
program takes so long.
Mr. Griffith. All right. I appreciate that.
Dr. Engler, again, could you explain just briefly the
advantages and disadvantages of statistical modeling for
chemical releases?
Dr. Engler. Well, statistical modeling can be used to see
what a worst case is. So EPA frequently uses 95th percentile.
They don't look at the absolute worst case, they look at sort
of a reasonable worst case. And so you are not looking at the
very end when you talk about a statistical analysis. You--they
don't look all the way at the very end of the tail, they look
for that 95th percentile as a worst case.
Mr. Griffith. All right, I appreciate that.
My time is up, so I now yield back and recognize Mr. Tonko
for 5 minutes of questioning.
Mr. Tonko. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I appreciate that Congress will need to reauthorize TSCA's
fee authority to help provide the program with the resources it
needs to function and function effectively. But I am also
curious what EPA can be doing without congressional action to
strengthen the program. So Dr. Doa, obviously, as of Monday, we
have a new administration. Do you have any recommendations for
how the incoming leadership at EPA can use its existing
statutory authorities to better protect health and effectively
administer TSCA?
Dr. Doa. Thank you. There are a number of ways that EPA can
protect health more rigorously. One would be the consideration
of the multiple chemicals that communities that are around
facilities are exposed to. Many companies will specialize in a
type of chemical such as PFAS or brominated flame retardants.
And while they will send a new chemical to EPA for that, and
EPA will look at it individually, the communities are exposed
to not only that chemical but previous PFAS that the company
submitted to EPA as a new chemical--previous brominated flame
retardant.
So I think, given that TSCA specifically requires that EPA
considers--that EPA consider exposures and risks to more highly
exposed and susceptible populations such as those surrounding
communities, and also consumers who are using multiple
chemicals or the workers who will be using multiple similar
chemicals, they have the tools, they have the knowledge, and
they have the experience to be able to do that. EPA has really
dedicated scientists and engineers who are committed to the
program and who do their best in new chemicals to use the best
available science.
Mr. Tonko. Thank you. And TSCA requires EPA to make its
regulatory decisions based on the best available science. So is
it just simply what the manufacturer initially or willingly
provides to the agency in terms of data, or does EPA have a
responsibility to also seek out additional data to make well-
informed regulatory decisions?
Dr. Doa. It is up to EPA to--and they do seek out data and
models and develop these data and models that they use in the
new chemicals. But they should not just be taking the industry
data at face value. They need to look at the validity of the
data, the applicability of the data for a particular use. Just
because the industry says ``We don't think there are going to
be releases from this use'' is not sufficient. EPA--it is their
role to be independent and assess the information and use the
sum of the information to determine whether there are
unreasonable risks.
Mr. Tonko. And I heard some expression of concern about
timeliness and thoroughness on behalf of the industry as it
applies its efforts to EPA. Can you expand upon that, please?
Dr. Doa. Oh, yes, and I do have personal experience with
this from when I was at EPA. What will happen is a company will
submit information. And because they are only required to
submit what is reasonably known or ascertainable, they may tell
EPA that they have a chemical and they are using it in a
certain way, and without much information beyond that. EPA will
use its models, its vetted models, its experience, and they
will do estimates. They--if they identify preliminarily an
unreasonable risk and they tell the company, the company will
often come back and say, ``No, I have more data.'' And then EPA
will need to go back and redo its risk assessment again. If it
still finds preliminarily unreasonable risk, then they go to
the company. Then more data is submitted and it turns out,
``Oh, no, you were concerned about worker inhalation, but we
have this equipment that controls it.'' They never mentioned
that in the initial submission.
So EPA goes back and forth with them, sometimes up to five
times redoing the risk assessment. That takes resources. That
takes time because part of that is waiting for the company to
go back and check and come back to EPA. So a lot of it is due
to the industry, and it is not the 90-day clock that just goes.
EPA must make an affirmative determination on the safety of the
chemical.
Mr. Tonko. Thank you. I had other questions, but I will
submit those to the subcommittee to get to our witnesses.
Thank you, and with that I yield back.
Mr. Griffith. I now recognize the chairman of the full
committee, Mr. Guthrie, for his 5 minutes of questioning.
Mr. Guthrie. Thank you very much. Thank you, Mr. Chairman,
and thanks for our witnesses for being here today. And as I
said in my opening statement, we are looking to review
regulations and do what is reasonable. And so I just have a
question.
So EPA's current policy is that a corrosive substance may
not be present in a consumer product above 3 percent. As Dr.
Engler pointed out in your testimony, the active ingredient in
vinegar is acetic acid, which is an irritant and may cause
chemical burns, and most vinegar contains about 5 percent of
acetic acid. So around Christmastime my family was in town, and
our coffee pot turned off because it needed to be descaled. In
the old days you thought coffee pots just powered through. You
got a lot of steam, and you--it took you a little longer. But
now the coffee pot turns off and says, ``I am not going to work
until you descale me.'' Well, who has descaling stuff sitting
around?
So that very day, my wife made her North Alabama white
sauce, which we ate and enjoyed. But according to EPA, if I
used that vinegar to descale my coffee pot, then it would be a
toxic substance?
Dr. Engler. Effectively, yes.
Mr. Guthrie. And so----
Dr. Engler. The EPA would prohibit the sale of vinegar as a
coffee descaler.
Mr. Guthrie. So I just want to go from Dr. Jahn across--
does that--I mean, Mr. Jahn, I am sorry. Does that seem
reasonable?
Mr. Jahn. That does not seem reasonable to me. And
unfortunately, this is too often the experience that our
members have when they are bringing new chemistries to market,
whether they are more sustainable, they have better
performance, and they go into medical devices, automobiles,
fighter jets, you name it. It isn't reasonable, and it needs to
be addressed.
Mr. Guthrie. We will just go down, all the way down the
list of--answer that. Do you think that is reasonable, Dr.
Engler?
Dr. Engler. No, I think it is--I think EPA is
overinterpreting what is reasonably foreseen.
So the statute requires EPA to consider whether or not a
substance is not likely to present unreasonable risk under the
reasonably foreseen conditions of use. And the assumption is,
over 3 percent of acetic acid in vinegar, somebody might harm
themselves with it because they have no certainty that someone
will not misuse or misapply.
Mr. Guthrie. But you can eat it. You can't pour it through
your coffee pot. That is what--
Dr. Engler. Yes.
Mr. Guthrie. OK. That is what I want to make--that doesn't
seem reasonable.
Mr. Moody?
Mr. Moody. I concur.
Mr. Guthrie. OK. Dr. Doa?
Dr. Doa. I think the issue is not acetic acid. The issue
is, if you are using a corrosive chemical in an industrial
process it might be fine, but the restriction that EPA would
put on it would be you can't use it in a consumer product.
Mr. Guthrie. But the issue is acetic acid.
Dr. Doa. Because it would be sprayed, the concentration
could be higher. It could be much higher.
Mr. Guthrie. This is just the same--I took the bottle and--
she made the sauce, and I took the bottle and put it into the--
so that is the issue. I mean, that is--we can't just dismiss
that is not the issue.
Dr. Doa. Respectfully, sir, I think that EPA would not
restrict that. It would restrict it, the percentage, because it
gets much more corrosive at a higher percent, if it is used at
a higher percent. I think that is--and so maybe they would say,
no, it can't be used to descale at 15 percent because, one,
it--functionally, it doesn't need to be above 3 percent.
Mr. Guthrie. Right.
Dr. Doa. And it would be harmful at 15 percent.
Mr. Guthrie. OK. I think it says anything above 3, but we
can look at that. So thanks.
So just being in reasonableness as well, in TSCA another
area of bipartisan discussion in this subcommittee has been the
topics of advanced recycling. In your testimony, Mr. Moody, you
discuss EPA's proposed regulation on pyrolysis oil, which has
been pending at EPA since 2023. Pyrolysis oil allows
manufacturers to break down waste plastics and return them to
useful seed stock--feedstock that can be put into new plastics,
and this is a key function in recycling.
And so, Mr. Moody, do you think it makes sense to impede
our ability to scale advanced recycling to meet our
sustainability goals?
Mr. Moody. Advanced recycling is a critical technology if
we are going to effectively address the issue of plastic waste
in the environment. So we agree that things should go through
review, we should be assessing the risk and mitigating risk.
But at the end of the day, the output of this process is
chemically identical to other things on the inventory, as
naphtha, as this other thing.
So what we would say is, let's look at the data, but, you
know, we shouldn't be impeding that technology because we need
it to address----
Mr. Guthrie. What do you think has been so difficult to get
it approved?
Mr. Moody. That is a great question. You know, I--there--I
think there is probably different points of view on that and on
how to best address the plastic waste issue. And I think that
people come at that in good faith. From our perspective, this
is critical, and you can't dismiss it.
Mr. Guthrie. All right, thanks.
Well, my time has expired, and I will yield back. Thanks,
Mr. Chair.
Mr. Griffith. The gentleman yields back. I now recognize
the chairman--or the ranking member of the full committee, Mr.
Pallone, for his 5 minutes of questioning.
Mr. Pallone. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. TSCA, as we know, is
our Nation's chemical safety law under which EPA reviews and
manages chemicals to protect the health of Americans. And EPA
is tasked with ensuring the safety of chemicals that consumers
interact with every day, items like winter coats, workout
clothes, bedding, mattress pads, computers, and cell phones.
Now, the TSCA office has been underfunded, despite the
significant increase in work requiring--required under the
Lautenberg Act. And without the appropriate staff and
resources, we can't expect the Act to fulfill its mission and
EPA's mission to protect health, safety, and complete timely
chemical reviews. So I know we are not the Appropriations
Committee, but I do think I have to make a pitch that we need
more money for the office. But let me go to Dr. Doa.
Why is it important for EPA to conduct a premarket review
of all new chemicals and make an affirmative determination on
safety before a chemical is manufactured, if you will?
Dr. Doa. Thank you for your question.
One very important reason why new chemical reviews are so
important is so that we don't have more chemicals like PFAS, or
PCBs, or carcinogenic dyes, or brominated flame retardants on
the market. These chemicals are harmful. And once they are on
the market and companies are invested in them, it is very
difficult to limit or decrease the amounts used, and it is
difficult to get them off the market, even when they are shown
to be extremely toxic.
And then these reviews are important so we don't have to
spend hundreds of millions of dollars as we are for PFAS,
cleaning them up, or take the multiyear process of regulating
it as an existing chemical.
Mr. Pallone. Well, thank you. Now, have the changes
included in the Lautenberg Act provided EPA with the ability to
address existing chemicals that have long been known to cause
harm?
Dr. Doa. Well, most importantly, the Lautenberg Act gave
EPA the tools and the directive to take action. Before the
Lautenberg Act, EPA had not taken action in 25 years, despite
the many people who died from methylene chloride, both
consumers and users, despite the many people harmed from
trichloroethylene, which causes three types of cancer, birth
defects, affects multiple parts of the system, or asbestos, the
poster child, causing cancer. So Lautenberg was crucial for
being able to protect human health.
Mr. Pallone. Well, thank you. And I also think it is
important to remember that the chemicals regulated under TSCA
are used in a range of applications, from manufacturing to
consumer products found in the home every day--you know, TVs,
microwaves, other electronics, household cleaners, all types of
clothing.
But a final question: Dr. Doa, what does a strong TSCA
program mean for the health of Americans and the confidence
consumers have in the safety of chemicals used in all aspects
of their lives?
Dr. Doa. It is crucial because what led to the Lautenberg
Act was the widespread belief by consumers that they could not
trust a lot of products, that they were being exposed routinely
to toxic chemicals. And I think this is a way to ensure more
confidence that what we use every day won't harm us and that we
will be protected from the most harmful chemicals.
Mr. Pallone. I appreciate that. You know, I go back to
the--I know I sound repetitive, but I just can't help--you
know, Senator Lautenberg, in so many areas of life, was a
champion for what I call the right to know. And, you know, you
just got to that.
In other words, you know, people want information and data.
I mean, how many times does somebody call my office and say,
well, ``What is the data? What is the information? What can I
rely on?'' And I think that, when you have a strong TSCA
program, you are giving people information so they can, you
know, make decisions and know what is bad for the health, know
what is not good for their safety.
You know, I can't emphasize enough why a--the--a strong
TSCA program really empowers people and gives them, as you say,
the feeling that they can have the confidence in these
products. People are just so convinced that, you know, that
whatever they use has already been approved, has already been
safe. But more and more, they don't believe that anymore. So
that is just another reason why I think we need a strong TSCA.
Thank you so much.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Griffith. The gentleman yields back. I now recognize
the vice chairman of the subcommittee, Mr. Crenshaw, for his 5
minutes of questioning.
Mr. Crenshaw. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I will start with you, Mr. Jahn. TSCA requires that the EPA
make a determination within 90 days. Are there any consequences
if the agency fails to make a determination within the
statutorily mandated review period?
Mr. Jahn. The short version is no. The EPA is supposed to
give the fees back to the private company that applied. But
that does not happen in practice. And so right now we are left
in a situation where, again, as I said in my opening statement,
63 percent of the submissions are a year old, when the deadline
is 90 days.
Mr. Crenshaw. Yes.
Mr. Jahn. And so, as we look at the authorization process
for those fees, we need to find some guardrails and some
accountability for EPA to meet its deadlines.
Mr. Crenshaw. I mean, it was said by Ms. Doa that a lot of
the fault lies on the industry itself for not putting in the
right paperwork or right information. How much of that is true,
in your opinion?
Mr. Jahn. So EPA has a challenge in clearly communicating
with industry in regards to what it is looking for, and it is
notorious for coming to the industry on the 89th day and
saying, ``This is the additional information we would like. You
have a couple of choices here. You can either suspend your
application and we work on that, or we can deny it, or you can
get your money back and go to the end of the queue.'' And we
already know how long that queue takes.
So I would respectfully submit that EPA needs to do a much
better job in communicating with the industry in terms of what
it needs, what it will use.
Mr. Crenshaw. Mr. Engler, do you have something to add to
that?
Dr. Engler. Yes. So we work very closely with our clients
to prepare very robust PMNs, and we are very good at predicting
what EPA--the sort of information that EPA is looking for. But
even when we do that, we find that EPA comes up with questions
that we could never have predicted. Or during EPA's review they
have made some errors, or they have missed some key information
that is in the case. And so some of the rework is just the
necessary communication between the submitter and EPA to make
sure there is a shared understanding.
Mr. Crenshaw. Right. Mr. Jahn, you might be limited in what
you can say about this, but are you aware of instances where
new chemical applications for safer and greener chemicals or--
and chemistries were delayed as a result of this kind of
mismanagement under the TSCA program?
Mr. Jahn. Yes, so I hear about this from members all the
time. I could give you a couple of examples.
One is an application for chemicals that goes into electric
vehicle batteries. Despite providing all the information the
EPA has requested, that application has been pending now for
almost 5 years. OK? So that is number 1.
Number 2, in the semiconductor space we have a member who
just got a Department of Energy grant. They were going to build
the facility with union labor, and they have been waiting for
over a year from EPA to approve their PMNs.
So there is at least a couple of examples, and there are
many more.
We have also had EPA tell our members that, well, you know,
``You need to notify us and put it on the cover page when you
submit your proposal.'' That is how bad it has gotten at this
point. And we have said, ``Look, we do that. It is throughout
the proposal. Is anybody actually reading this?'' That is where
we are right now.
Mr. Crenshaw. Yes, OK. They don't like where the
information is on the packet.
Mr. Jahn. Correct.
Mr. Crenshaw. That is very annoying.
Mr. Moody, this is kind of related because in your
testimony you say that they fail to differentiate between the
risks posed by a chemical and a consumer product, which is--of
course, there is a wide amount of exposure there--versus the
risk posed in a closed-loop industrial process. How can we
promulgate better and more pragmatic regulations for existing
chemicals, differentiating between these different conditions
of use?
Mr. Moody. So risk is a combination of hazard and exposure,
and we have talked about that. Where you have something--where
you have a chemical in a closed-loop system, there is no
exposure. And so there should be--it should be a lower risk
assessment at the end of the day because there is no exposure.
We have seen multiple incidents over the last few years of
EPA assessing an unreasonable risk on a chemical as a whole,
but then intermediate processes get wrapped into that. And, you
know, one example--and TCE has come up a couple of times today,
but it is an impurity as part of a refining catalyst process,
all closed loop. But were EPA to ban that use, we would have
put half the gasoline supply in the U.S. at risk because it is
used as a refining catalyst.
So thankfully, we caught that and we engaged the agency.
And, you know, we--there is a de minimis exemption in there.
But starting with this premise that all uses, regardless of
exposure, can create an unreasonable risk and then you are
living by exemption is no way to run a program, from our point
of view.
Mr. Crenshaw. Right. That is not a proper holistic risk
assessment.
Thank you, I yield back.
Mr. Griffith. The gentleman yields back. I now recognize
Ms. Schakowsky for her 5 minutes of questioning.
Ms. Schakowsky. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you to
our witnesses today. I really appreciate this.
There is overwhelming evidence that we are all subjected,
in some way or another, with chemicals that may not--that may
hurt us, that children and, of course, workers are vulnerable.
And I think we have to find out what is a danger to us, and
then to proceed in the--making the most important thing our
health and safety.
I was a proud cosponsor of the Frank Lautenberg Act years
ago, and I think that this is so incredibly important, and
deals with the issues of chemical toxins that are there. And I
saw that you mentioned, Doctor--where are you? Hold on one
second.
[Pause.]
Ms. Schakowsky. OK, no, I still don't see it. Hang on.
Yes, Dr. Doa, there we go, I am sorry. My vision is not so
great. But I wanted to thank you for mentioning that methylene
chloride is dangerous, and it is--can be cancer-causing, and I
was so happy that during the Biden administration the EPA did
actually take off the methylene chloride, and that is my
understanding. Is that right?
Dr. Doa. Yes, ma'am. It prohibited certain uses and
required protections for--worker protections for other uses.
Ms. Schakowsky. So I wanted to ask you, how important is
the--that legislation important--why is it important, and how
has it proceeded to make our environment safer, Lautenberg?
Dr. Doa. Thank you. Yes, it is important because, as you
noted, with methylene chloride and with other chemicals, it is
protecting people--children, families, workers--from these
toxic chemicals which cause a range of harm, cancer, and birth
defects, and even death. So even though we knew about many of
the deaths from methylene chloride over years--both consumers
and workers, workers at small businesses--EPA was unable to
take action under TSCA before Lautenberg.
So this really turned the tide and has actually--will save
lives in the future because methylene chloride cannot be used
for certain uses. And where people have died in the past,
fortunately they won't in the future.
Ms. Schakowsky. I want to thank you for your 30 years of
service----
Dr. Doa. Thank you.
Ms. Schakowsky [continuing]. At the Environmental
Protection Agency, and now with the private sector, continuing
in your work.
But I wanted to ask you. I have heard that those in the
chemical industry want to take away some of the benefits that I
see for the country, for the--for consumers from the Lautenberg
bill. I wanted you to comment on that.
Dr. Doa. Thank you for the question.
If we were to take away some of the protections to go back
to TSCA before Lautenberg, we would be going back to a time in
new chemicals where, if there wasn't sufficient information,
chemicals just went onto the market. They were called drops
because EPA couldn't make a determination, and so many
chemicals were--went onto the market that were toxic, that were
risky, very risky. So I think that would be one thing we would
lose, the protections for chemicals going on to the market.
And also for the existing chemicals, as I noted--and I was
there when we tried to regulate existing chemicals, and there
just weren't the tools--we would go back to a time where things
that we know are extremely harmful to large parts of the U.S.,
we could do nothing about it.
Ms. Schakowsky. Thank you. I realize my time is up. Is that
right?
Mr. Crenshaw [presiding]. Yes.
Ms. Schakowsky. And I yield back. Thank you, thank you.
Mr. Crenshaw. The gentlelady yields back. I now--the Chair
right now recognizes Mr. Latta from Ohio.
Mr. Latta. Well, thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, and
thanks to our witnesses for being with us today.
If I could start, you know, my district, I have over 80,000
manufacturing jobs, and some of those are chemical companies,
and they produce a lot of different things that we have to use
for our everyday lives. And Mr. Jahn, if I could start my
questions with you, you know, I think it is interesting, you
know, when you--in your testimony you were talking about we
have to have a sensible regulatory environment, safeguard our
communities, protect the environment, put supply chains behind
us, and unlock the full capability of our transportation
network. You also state that our chemical program is broken,
and you also mentioned the length of time. You just mentioned
it again for one of our Members, how long it is taking to get
things done.
But, you know, one of the questions I think is--I would
like to ask is this: When you say 63 percent have been under
review for more than a year, the question then becomes--is, are
they approved? Are they denied, or are they just put out there
for a longer wait period?
Mr. Jahn. So it is a very good question. And so yes, there
is no guarantee that these get approved. And so some of the
testimony that you have heard earlier today talks about the
thousands of chemicals that have gone through the process.
And I want to be really clear. It has only been--since the
revised law passed, it is about 1,700 chemicals that have gone
through the process and been approved. So we have heard much
larger numbers. That does not mean those are going into
commerce. And you can go find that directly on the EPA's
website.
Mr. Latta. Thank you. And going back to your earlier
statement about the--our supply chain, you know, during COVID
we all know how broken we found that our supply chain became.
But you also raised--talked about the supply chain and also
that likely our manufacturer will bring products to overseas
markets. What is that going to do to our supply chain?
I think that is really important here in the United States
because if we don't have the necessary chemicals to make
something, you are going to have to go offshore. But what is
that going to do to, you know, the American manufacturing that
we have to do right here for our own national security?
Mr. Jahn. Right. So again, as a reminder, chemistry is at
the beginning of the manufacturing supply chain. Literally,
everything starts with us. And so, therefore, there is a direct
correlation between smart chemical management policy and the
ability to maintain a robust and resilient supply chain.
I'll give you one example: semiconductors. So it takes 500
chemistries to manufacture one computer chip. So Congress has
worked very hard to try to make sure that we are onshoring the
manufacture of computer chips. We need to take equal care in
chemical management policy to ensure that the inputs that make
that possible are also made here to protect our national and
economic security.
Mr. Latta. And just real briefly, what are our foreign
competitors doing?
Mr. Jahn. Our foreign competitors----
Mr. Latta. Right.
Mr. Jahn [continuing]. In terms of----
Mr. Latta. In the chemical side.
Mr. Jahn [continuing]. Approving new chemistries----
Mr. Latta. On the chemical side.
Mr. Jahn. You know, if you look at Canada, you look at
Korea, you look at the EU, typically you are looking at 1 to 3
months to get their chemistries approved. At the outside, about
6 months. So we are well, well behind. And if you look at the
manufacturing space as a whole, China is nearly four times our
size in terms of their production of chemistry. That lead is
growing.
Mr. Latta. Thank you.
Mr.--Dr. Engler, you mentioned about, you know, we have got
reduced innovation, hampered the adoption of sustainable
chemistry. One of the questions I would like to ask: Do we need
reform or more money in the whole system?
Dr. Engler. I am sorry, can----
Mr. Latta. Do we need to have reform, or do we have to have
more money in the system?
Dr. Engler. I am not sure what the correct funding level
is. I think there is--because of staff turnover, there have
been a lot of new hires, there have been changes. I think the
program is still getting its feet under itself. So I think
there is some inefficiencies built in there.
I would like to see some more maturity before I say yes,
the program needs a lot more resources, but it may. It may need
more people. I think it certainly needs more resources to help
with its IT systems.
Mr. Latta. But, you know, we have been seeing and hearing
from the testimony, you know, about what is happening with this
reduced innovation and, as you've talked about, unsustainable
chemistry. You know, the concern again is we have got to move
things to market. Are things moving to market quickly or not?
Dr. Engler. Oh, no, things are delayed, literally, for
years.
Mr. Latta. OK. Let me ask this question. Again, you know,
we are falling behind, is what it sounds like in this country.
And also, you know, your question about vinegar--vinegar is
found on every--I would like to go to any grocery store in the
United States and not find a vinegar product. You can even
drink the stuff if you dilute it. So today, just out of
curiosity, would you think that, you know, if the EPA went out
there and said we are not going to even have EPA on grocery
shelves, do you think that would happen if they would say we
are going to look at vinegar once more?
Dr. Engler. Well, I think if EPA looked at a lot of
products, they would--a lot of current consumer products, they
would probably ban them because of the potential that somebody
might misuse it.
Mr. Latta. Well, thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. My time
has expired, and I yield back.
Mr. Griffith [presiding]. The gentleman yields back. I now
recognize Dr. Ruiz for his 5 minutes of questioning.
Mr. Ruiz. Thank you so much. You know, I just--we updated
the amendment to make it reflect a real-life situation. So all
these hypothetical situations that you guys are talking about
and bringing up with vinegar is just complete nonsense, and not
real life.
You know, Dr. Doa just explained that, indeed, no, there is
no EPA banning of household vinegar to scrub your pots. And,
you know, I want you to all know, as a scientist and as a
physician, we have known for many years by Dr. Virchow who said
that any substance in the right quantity can be toxic to your
health.
So, you know, let's just put aside these different
hypotheticals, and let's talk about TSCA because it is an
important piece of legislation. It provides the EPA the
authority to determine the safety of both new chemicals before
they enter the market and existing chemicals already in use.
And as we have heard throughout this hearing, the Toxic
Substances Control Act is vital to protecting Americans from
dangerous chemicals like asbestos, methylene chloride,
trichloroethylene that can cause cancers, severe heart, liver,
renal diseases to people. And for decades the former TSCA law
failed to safeguard our--safeguard our communities, allowing
people to be exposed to harmful chemicals in their homes and
workplaces. And this failure disproportionately impacted
vulnerable populations, especially our children, who are
particularly susceptible due to their size, physiology,
developmentally growing brain, and certain behaviors.
And as an emergency physician, I have treated kids from the
devastating effects of inhaling or ingesting these toxic
chemicals. And exposures during critical development stages can
lead to severe lifelong health consequences. That is why the
2016 Lautenberg Act was so important. You see, it strengthened
TSCA by, among other changes, requiring the EPA to protect
susceptible populations, including children, and said, hey,
these are the ones that can be affected the most if ingested or
inhaled accidentally.
So, you know, we need to evaluate these chemicals. And
unfortunately, the first Trump administration failed to
properly implement the law, including by assuming certain
exposures were addressed by other statutes and therefore
discounting risks. The Biden administration has since adopted a
more comprehensive or whole-chemical approach to provide more
safety and protection. So these methods examine all exposures'
pathways in real life, real-life scenarios. So it is important
step forward to safeguarding the health of all Americans.
Dr. Doa, you know, why is it important that EPA move to a
whole-chemical approach when assessing the risks of a chemical
substance, especially for vulnerable populations? And what does
the whole-chemical approach mean?
Dr. Doa. Thank you for your question.
Starting off with what does the whole-chemical approach
mean, it means all of your exposures to a chemical, whether
from the air, water--including drinking water--from soil, from
consumer products. Because that--looking at all of the things
you are exposed to presents an accurate assessment of the risks
that you will encounter.
And I look at it as analogous to your diet. When you think
about calories, you take--let's say you have a goal of 2,000--
what you ate for breakfast, what you had for lunch. You just
don't compare to your goal what you had for breakfast, and then
say that is fine. You look at everything you have compared to
your goal.
And it is particularly important for children, because
children's bodies don't distinguish whether they are exposed to
something from a consumer product, from the air, from the
water, from dust. Kids put things in their--
Mr. Ruiz. Yes.
Dr. Doa [continuing]. Mouth all the time. And if you were
to look at one use of a chemical that a child is exposed to,
let's say in a consumer product--
Mr. Ruiz. I have 30 seconds left.
Dr. Doa. OK.
Mr. Ruiz. I have one last question.
Dr. Doa. Sure.
Mr. Ruiz. The EPA considers susceptible populations such as
children in its chemical reviews. How does it go about doing
that? What additional protections do they have for children?
Dr. Doa. So it looks at multiple steps. It looks at the
total whole chemical. It looks at the fact that children
metabolize chemicals different, are exposed a little bit
different, a lot of hand-to-mouth. It focuses on the harms that
are more important for children. And it should also be looking
at filling data gaps on children's exposure.
Mr. Ruiz. Thank you, I yield back.
Mr. Griffith. The gentleman yields back. I now recognize
Mr. Palmer for his 5 minutes of questions.
Mr. Palmer. OK, I thank you, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate the
witnesses. If you will give me very brief answers, I have got a
lot of material to cover.
Mr. Moody, you made points about the unnecessary delays.
Have these delays harmed American people by keeping innovative
chemicals from coming to the marketplace that would include
chemicals to be used to reduce emissions of greenhouse gases or
mitigate other environmental issues?
Mr. Moody. Yes, sir.
Mr. Palmer. I am looking--
Mr. Moody. Yes, sir. From our members, they have multiple
applications that have been pending for EPA in front of--for
years.
Mr. Palmer. So it could improve--and Mr.--Dr. Engler, you
made a point about the premanufacturing notifications have
declined by over two-thirds, and from about 600 per year to
less than 200 per year. Is that problematic for Americans in
terms of access to chemicals being available for medical
technology, food production, energy generation, and other uses
to improve quality of life and lower the cost of living?
Dr. Engler. Absolutely. Many of our clients are
commercializing overseas.
Mr. Palmer. Let me point out some things. I ran a think
tank for years, and we used to publish environmental indicators
that covered emissions, water quality, land use, toxic release,
including the Toxic Release Inventory. So I started looking at
the EPA's Toxic Release Inventory, and it is remarkable how
much we have improved in that area. Just from 2012 to 2022 we
have decreased the amount of Toxic Release Inventory by 21
percent. And since 2000 it is over 50 percent.
Is that--does that indicate the commitment of the industry
to improving environmental quality?
Dr. Engler. It is an indication of the commitment to the
industry, it is also an indication of the innovations that are
coming in to replace the more harmful things.
Mr. Palmer. But that also includes risk screening,
environmental indicators, which has gone down to 22 percent?
Dr. Engler. Yes. Actually, I worked on the Risk Screening
Environmental Indicators while I was at EPA, as well. And the
RSEI scores have improved significantly.
Mr. Palmer. When we talk about the Toxic Release Inventory,
that includes some uses that my colleagues across the aisle are
very high on, particularly in terms of renewable energy
production. It--you require toxic chemicals used in wind
turbines. Would that be true, Dr.--Mr. Jahn?
Mr. Jahn. Yes it is. And in addition to that, I would say
there is also 10 tons of plastic in a wind turbine, as well.
Mr. Palmer. Right. And then, if you really want to get into
toxic chemicals for renewables, you got to talk about solar
panels. And by the way, the--we can't recycle the blades, there
is very little of the--in terms of solar panel production that
can be recycled. Solar panels contain cadmium, lead, arsenic,
silver, copper, selenium. They use PFAS chemicals.
Now, this--my colleagues across the aisle, when they were
in the majority, moved legislation to ban PFAS. They want to
completely eliminate it. But according to a couple articles I
have here, Mr. Chairman, that I think we should introduce into
the record--``The Truth About Dangerous Chemicals in Solar
Panels'' and ``PFAS Waste From Solar Panels''--Mr. Chairman, I
would like to introduce those into the record if there is no
objection.
Mr. Griffith. What we will do is we will put that on to the
list, assuming that there is no objection from the Democrat
side, and we will take it up at the end of the hearing.
Mr. Palmer. Well, I am sure they won't object to science.
Mr. Griffith. I am sure they won't, either, but I--it is
courtesy for me to give them an opportunity to at least review
it.
Mr. Palmer. Well, you are a very courteous, Chairman. Thank
you.
Mr. Griffith. Thank you.
Mr. Palmer. In 2022 the market share for PFAS materials and
the--which are used in the outer layers of solar panels was
close to 80 percent. And as I said, most of the solar panels
have no characteristics for recycling. Is that problematic, Dr.
Engler?
Dr. Engler. Well, it is--only from a----
Mr. Palmer. Well, let me restate it.
Dr. Engler. OK.
Mr. Palmer. Is it hypocritical? Because there are
legitimate uses for PFAS. And I would say that solar panels
using PFAS to harden the outer layer to make them more durable
would be a legitimate use. Would you agree with that?
Dr. Engler. Yes, I would.
Mr. Palmer. Would you agree that it is hypocritical to
eliminate all PFAS, or to support PFAS for certain uses that
they favor as opposed to other uses?
Dr. Engler. Well, I think an evaluation of PFAS should
depend on the specific PFAS. It is an extraordinarily broad
category.
Mr. Palmer. But there is----
Dr. Engler. And they have very----
Mr. Palmer [continuing]. A legitimate use for PFAS.
Dr. Engler [continuing]. Different characteristics.
Mr. Palmer. You would agree with that?
Dr. Engler. Yes, categorically, I would----
Mr. Palmer. Now, I would support alternatives if there are
alternatives, and I think the technology is catching up.
So with that, Mr. Chairman, I happily yield back.
Mr. Griffith. I thank the gentleman for yielding back and
now recognize Mr. Peters for his 5 minutes of questions.
Mr. Peters. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thanks to the
witnesses, and thanks for holding this hearing today.
I have to acknowledge up front that my first job out of
college was in the Office of Toxic Substances, whereas what is
sometimes called a faceless, unelected bureaucrat--but the
acronyms CBI and PMN are seared into my memory and will never,
never leave.
And look, I know the chemical industry plays a vital role
in innovation, including development of safer alternatives to
replace hazardous substances. I know these advancements are
crucial to the transition to clean energy for public health, as
Mr. Palmer was suggesting. And I do understand that a TSCA
review can feel like a massive roadblock. And I do remember the
paperwork, particularly when companies are introducing newer,
safer chemicals that align with our regulatory goals.
I also know that there are significant delays in review and
uncertainty about approvals that can hinder innovation,
increases the cost for manufacturing, slows the transition to
greener, safer, and more sustainable technologies, and can
discourage risk taking, which is important in this field.
But TSCA was designed to prioritize the protection of human
health and the environment above all else. The requirement to
determine unreasonable risk without considering cost is a
cornerstone of the 2016 Lautenberg amendments which this
committee worked on, as well. And the idea is to ensure that
decisions are based on science and public safety, not economic
pressures.
We can create a regulatory regime that supports innovation,
protects health and the environment, and maintains public
confidence in chemical safety, and I would like to look forward
to work with this committee to uphold the principles of TSCA
while addressing the challenges and opportunities ahead, many
of which you have identified.
Dr. Engler, in your opinion, are there changes to TSCA or
its administration that would both bolster critical innovation
and maintain protections? Can you give me two or three ideas?
Dr. Engler. Yes, absolutely. So I think EPA needs clear
guidance from Congress on what level of uncertainty is
acceptable. Does EPA need to be certain under all circumstances
that there wouldn't be an unreasonable risk? Or is there some
threshold, a not-likely threshold? What is that not-likely
threshold?
Mr. Peters. So a more objective metric against which to
decide that?
Dr. Engler. Yes, something to differentiate not-likely from
may-present.
Mr. Peters. OK. Have you proposed a particular kind of way
to adjudicate that?
Dr. Engler. Well, the--I mean, as I was thinking about it,
the--intellectually, the threshold that I would propose is not-
likely and more-likely-than-not, because--
Mr. Peters. OK.
Dr. Engler [continuing]. More-likely-than-not gives some
clarity that there doesn't need to be certainty, and that--not-
likely, that there is allowed to be some uncertainty that there
won't be an unreasonable risk because we can never be certain
about the future.
Mr. Peters. Dr. Doa, outside of a ban, what are the range
of options available to EPA when we address the chemicals
risks?
Dr. Doa. There are a wide range of options, and they are in
TSCA also, including changes to the production processes,
limits on concentration of the use of the chemical. It could be
labeling, there could be record keeping.
And I would note, you know, these--this menu is explicit
for existing chemicals. And this gets to the conversation you
had where the finding there is with a high degree of certainty
for existing chemicals, and that is why it is a multiyear
process as opposed to new chemicals, where more uncertainty was
foreseen by Congress with the may-present, and particularly
given the lack of information that is usually included with the
submissions.
Mr. Peters. Yes. I mean, I wish I had been on the committee
for the redo of it. It happened just before I was on. But I do
remember, specifically in the area of dyes, that even small
changes in the formulation with basically the same chemical
group would come under this tremendous review. And whether they
were new or not, I guess they were technically new, but often
they were basically the same.
And so what--did you hear Dr. Engler's proposal for sorting
out risk?
Dr. Doa. I think he was talking----
Mr. Peters. Did you understand what he said?
Dr. Doa. I think the issue was on, like, the level of
certainty. And I think there is quite a bit of that that is
already in the statutory language. But I would like to comment
on the issue of----
Mr. Peters. Let me just ask him.
What in the statutory language would you think needs to be
changed?
Dr. Engler. For me, the key threshold for new chemicals is
how much certainty does EPA need to not make a decision of may-
present? So if there is any uncertainty--what happens now is,
if they have uncertainty, it may present unreasonable risk.
Mr. Peters. Right, and there is always uncertainty.
Dr. Engler. And there is always----
Mr. Peters. Particularly in places where people are risk
averse about making decisions. So I would just say maybe we can
work on tightening that up again so we can get what we want,
and we can also do it in a way that is constructive.
Mr. Chairman, I look forward to working on this issue, and
I yield back.
Mr. Griffith. Thank you very much, and I now recognize Dr.
Joyce for his 5 minutes of questioning.
Mr. Joyce. First, I want to thank you, Chairman Griffith
and Ranking Member Tonko, for holding this hearing, and for our
witnesses for being here with us today.
The American chemical industry is a large and robust part
of our economy. With revenues of over $600 billion, it provides
over half a million highly skilled jobs for Americans. Just as
important, American chemical industry produces a large share of
the critical materials that we have discussed in this committee
many times, chemicals like ethylene oxide, which has been used
to sterilize medical equipment that is being used throughout
surgical suites in America each and every day, and
trichloroethylene, which is used to manufacture each and every
battery, batteries that have brought us here in our vehicles
today.
While China has invested heavily to dominate the global
rare earth mineral market, our domestic chemical industry has
stayed strong. This is because of the affordable and reliable
energy that we have in this country, the energy that is under
the feet of my constituents in Pennsylvania. This energy,
whether used in the production process or as feedstocks, has
given our Nation a competitive advantage against the
geopolitical competitors that we face. And we cannot afford to
fumble this lead because of bad regulations.
This is a heavily regulated industry, and we must keep
workers and the public safe. But it should be with a science-
grounded, risk-based approach, rather than hazard-focused,
broad regulations. And sadly, over the past 4 years we have
seen TSCA weaponized by the previous administration.
Fortunately, on Monday, President Trump said we are back in the
golden age of America, where we are going to bring back
manufacturing jobs and unleash American industries that are
critical to our economic and national security.
Mr. Moody, as I mentioned in my comments, why does it
matter to our domestic chemical industry for the U.S. to
unleash energy production, and how does that affect global
competitiveness?
Mr. Moody. Well, thank you for the question, Congressman.
I would just say at the outset we have the world's most
competitive refining and petrochemical industry, hands down.
This is due to a combination of factors. You mentioned natural
gas. We have cost-advantaged feedstocks here. We have an
unsurpassed workforce, structural advantages throughout. So
these are economic drivers of our communities and national
security assets that we shouldn't be taking for granted.
I would say affordable energy in general makes it easier to
ship goods, to manufacture goods through power generation, and
it provides consumers with more disposable income at the end of
the day to spend in other parts of the economy. So affordable,
reliable energy is critical to everything we do.
In the U.S.--you mentioned natural gas. That is both a
transportation fuel, it can also be used as a feedstock. We are
cost-advantaged there. Most of the world uses a chemical called
naphtha, which is more expensive. Our petrochemical
manufacturers have a tremendous advantage here in the U.S.
Implementation of TSCA and what we are talking about today
is critical to make sure that we can take advantage of that,
and that we are taking advantage of these national security
assets. So----
Mr. Joyce. Thank you.
Mr. Jahn, OSHA sets enforceable Permissible Exposure
Limits, PELs, to protect workers who might be exposed to
hazardous substances. And this includes limits on the airborne
concentrations of hazardous chemicals in the workplace. Yet the
Biden EPA established ECELs in several TSCA section 6 rules,
and in most cases surpassing OSHA's set PEL limits. Do you
believe that the EPA has overstepped their statutory authority
and infringed upon OSHA's PEL authority by creating the ECELs?
And how can the EPA utilize the best available science to
set feasible, reasonable, and scientific limits?
Mr. Jahn. Absolutely. So EPA has gone beyond its statutory
mandate, and it is now in OSHA's territory. OSHA is responsible
for workplace safety. EPA has seen fit to regulate there, as
well, and it creates a situation where not only are we not
using the best available science, it is creating duplication.
If we are really focused on making things more efficient in
government, we can't have a standard that is set by EPA that is
also set by OSHA, and industry is required to comply with both.
I don't think that makes any sense, from the standpoint of
trying to be competitive on a global scale.
So we would like to see EPA to focus on--rightly focus on
everything we have talked about this morning, on its area of
expertise, and have OSHA focus on its.
Mr. Joyce. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. My time is expiring,
and I yield back.
Mr. Griffith. I appreciate that. Thank you for yielding
back. I now recognize Ms. Barragan for her 5 minutes of
questioning.
Ms. Barragan. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I am sitting here in
my prep--and hearing this hearing. And in my preparation I was
thinking we were going to have a greater conversation about
chemicals and what we are going to actually do to protect
children and families across the country from chemicals that
cause lethal or life-altering health harms. And that is what I
thought this--where this hearing was going to go. Instead, I
keep hearing about the chemical industry, the chemical industry
companies, and so on and so forth.
And I think about those that wake up every day in
neighborhoods where the air carries the persistent smell of
industrial chemicals, where the water that flows from the tap
has a metallic taste, where the soils where children play is
laced with invisible toxins. And this is the harsh reality for
many disadvantaged communities that face chemical pollution.
When Congress updated our Nation's chemical safety law in
2016, it empowered the EPA to protect--to better protect
communities from this exposure to dangerous chemicals. So for
me, this is really about public health and protecting our
children.
And I want to just recognize EcoMadres for a moment, who is
here today, for all the work that they do in our communities to
make sure that toxic chemicals are not in their neighborhoods,
because we do need to protect our children.
Dr. Doa, we have heard a lot today about delays on these
new chemicals. I have also heard from public health and
environmental groups about delays by the EPA to regulate
existing chemicals that were approved before 2016 that likely
pose a threat to human health. Do you think EPA should move
faster to initiate the risk evaluations for these potentially
dangerous chemicals?
Dr. Doa. Yes. I think it is important for EPA to move as
expeditiously as possible. And I think, in doing so, EPA should
look at the chemicals that are released together in communities
that cause the same harms, such as liver cancer or birth
defects, because they can do the assessments more efficiently
and result in a better picture of the real-life exposures and
risks these communities face, and take risk management to
address these risks.
And this will also--by looking at them together, it would
also result in not going towards a regrettable substitution.
Ms. Barragan. Well, thank you. So I--you know, there was
a--all the conversation was about the new chemicals and the
delay that has been happening. I pulled up the EPA website from
January 6, you know, of this year, and I think it showed about
a quarter of the delay was waiting on the submitter to submit
something or to sign something.
In this case, you know, my question is related to all of
these chemicals that are already out there that have been pre-
2016, where there is a delay and our children are being exposed
to it day in and day out. And I think that is where we have
definitely failed our communities.
Dr. Doa, for the fiscal year 2025, my House Republicans and
colleagues have proposed a 20 percent cut to EPA's budget. Can
you talk about how this cut would cause further delays for
chemical reviews and risk evaluations?
Dr. Doa. Thank you. Well, this cut would affect the
expertise and experience of the folks who would be doing the
assessments. These are scientists and engineers. And if there
is not the right expertise, trying to get that expertise will
slow things down.
And, you know, all the analysis that they must do to
estimate the risk, the data that they must gather so that they
have better estimates, this will slow down and affect the
integrity, to some extent, of the assessments.
Ms. Barragan. Great, thank you. Dr. Doa, in 2024 the EPA
updated its review process to consider the impact of chemicals
on communities already affected by pollution. Why is it
important for the EPA to consider overburdened communities when
they assess chemical health risk?
Dr. Doa. It is extremely important because overburdened
communities often have higher exposures, they are exposed to
more chemicals, including chemicals that cause the same harms.
And not assessing them just leaves them at greater risk for a
longer period of time.
Ms. Barragan. Well, great. Thank you.
I just want to say I think the previous administration, you
know, made progress in helping protect our communities and our
children and public health, whereas this incoming
administration and my colleagues are focused on making cuts and
taking away those protections. That is very harmful.
Thank you, and with that I yield back.
Mr. Griffith. The gentlelady yields back. I now recognize
Mr. Pfluger for his 5 minutes of questions.
Mr. Pfluger. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I think this
administration is focused on innovation, which is the
competitive advantage this country has. And instead of doing
things in a rudimentary and out-of-date way, why don't we do it
in an expeditious and at-the-speed-of-commerce-and-technology
kind of way?
Mr. Jahn, it is good to see you again. Before I ask any
questions, can you just look around the room and tell us the
things that are sitting in front of us, surrounding us, that
involve chemicals, and just the daily use thing? Just give us
three or four examples in the room.
Mr. Jahn. Absolutely. So the clothes you are wearing, the
phone that you are using, the microphone I am talking to, the
chair you are sitting in. Everything starts with the chemical
industry.
Mr. Pfluger. The--and, you know, you can look around in our
daily lives--and this is something that we--we are not going
backwards, we are not going to abandon this, but we have to do
this so that we lower costs and we use innovation to keep us
safe, and to be able to continue to develop products.
So TSCA's definition of unreasonable risk is broad. It is
open to interpretation, leading to regulatory uncertainty. And
my question for you, Mr. Jahn, is, How has this lack of
specificity impacted the chemical industry's ability to
actually innovate?
Mr. Jahn. Yes. So again, we see that challenge in the new
chemicals program. We had a nice discussion about what that
threshold would be, what is EPA looking for, and how can they
make decisions more quickly. And I think the important part to
understand too, going back to the previous conversation, is
that EPA has been doing less with more. They have had higher
congressional appropriations and they have had additional fees
from industry, double the--twice the fees on new chemical
submissions and triple the fees on existing chemicals. So they
have had more resources and they have been less productive over
this administration.
So that impacts our industry in a couple of ways. You look
at innovation, as you said, and the ability to bring new
chemistries to market that perform better. And either that can
be done here in the United States or it will be done somewhere
else. Our industry has not stopped innovating, but 70 percent
of our members have made the rational business decision to go
somewhere else. If it is made here, you have just made it more
costly. Coming off a period of high inflation, prices up 23
percent over the past few years, we are either killing jobs,
killing innovation, and harming consumers. It is a bad
combination.
Mr. Pfluger. I can't wait to see what Mr. Zeldin is going
to do with that to make sure that government is not an
impediment.
Mr. Moody, when it comes to the analysis, the economic
factors, especially during the initial stages of risk
evaluation under TSCA, you know, can you provide examples of
industries or products significantly affected by the shift
since the 2016 amendment was put in place?
Mr. Moody. So look, we--there's kind of two parts of the
program. So we have the existing chemicals program and the new
chemicals program. In the existing chemicals program, which is
really at this point dealing with a lot of the things at the
top of the supply chain, we are looking at--our risk evaluation
is under review now that will literally impact thousands and
thousands and thousands of iterations. So, you know, it is hard
to quantify that cost, but it is significant.
On the new chemical program, it is not only the existing--
kind of the existing costs and loss, but it is also the
opportunity cost, right? And there are things that we could be
doing that we are not doing. Companies are not choosing to take
the risk in--you know, of going through a lengthy R&D process
in order to get to something at--the day. So there just has to
be a better balance that we strike at the end of the day.
Mr. Pfluger. Dr. Engler, I will end with you in the last
minute. The EPA's authority under TSCA extends to regulating
the full life cycle of chemical substances, including disposal.
And in your experience, has the EPA managed this responsibility
well in those areas?
And where is its approach needing improvement? Give us some
examples of this full kind of life cycle regulatory idea.
Dr. Engler. So EPA routinely looks at end-of-life disposal
for new chemicals. They look at potential exposures from
landfill, water releases, air, and they predict potential dose
to anyone who is nearby.
But when the EPA--even when EPA, using their worst-case
assumptions, does not find any exceedances, even if it is, you
know, orders of magnitude below their concern level--they are
still issuing some restriction to make sure that that would
never, ever exceed that level. So we see it most acutely in
water releases.
Mr. Pfluger. Very good.
Mr. Chairman, great hearing. Thank you for this. Thanks to
the witnesses for your testimony. I yield back.
Mr. Griffith. I thank the gentleman and now recognize Mr.
Auchincloss for his 5 minutes of questioning.
Mr. Auchincloss. Thank you, Chairman. I have learned a lot
in this hearing through the written testimony. Thank you.
The hazard times exposure framework is useful to me. What I
am hearing and reading is that, you know, industry seems
frustrated that maybe EPA is not thinking about exposure the
way that it fully could, whether it is intermediate closed-loop
systems or protections that your workers are taking on. It
seems like EPA is very skeptical that industry is fully
accounting for the hazards that actually exist in these
chemicals because there is a financial incentive to downplay
those hazards. And both sides, I think, have merits behind
those arguments.
What I am not hearing is industry seeking to unravel high
standards that were put in place by TSCA or by the Lautenberg
amendments. I mean, Mr. Jahn, Mr. Moody, are either of you
arguing that we should undo the Lautenberg amendments?
Mr. Jahn. I appreciate the opportunity to make that
clarification. I will be very clear that we are not looking to
undo, roll back TSCA reform.
Mr. Auchincloss. Good.
Mr. Jahn. And we are looking to get commonsense, science-
based regulation.
Mr. Auchincloss. Yes, I think both sides are--want high
standards. And I am sure, you know, the GAO report has
indicated this probably, some process management improvements
that EPA could do. But we want very high standards here.
My concern is the Trump administration is not going to come
in and make process improvements. The Trump administration is
going to come in and just unravel the regulatory regime. And it
is actually not going to be in the interest of innovators,
because innovators rely upon the ability to make long-term
investments, confident in the rule of law and a stable
regulatory regime, and that is not what it is going to be like.
It is going to reward the worst actors who are externalizing
all the negative costs to society.
I am not going to expect you to respond to that. I will put
that out there. Let me move in, though, to PFAS, because this
is an area of particular concern for Massachusetts.
We have PFAS in our soil and in our water, and I applaud
and appreciate the muscular steps that EPA under the Biden
administration has taken to have higher standards for PFAS in
drinking water. As we all know, though, this is probably the
hardest place to tackle the PFAS problem, and it is at its
absolute most diluted and the most expensive for municipal
water supplies to remediate. It strikes me that we have really
got to try to remediate PFAS at the point of production.
Now, I have heard, Dr. Engler--I think it was you--say that
we may not be able to treat PFAS as a class. I would
respectfully disagree. There is scientific merit behind
treating PFAS as a class. And if you do so, you can start to
lean in to how we tackled CFCs 40 years ago through an
essentiality framework, where you divide it up into
nonessential, substitutable, and essential categories. For
example, nonessential would be things like dental floss or
water-repellent ski surfaces. Substitutable might be kind of
textiles, like for jackets that people wear. And then essential
would be for medical devices or for occupational protective
clothing.
And I want to open it up for our witnesses here just to
comment on what you think about moving towards a pretty near
complete ban of PFAS in production using an essentiality
framework of nonessential, substitutable, and essential. I will
start with you, Dr. Doa.
Dr. Doa. Thank you for the question. Most of the uses on
the market of PFAS are for what would be characterized as
nonessential uses----
Mr. Auchincloss. Yes.
Dr. Doa [continuing]. Where there are already really good
alternatives on the market. And even for some of the more
essential uses--solar panels were mentioned earlier, and PFAS
is used for that--but I think it is about 40 percent of the
market is for--uses non-PFAS.
So there are alternatives for hydrogen----
Mr. Auchincloss. Yes.
Dr. Doa [continuing]. There are alternatives for hydrogen
production for some uses there. There is a lot of research that
is going into that.
And I think one important step is EPA has approvals that
are still on the books for PFAS that were made 10 to 20 years
ago.
Mr. Auchincloss. The low-dose.
Dr. Doa. Yes. Well, not just the low-dose, no. These are
the--for the full, and before we had the sense. And so EPA
could go back and review those----
Mr. Auchincloss. OK.
Dr. Doa [continuing]. And revoke them, particularly for
where the uses are not needed.
Mr. Auchincloss. I want to give Dr. Engler the last word
here. Could we adopt an essentiality framework like we did for
CFCs and apply it to PFAS?
Dr. Engler. Well, I think it really comes down to what is
the potential risk because, respectfully, I disagree. This--the
science behind something that has a million molecular weight
and something that has 40 molecular weight is very different.
The exposure to the humans is just vastly different. So the
toxicity of the hazards are not at all similar across the
entire category.
Mr. Auchincloss. But do you think even the six PFAS that
EPA has already said are carcinogenic, do you agree that those
six PFAS, which we don't want in our drinking water but we
still allow in production, should they at the very least be
phased out of production?
Dr. Engler. Largely, they have been. The most hazardous C8
PFAS have already been phased out of the vast majority of uses.
Mr. Auchincloss. And there's a few hundred more that the
EPA has indicated are potentially carcinogenic. Should those be
phased out?
Dr. Engler. And the EPA is moving forward with looking at
those and possibly restricting those.
Mr. Auchincloss. I yield back.
Mr. Griffith. The gentleman yields back. I now recognize
Mr. Weber for his 5 minutes of questions.
Mr. Weber. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Engler, I am going to come to you. I understand that
under the Biden administration EPA would sometimes provide
Federal agencies like NASA, which--a lot of those work in my
district, about half of my--north of my district--and DoD last-
minute exemptions for critical uses based on a broken process
where DoD, NASA, and other Federal agencies identify a problem
and bring it to the EPA to plead for resolution.
It seems like this process makes our national security
chemical supply chain vulnerable and puts the burden on Federal
agencies like NASA or DoD to know exactly where every chemical
is used and how, which is just, in my view, not realistic. In
fact, DoD recently issued a critical use report highlighting
this very issue.
Further, if EPA is only allowing a few uses, then the
likelihood that chemical continues to be manufactured solely
for us is low, which leads to overseas competition. In your
opinion, how has EPA managed the interagency process under
TSCA, and what do you recommend moving forward?
How do we fix this coordination problem?
And does providing last-minute, critical-use exemptions for
DoD and others simply exacerbate the problem? Your thoughts?
Dr. Engler. Well, I think the--my--in my view, the primary
problem is EPA's approach. If--once they find that they can
establish a safe level for workplace use, both for inhalation
and a protection plan for dermal exposure, then they should set
that as the standard and not nitpick about specific uses. If
NASA or DoD or one of their contractors can meet the standard,
there shouldn't be a ban for that use. And that is a question
about what does ``the extent necessary'' mean. It is one of the
key terms in TSCA.
Coordination between and among Federal agencies has been a
problem. It was a problem when I was at EPA. It continues to be
a problem. And it is a real challenge. Everyone is very busy.
But as you note, it is critically important that EPA speak with
their sister agencies.
Mr. Weber. Do we know, do we have a way of monitoring,
measuring who is responsible for the timing in those responses?
Do we know that in the EPA?
Dr. Engler. Typically, that is done during the interagency
review of rules. And I have heard--I haven't experienced it
because, you know, we don't represent other agencies, but I
have heard from other Federal partners that EPA is giving other
Federal agencies very short periods of time to review rules.
Mr. Weber. Mr. Jahn, I see you are chomping at the bit over
there, so I am actually coming to you.
Chemical manufacturers in my district have long expressed
concerns about EPA's review of new chemicals. Now I am going to
go back to something that happened, I don't know, about a month
or so back. We are all aware that a lot of Federal employees
are working from home, right? And we are hoping that Trump does
something about that and gets them back to you. I know you know
you all heard this, something about this guy that actually was
working from home and posted a video or a picture of him in the
bathtub taking a bubble bath.
So in your view, would it be advantageous for us to get
those Federal employees, including EPA, you know, back to work
in the offices, minus the pictures of the bubble bath?
Mr. Jahn. Yes, I am not interested in the bubble bath. But
yes, it would be a great opportunity to create some more
efficiency in the system and have people who are responsible
for meeting the deadlines there to perform their duties.
I would also like to clarify, because we have heard a lot
this morning about this idea that industry is withholding
information, it is too slow. We went through this this morning.
Eleven percent of the applications that are behind schedule are
waiting for industry information. That means more than three-
quarters that we are waiting on EPA to act. So I just want to
be clear about that.
Mr. Weber. That is great. Chemical manufacturers in my
district long have expressed concerns about those reviews of
new of new chemicals. And in fact, they are telling--they are
saying that these reviews should be completed within 90 days of
the EPA receiving a submission. In reality, EPA falls
significantly short of this meeting requirement, and there's
probably a whole lot of factors involved.
Unfortunately, there is no avenue. As you all painfully
know, there is no avenue for manufacturers to proceed with the
development of these new chemicals or chemicals within--with
significant new uses. So is it feasible, in your opinion, for
a--what we are calling a 90-day shot clock for a temporary
approval of the chemical to be granted while the EPA finishes
that review?
Mr. Jahn. Absolutely. I think that is fundamental to fixing
the problems that we are having with TSCA, is having a shot
clock and accountability for that deadline. We would be happy
to work with anyone on the committee to help make that happen.
Mr. Weber. Very quickly, what is the high--likelihood that
a temporary approval would still be too much uncertainty for
chemical manufacturers?
Mr. Jahn. Under the current process, very high.
Mr. Weber. Well, thank you for that.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back.
Mr. Griffith. The gentleman yields back. I now recognize
Mr. Carter of Louisiana for his 5 minutes of questioning.
Mr. Carter of Louisiana. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank
the witnesses for being here. We greatly appreciate your time
and expertise and interest in being with us.
I represent south Louisiana, New Orleans and the river
parishes, a district that encompasses the river parishes where,
unfortunately, a term that we don't like but we are often
assigned, and that is Cancer Alley, the heavily industrialized
stretch along the Mississippi River between Baton Rouge and New
Orleans, named for its high cancer rates among residents, which
are believed to be linked to industrial pollution.
I am particularly interested in how the Toxic Substances
Control Act incorporates the concerns and health of fence-line
communities like those in this industrial corridor. A prime
example of these dangerous chemicals being manufactured near
homes and schools is methylene chloride, a carcinogen with a
wide range of commercial and--commercial uses.
We understand and have heard discussions today about, well,
this is important and these are chemicals that are needed for
everyday life. No one is questioning that. What we are talking
about is how can we do it safer, how can we do it better. Just
because there are practical uses for it doesn't mean that we
should not constantly work on improving it, because people's
lives matter. And people who live in the close proximity of
chemical plants, they matter. And coexistence becomes the order
of the day. How do we continue to improve on our day-to-day
life while taking into consideration the necessity of having
clean water for people to drink, clean air for people to
breathe?
It is not about us against them. It is not industry against
community, or vice versa. It is about making sure that we are
taking care of our most important commodity: our earth, our
people, human lives. Industry is important to all of the above,
but you can't tell me we can't do better. You can't tell me
that we cannot endeavor to find a better way to produce these
necessities of life without killing people, right?
So I want to talk about how do we find a way to invest
human capital, research and development to do better. So Dr.
Doa, how did the Lautenberg Act empower EPA to address
dangerous chemicals like methylene chloride?
Dr. Doa. One important thing that the Lautenberg Act did is
that it made communities a more important stakeholder. It gave
them--it moved away from just the industry to other
stakeholders, including communities.
And one important step that Lautenberg did was what has
been called the whole-chemical approach. It is doing a better
job at looking at the range of exposures and risks that people
in communities face not only from the facilities--and often
multiple facilities are near their community--but the other
uses of the chemical maybe for small businesses in their
community if the chemical is used in consumer products.
So by having a better picture of what folks are exposed to,
this leads to more informed decisions on how to mitigate those
unreasonable risks, which is key. They shouldn't be treated as
second class to the profits for the use of these old-school
chemicals. There should be innovation to get to safer
substitutes, instead of using TCE and perchloroethylene and
methylene chloride, all these that cause liver cancer and a
range of other harms.
Mr. Carter of Louisiana. And the notion that because we
have always done it this way is not a good answer to why we
continue doing it this way when we put it next to the
startling, alarming rates of cancer deaths.
So Mr. Jahn, can you share with me, from your perspective,
what are we doing, what are you doing to work to combat the
dangers of business as usual as we attempt to move forward to
have a safer way of protecting lives while necessarily using
chemicals that are important to everyday life?
Mr. Jahn. I thank you for the opportunity to respond to
that.
Number 1, methylene chloride has been banned by EPA as a
paint stripper. That is totally appropriate, and that is what
they should do under TSCA.
Number 2--and you and I had--did an event in Louisiana a
couple of years ago, and we talked about this--our members
comply with a program called Responsible Care. We are not your
grandfather's chemical industry. Our members are cleaner and
safer than they have ever been. So this is a mandatory, third-
party-audited program. As a condition of membership----
Mr. Carter of Louisiana. OK, I am sorry, I got 22--I got
just --I got no time. Actually, can I just ask you real
quickly, Can you in 10 seconds--and that is probably more than
I have--tell me what--what are--what is your industry doing--
Mr. Jahn. Yes.
Mr. Carter of Louisiana [continuing]. To proactively look
at chemicals that have always been used, and finding ways to
make them better so we can lessen the impact on communities?
Mr. Jahn. Well, we have talked all today about new
chemicals that we want to get into commerce that have better
performance and environmental properties, but we are--our air
emissions are down, our greenhouse gas intensity is better, we
are three times safer than nonmembers, we are four times safer
than all of manufacturing----
Mr. Carter of Louisiana. But those are outcomes. You are
not talking about----
Mr. Griffith. All right.
Mr. Carter of Louisiana [continuing]. What you have done to
get there. So I am going to yield back.
My time is----
Mr. Griffith. I appreciate the gentleman yielding--
Mr. Carter of Louisiana. But I would love to spend some
more time talking with you about that.
Mr. Griffith. And I would remind all Members that we do
have the opportunity to ask questions for the record after the
hearing is over. I know 5 minutes is limited, but we have got a
lot of folks who want to ask questions.
Ms. Lee of Florida is now recognized for 5 minutes.
Ms. Lee. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you to our
witnesses for being here today.
So my home district in Florida has a very vibrant and
important agriculture industry, principally specialty crops and
livestock. Mr. Jahn, one of the things you touched on earlier
was specifically semiconductors and some of the consumer
products, and the ways in which regulatory uncertainty and
burdens affect real industry in those ways. I would like to
focus on agriculture and hear your thoughts about how some of
these same challenges affect our growers and producers.
Mr. Jahn. Indeed. So a number of chemistries have been
mentioned today, whether it is formaldehyde, ethylene oxide,
and others have a significant role to play in agriculture, of
keeping crops safe, protecting them from harm. And, you know,
from our perspective as an industry, food security is really
national security, right? We have got 340 million Americans.
They all want to eat.
Now, TSCA doesn't specifically get into ag chemicals. That
is in the pesticides office, but we produce many of the
chemicals that are used in precursors to manufacture
pesticides. And I will say that that office has the same
problems that we are--the same problems in timeliness in
regards to TSCA. Seventy percent of those chemistries are
behind schedule, as well.
So what I am trying to say to the members of the committee
is we have a cultural problem at EPA in not meeting deadlines,
and not being accountable in making sure that, whether it is
agriculture or any other industry, has the resources they need
to be able to feed and protect America.
Ms. Lee. And could you elaborate on whether there are
particular Executive orders or actions during the Biden
administration that you think this administration could
consider modifying or undoing?
Mr. Jahn. So we are the most heavily regulated sector in
American manufacturing. That burden has doubled over the last
20 years. And the Biden administration would have increased
that by 50 percent, with no commensurate environmental and
health benefits.
So there are a lot of things that I could point to. There
are 13 different regulations targeted just at our industry, 7
of them economically significant, more than the Trump, Obama,
and Bush administrations combined. But I would point you to 2.
One is the risk evaluation rule relevant to TSCA that doesn't
actually focus on risk. And number 2, the new chemicals rule
does not fix the challenges that we are talking about here
today, which is why we are asking for legislative solutions.
Ms. Lee. Dr. Engler, your earlier testimony, one of the
things that you commented was that the review, the outcome of
the review, can be affected by the particular person or
employee who is conducting it, and that the consequence of that
is a lack of consistent or predictable decisions. Would you
elaborate on why that lack of consistent and predictable
decisions is important, and how you believe it affects
industry?
Dr. Engler. Well, I think it affects both industry and
health and the environment, because if we are getting
inconsistent decisions we don't know which one is right. So is
EPA making decisions based on the best available science? Are
they making decisions based on consistent policies, consistent
practices?
It is economically important because you don't want to have
different companies submitting products and one getting a
competitive advantage or disadvantage because of the review
team.
Ms. Lee. And what are your thoughts on ways that we might
improve that process to ensure that we are receiving more
consistent and predictable results?
Dr. Engler. So it is critical that EPA have written
policies and procedures, and that everybody at EPA and their
contractors follow those policies and procedures.
Ms. Lee. And how could that more efficient or improved
review process specifically contribute to the development and
use of green or more sustainable chemicals? That would go back
to my earlier question about helping and supporting farmers and
ranchers in developing those precursor chemicals that are so
important to their operations.
Dr. Engler. So if there is a clear standard that people can
design to for greener, more sustainable chemicals, then
industry can design to that standard and be confident that when
they submit that for a new chemical it will be approved without
regulation, and done so timely.
Ms. Lee. Thank you, Dr. Engler.
And Mr. Moody, you mentioned in your testimony food
packaging as an example of an everyday product that consumers
use that is important for us in utilizing our everyday life and
getting existing chemistries and products that they need to
consumers. Would you discuss your thoughts on how we can ensure
that the procedures and the regulatory review are productive,
efficient?
And share with us, if packaging and the other products you
have discussed today aren't available in the U.S., where will
we be going to source those items?
Mr. Moody. Thank you for the question. I would just like to
take a moment to associate myself with some comments Mr. Jahn
said. And, you know, AFPM is not here calling for a rollback or
an overhaul. We are looking for, I think, some very targeted
changes. And that gets to your question.
The one thing I would point to is probably one of our
biggest issues, is--there is a term in TSCA called ``conditions
of use,'' and it deals with things that are known or reasonably
foreseeable. And you are supposed to assess risk based on those
conditions. From our perspective, when the EPA comes in and
starts talking about or evaluating rare occurrences, accidents,
closed-loop systems, those are not reasonably foreseeable
exposures that should be a condition of use for that chemical.
And so one thing I would say is, let's clarify that that--
the legislation does not encompass those types of things, and
really focus it on the conditions of use that we really think
about, which is the normal conditions of use where there would
be an exposure. If you do that and you are really focusing on
where the pathways are, where consumers are actually going to
come into contact with things, I think that is where the best
use of resources are.
Mr. Griffith. The gentlelady yields back. I now recognize
Mr. Landsman of Ohio for his 5 minutes of questioning.
Mr. Landsman. Thank you, Mr. Chair, and thank you for this
hearing, for the testimony. I appreciate everyone.
This is--well, a big takeaway for me is that there is broad
support for Lautenberg, that, you know, it has done some good
things. I want to get into one particular piece which is really
important to me--I know it is important to everybody, but--the
asbestos work. So I have a question on that.
There also seems to be alignment on the fact that we all
know that it is in our best interest to manage the risk of
chemicals before they come to market. And the question is how
best to do that. And instead of repealing anything, there is
this question about improvement and what needs to be improved
and how to do that so that we are keeping people safe and
ensuring that we can bring things to market, you all can
attract capital. And the 90-day piece is where I want to sort
of focus, but first I want to ask Dr. Doa.
The asbestos piece, can you just talk a little bit about
the health implications and why it was so important for
Congress to improve the law to, you know, properly address the
toxic chemicals associated with asbestos?
Dr. Doa. Thank you for the question.
Well, asbestos is highly toxic, a carcinogen. And the real-
world implications are that 40,000 Americans die yearly from--
--
Mr. Landsman. Yes.
Dr. Doa [continuing]. Asbestos exposure. And this was
something EPA tried to ban many years ago, unsuccessfully,
which is why Lautenberg is so important. And the ban being--
phased out the uses, but there are still legacy uses that are
in people's homes and business, and need to be handled properly
because this is a potential longstanding source of exposure,
similar to lead paint----
Mr. Landsman. Yes.
Dr. Doa [continuing]. In homes.
Mr. Landsman. Thank you for that. And it demonstrates the
value of the law, the work, the update.
The question sort of moving forward--and I know we are just
getting started, which is good--is--one of them has to do with
the process. And I am curious, and folks can answer or simply
submit, or we can sort of take this up later. But if the
majority of things coming through aren't hitting that 90-day
mark--and that is a big part of the issue here, because we want
to make sure that we keep folks moving through the system while
also ensuring that we are keeping people safe--is there process
improvement that is being done? Is this something that the EPA
has money for, has invested in?
Do we have a sense as to what kind of improvement work
happens and what we could be doing in an updated piece of
legislation to invest in improvement so that we don't take away
safeguards but we make the process--and I think you have
alluded to this, Mr. Jahn--make the process smarter, more
efficient, and the lines of communication just so much better,
that people are getting in and out and we are protecting
people? I am curious.
And I will maybe start with you, Dr. Doa, and Mr. Jahn if
we have some time.
Dr. Doa. Thank you. I think one thing that is really
important about this is a decision that is made on the new
chemical is something we will live with for a long time.
Mr. Landsman. Yes.
Dr. Doa. And that the 90 days compared to the multiyear
process for existing chemicals to address it later is key.
I think one thing that is important that EPA did, they did
a rule recently where they were more explicit about what is
called ``known'' or ``reasonably ascertainable,'' the
information that should be included in the initial submission.
This hopefully will cut down on the rework, redoing the risk
assessment multiple times. So I think that is an important
first step.
Mr. Landsman. Thank you.
Mr. Jahn. Quickly, so better communication, accountability
for the 90-day deadline. And then one thing that nobody has
mentioned today so far is artificial intelligence.
Mr. Landsman. Yes.
Mr. Jahn. We are on the cusp of changing the world in
regards to artificial intelligence, including in the advanced
materials space. And EPA needs to be looking at how it can
leverage that, how we invest in technology to make this process
work more efficiently.
Mr. Landsman. Thank you, I yield back.
Mr. Griffith. The gentleman yields back. I now recognize
Mrs. Fedorchak for her 5 minutes of questioning.
Mrs. Fedorchak. Good morning, Chair Griffin and Ranking
Member Mr. Tonko. This is my first meeting of this subcommittee
and first hearing as a member of the E&C, and I am really
excited to be here and get started. Thank you to our witnesses
for your time this morning.
Chemistry and chemical products play a significant role in
North Dakota's economy. In 2023 we exported $665 million worth
of chemical products. Additionally, feedstock chemicals are
essential to the production of fertilizers that fuel our $12
billion and growing agriculture sector. The farmers and
ranchers in that sector produce the food that hopefully at some
point today we will get to eat for lunch or maybe dinner.
In 2024 the Biden administration's EPA finalized changes to
chemical risk evaluations, changing from a statutorily
mandated, risk-based approach to a zero-based, hazard-based
approach--zero-risk, hazard-based approach. We have talked a
lot about that this morning already.
We all want to make America safer for our children. And I
agree with my colleagues that we should always be trying to do
better. But let's be clear. This change in approach from the
EPA is a sea change in approach, and it creates more regulatory
uncertainty and makes Americans less safe, not more safe, by
pushing manufacturing overseas, jeopardizing American jobs,
threatening supply chains, exposing them to intrusion by
foreign adversaries, driving up costs for North Dakota farmers
and ranchers and thereby for everything that we purchase. These
too are real impacts and real risks for American families.
And I appreciate that the EPA is taking a cumulative risk
assessment of chemicals. We should also take a cumulative risk
assessment of EPA regulations, because there are far-reaching
impacts that go beyond just what we are talking about here this
morning. So I want to just dig into that a little bit more, the
change in the approach that the EPA is taking.
EPA has stated that it--in its risk assessments it believes
it may need to develop a cumulative risk assessment and look at
the combined health risks for multiple chemicals as part of its
evaluations.
The agency has also claimed that it provides--``TSCA
provides the Agency the authority to consider the combined risk
for multiple chemical substances or a category of chemical
substances.'' Mr. Jahn, does TSCA clearly give the EPA this
authority, or is this a new interpretation of the statute?
Mr. Jahn. We believe this to be a new interpretation of the
statute. I mean, in the statute there is a requirement to use
the best available science, there is a requirement to focus on
the weight of scientific evidence and to look at exposures in
the real world and what that--on those specific conditions of
use. And we believe in a post-Loper Bright world it is not
appropriate to extend and bend the existing legislation to that
purpose.
Mrs. Fedorchak. OK, thank you.
Dr. Engler, would you agree with this characterization of
what EPA is supposed to consider when conducting a risk
evaluation for a particular chemical?
Dr. Engler. Well, I think there are circumstances it is
scientifically justified for EPA to look at potential
cumulative risk, but it is--the--they simply can't say we have
to look at every co-exposure of every possible thing.
Mrs. Fedorchak. And Mr. Jahn, as the EPA looks at doing
this and evaluating all possible ways people might be exposed
to a chemical instead of focusing only on its primary use, as
someone in industry how would you go about trying to determine
that and helping to manage chemical exposure?
Mr. Jahn. I think this is some of the challenges that we
have run into with the implementation of TSCA. This hearing is
appropriate to take a fresh look at this because this is a
challenge we have going back with the EPA when they come back
to us and say, well, you didn't look at this, this, and this.
Well, nobody told us to look at it up front, and we are just
guessing at what EPA wants in terms of information and
potential exposures that they are looking at beyond the
condition of use which the company is focused on.
Mrs. Fedorchak. Are you ever asked to quantify, Mr. Jahn,
the impacts of the delays in your not getting answers from the
EPA in a timely manner?
Mr. Jahn. Yes, so it is very difficult to quantify the
exact impacts on that. But again, we are in a situation where
the Chinese are the biggest producers in the world, nearly four
times our size. That lead is growing, and 70 percent of new
molecules we create are going somewhere else. The economic
impact is significant.
Mrs. Fedorchak. And Dr. Engler, from your perspective as
someone with a scientific background, is this approach
consistent with scientific principles?
Dr. Engler. I would argue no. I think EPA is taking a far
too precautionary approach, not considering what is realistic.
Mrs. Fedorchak. OK.
Mr. Griffith. The gentlelady yields back.
Mrs. Fedorchak. Thank you.
Mr. Griffith. I now recognize Mr. Soto for his 5 minutes of
questioning.
Mr. Soto. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
When the Frank L. Lautenberg Chemical Safety for the 21st
Century Act was passed, then-Republican Chair John Shimkus was
quoted as saying, ``This legislation on the floor today will
mark the first consequential update of the Toxic Substances
Control Act in 40 years. The end result of our work is a vast
improvement over public law.'' These reforms were a bipartisan
achievement. I think we could all agree on that, and we have to
start from that going forward.
And we have three choices: We could strengthen; keep the
same, perhaps make it more efficient; or weaken the laws. I was
happy to hear that many of you, you are more looking at the
paperwork than you are about lowering the standards. That would
be egregious.
You know, we have heard about making America healthy again,
but it hasn't really been defined, right? I mean, folks were
outraged about red dye recently, and there has been
demonization of vaccines and fluoride. So I don't know how this
would work coming right out of the gates in the first hearing,
talking about potentially adjusting these toxic laws. If the
90-day review standard isn't being met, then we do have to find
a way to fund more positions or improve it with technology, but
just not simply make it easier for toxic chemicals to be
approved.
Dr. Doa, you know, one of the top three causes of cancer,
as you know, is toxic chemicals. And I think we all agree that
Americans deserve the best information about the chemicals that
they come into contact with and the risk of cancer. China, over
the last 20 years, saw about 82 to 84 percent of their
population exposed to carcinogens, while we have seen a decline
in the U.S. Should we really be looking at a China standard
when we are coming to protecting our constituents against toxic
chemicals?
Dr. Doa. Excuse me? I think I missed part of what you said
about China, their standard. Could--do you mind repeating?
Mr. Soto. So we have seen about 83, 84 percent of the
Chinese population exposed to carcinogens over the last 20
years. And at that same time we have seen a decline in the
United States. Should China really be the standard when we are
looking at public health in these areas of toxic chemicals?
Dr. Doa. Oh, no. My goodness, we shouldn't approve
chemicals and harm significant parts of our fellow--of our
population, harm our fellow citizens.
I believe American innovation can develop useful chemicals
that embrace health and safety. They are not mutually
exclusive, and certainly our lives are not an appropriate
trade-off for chemicals.
Mr. Soto. Thank you.
Dr. Engler, I really liked your vinegar example. You know,
people know vinegar, though, right? They know not to rub it on
their faces. They don't drink it straight. It is commonly known
that it can be an irritant in those areas. But folks don't know
polyfluoroalkyl, right, a chemical that has caused a cancer
cluster in--among firefighters in Florida. So how much of a
heads up do we really need to give folks for all these
chemicals, unlike vinegar, that they would have no idea about?
Dr. Engler. Well, I think there is an extraordinary range
of hazards, from things that are minor, things that are
knowable like vinegar but manageable, and things that are very
hazardous. And so the same approach isn't applicable across
that entire range.
So what EPA has done historically--and in my view, should
be doing--is looking--focusing on the particular hazards of the
particular chemical and deciding, does this particular
chemistry need to have restrictions going forward? And there
are definitely PMNs, and some of our clients' PMNs, that are
highly hazardous that EPA has restricted in entirely justified
ways. And there are others that I think EPA is taking a far too
precautionary approach, because these are hazards that don't
need EPA to issue restrictions.
Mr. Soto. Now, we saw a parallel of this with FDA with red
dye recently being banned. How do you make a consistency
between these two things?
Dr. Engler. I am sorry, I didn't understand that.
Mr. Soto. There was a ban recently on red dye. Perhaps, Dr.
Doa, you are aware of it, as well. I see you nodding on it. How
do we make these things consistent with--even with this being--
with the FDA? Dr. Doa, do you have a reflection on that?
Dr. Doa. Oh, the ban on red dye number 3 was hugely
important. Carcinogens have no place in our food. And likewise,
EPA should be consistent and protect against introducing new
carcinogens onto the market. We already know the damage that
carcinogens have caused. We have so much data on it in workers
and people.
Mr. Soto. True freedom and public health requires informed
choices. So I am really concerned to make sure that we have
those for our constituents.
And I yield back.
Mr. Griffith. The gentleman yields back. I now recognize
Mr. Evans of Colorado for 5 minutes.
Mr. Evans. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Thank you, Ranking Member,
and thank you to our witnesses for coming today.
Whenever I have heard these conversations in the past, and
even today, it seems like they are broadly framed in the
economy versus health outcomes. And I guess I disagree a little
bit with that characterization. I have a son that has special
needs to include some breathing issues, and I want clean air,
clean land, clean water as much as anyone does. But I know that
I also need a job to be able to get him the healthcare that he
needs, to be able to provide that health insurance. And I also
need a robust chemical manufacturing capability here in the
United States to be able to produce the medicines, the medical
supplies that my son needs.
And this isn't just me. This is a massive part of my
district. My district produces tens of billions of dollars of
oil, gas, fuel, petrochemicals, agriculture, fertilizer, et
cetera, and those are the jobs that allow these families to be
able to provide for the health needs of their kids and of their
families.
And finally, we know that financial stressors have a direct
correlation to negative health outcomes, people either delaying
seeking care until that problem becomes bigger and more
expensive, financial stressors causing negative mental health
outcomes. And so really, a two-part question here.
Mr. Moody, I will start with you, a two-part question.
Number 1, any sort of ballpark estimate that you can provide in
terms of either lost jobs, inability to create jobs stemming
from how the EPA is interpreting TSCA?
And then part 2, any insight into negative health impacts
as a result of that either loss of jobs or loss of economic
productivity in terms of either the job itself or the loss of
manufacturing ability for medicines, medical supplies, things
of that nature?
Mr. Moody. Thank you for the question, Congressman. I don't
have a good estimate on the economic impacts, is the short
answer.
The longer answer is very complicated, and it gets into a
lot of opportunity costs. And most of these chemicals going
through the new chemicals process are subject to CBI, and so we
don't even know, really, what is on the list. Our members won't
even share it with us. But they assure us that they could be
game changers.
One thing I would say, though--and I want to pick up on
something you said--I agree that there is--innovation and
health are not mutually exclusive. So, you know, hear me say
that very clearly. And actually, TSCA itself discusses these
things in terms of reasonable risk, making it clear that there
are hazard considerations, exposure considerations, and then
there's actually risk tolerance considerations in here, because
what you might consider risky somebody else might not, right?
And so these are going to be some subjective judgments at the
end of the day.
Our concern is that EPA has gotten away from the science
here and that they are making unreasonable assumptions about
exposure, and that is driving decisions based not on sound
science.
So not exactly an answer to your question, but if I ever
get a better number I will make sure we convey it.
Mr. Evans. Thank you.
And Dr. Engler. So hearing that EPA has gotten a little bit
away from the science, do you have any insights into the
negative health impacts that that might have in our ability to
be able to either provide jobs or produce the manufacturing to
provide medicines and medical supplies?
Dr. Engler. I can't speak directly to that. But a group
that we manage did a--we had a couple dozen members and
surveyed them and did an economic analysis. And the economic
analysis--they ran the results from the members through IMPLAN,
the economic model. And the model predicted something on the
order of billions of dollars a year of lost economic activity
because of the issues with the new chemicals program.
Mr. Evans. Thank you.
Mr. Jahn, it looked like you had something to add there.
Mr. Jahn. Yes, I could speak directly to that in this case.
So I have asthma, as well. And thankfully, I don't need to use
an inhaler very often. But you actually need formaldehyde to
make an inhaler work. And the EPA's evaluation of formaldehyde
and the bad science that they used to reach their conclusions
was such a low level--below background levels--that this room
would have not been in compliance with their original proposal.
That is the kind of science that we are talking about that is
driving decisions that are not in our health interest or our
economic interest.
Mr. Evans. So can you just expound on that a little bit,
the ability to get something as simple as an albuterol inhaler,
which has formaldehyde as one of the precursors to manufacture,
that could be potentially impacted by the current
interpretation that the EPA is taking for TSCA?
Mr. Jahn. Absolutely. Now, we have been successful in
getting them to back off of that, but they are still times--
still three times lower than the level that was just determined
by the EU, which did that in the last year or two. So we are--
--
Mr. Evans. How----
Mr. Jahn [continuing]. Orders of magnitude out of line with
everywhere else in the world.
Mr. Evans. Real quick, I know my time is short: How much
time and effort did it take you to get the EPA to walk that
back?
Mr. Jahn. Well over a year.
Mr. Evans. Thank you, I yield back.
Mr. Griffith. The gentleman yields back. I now recognize
Mr. Menendez for his 5 minutes.
Mr. Menendez. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I would like to take
a moment to acknowledge the service of the late Senator Frank
Lautenberg, the namesake of the legislation we are discussing
here today. Senator Lautenberg led an extraordinary life and
fought tirelessly for the great Garden State every single day.
I had the privilege of spending time with him and his family,
got to know him, and he was an incredible individual. New
Jersey is proud of his legacy, and I am glad for the
opportunity to carry that work forward today.
In New Jersey the chemical industry is the largest
manufacturing industry in the State, employing tens of
thousands of people. It also means that tens of thousands of
people in New Jersey are exposed to chemicals every day at work
and in fence-line communities located near high-risk chemical
facilities. Dr. Doa, can you share with all those who call New
Jersey home how the Lautenberg Act has worked to protect
workers and fence-line communities from the potentially harmful
effects of toxic chemicals?
Dr. Doa. So TSCA has long considered the risk to workers
for both new and existing chemicals. And under Lautenberg it
has improved the protection of workers, because a worker
shouldn't have to trade their health for a paycheck.
And one thing it does is it sets standards for protection
based on risks. And I have heard today OSHA PELs mentioned,
that OSHA itself has said they are not protective for the most
part, don't use them. And then OSHA also considers nonrisk
factors. So just taking into account the nonrisk factors, their
PELs, even if they weren't outdated would not be protective.
So EPA sets performance standards that people can meet
either through changes in production--EPA does not assume that
every worker has a respirator strapped to them. And they can't
because a respirator that is appropriate in--at one facility
may be totally inappropriate for the same use at a different
facility. It might not be protective because of differences in
the size of the room, how much chemical is in the air. So that
is such an important thing, that EPA recognizes that protecting
workers is extremely important and that there are multiple
tools to do it, and not just to put the burden on workers by
assuming that they are just going to--on the assumption that
they are going to wear a respirator.
Mr. Menendez. Sure, I appreciate that.
Thanks to the Lautenberg Act, EPA is now required to review
all new chemicals before they can enter commerce. Previously,
EPA only reviewed about 20 percent of new chemicals. That is a
significant increase in workload, but a necessary one to
protect the health of all Americans.
Unfortunately, for much of the last 8 years, EPA has not
received additional resources due to the added work--or to
address the added work. A 2003 GAO report highlighted the
office's resource constraints and pointed to staffing issues as
a cause for delays in chemical reviews. And while EPA does have
the ability to collect fees from industry, these fees can only
offset 25 percent of the implementation costs.
Dr. Doa, in your own words, what is the impact of an
underfunded and understaffed TSCA program?
Dr. Doa. Thank you. An underfunded program affects the
reviews, and so it affects the integrity of the reviews and the
decision that gets made. And it is less protective.
Remember, before Lautenberg, many chemicals just dropped
from review because there was insufficient information. Now EPA
is required to make an affirmative decision on each chemical.
And cutting back resources cuts back on the expertise, the
knowledge, the experience because people will leave, people
will--so there won't be the----
Mr. Menendez. And you want to make sure of a balance of
resources on both sides, right?
Because it seems, Dr. Engler, that where Acta does partner
with the folks who are submitting and provide services--and I
am running out of time, so I have to go back, but I will try to
give you a chance.
Dr. Doa, just real quickly, while Congress considers
reauthorization of the fees, yes or no, will that be enough,
just the reauthorization of fees to do--to support EPA in the
capacity they----
Dr. Doa. No.
Mr. Menendez [continuing]. They need to be?
Dr. Doa. They need greater support overall.
Mr. Menendez. So we should consider additional resources
through----
Dr. Doa. Yes.
Mr. Menendez [continuing]. The appropriations process.
Thank you.
Dr. Engler. Yes, I just want to challenge the 20 percent. I
have heard this number bandied about. It was certainly on the
record in 2016. When I--I was 17 years at EPA. I reviewed
literally thousands. We never let a case go through without
somebody looking at it. We may have dropped things from taking
action because that is what was required under the statute once
we decided there wasn't a potential unreasonable risk, but that
doesn't mean it wasn't reviewed.
Mr. Menendez. OK. I would like to ask more questions, but I
am out of time so I will have to submit them to record,
including schedule F under the Trump administration, because we
would love your thoughts on that. But we will submit those
after this committee hearing.
Thank you so much.
Mr. Griffith. I thank the gentleman for yielding back and
now recognize Dr. Miller-Meeks for her 5 minutes of questions.
Mrs. Miller-Meeks. Thank you, Chairman Griffith and Ranking
Member Tonko, for holding this hearing today. I want to also
thank our witnesses for testifying before the subcommittee.
In Iowa's 1st District alone, the chemical industry
provides over 2,000 direct jobs, pays over 100 million in
wages, and is the second-largest manufacturing industry in the
State. This subcommittee has the responsibility of addressing
the aggressive overregulation of the chemicals industry by the
Biden administration, which has severely hindered American
companies' ability to innovate, grow, and compete in the global
market. I believe this hearing is a strong step in the right
direction toward achieving that goal.
And Dr. Doa said that the EPA wouldn't restrict vinegar,
but let me give you an example of aggressive overregulation. I
am both a former operating room nurse and a doctor, and when
the EPA came out with its rules on ethylene oxide, which is the
source for nonsteam sterilization, with no alternative in
place, what was the assessment of the best available science?
What was the assessment and evaluation of risks and the cost?
Was it better to have people have nonsterilized equipment put
in their bodies, risk infection, sepsis, and death? I would say
that is an example of overzealous regulation.
Mr. Moody, as you know, Iowa is a leader in biofuels
production. In your testimony you state that when renewable
feedstocks are coprocessed with petroleum feedstocks, even at
low percentages, EPA considers these resulting fuel products to
be new substances to TSCA review. Many believe this creates
barriers and delays bringing renewables to the marketplace
without improving safety or reducing cost or improving the
environment. Can you explain more about why you believe fuels
produced through coprocessing should be considered--should not
be or should be considered new substances under TSCA?
Mr. Moody. Thank you for the question. And I will just say
AFPM's members, in addition to being refiners and petrochemical
manufacturers, are some of the largest biofuel producers in the
country. So we appreciate your advocacy.
You are correct. The EPA came out several years ago and
said new biofuels are going to be subject to section 5 of
TSCA's significant new use rules, and they have been pushing
new fuels through that process.
From our perspective, whether it is a biofuel or a biobased
plastic--so you have a, you know, bio feedstock going into a
plastic--you are going to--there is going to be things that are
already on the inventory that we should be evaluating against.
So rather than going through an expensive, lengthy,
seemingly endless process, let's look at whether there is
something actually equivalent and whether there is actually any
kind of real new risk there. And, you know, from our
perspective, that would help conserve resources.
Mrs. Miller-Meeks. So the current approach would, I think,
hinder our farmers' ability to increase renewable fuel
production and cede that marketplace to Brazil, who doesn't
have the same restrictions, and then we import it back to the
United States.
Mr. Moody. Correct.
Mrs. Miller-Meeks. Thank you.
Mr. Jahn, in your testimony you expressed concern that in
conducting TSCA risk evaluations EPA makes arbitrary
assumptions about workplace exposures, such as assuming workers
do not use personal protective equipment. You argue this is
contrary to OSHA requirements and TSCA's directive for the EPA
to defer to other agencies. As a general matter, if OSHA is
already having regulations, do we need TSCA to tell us to avoid
irritable chemicals getting in our eyes or on our skin? Isn't
that kind of common sense and on the label?
Mr. Jahn. Absolutely. So the Biden EPA assumed that they
weren't wearing PPE. They assumed that they weren't doing that,
even if they were required to do so by law, to be clear about
that, and as well as the industrial hygiene protocols that our
members put in place. This is not an accurate assessment of how
our members operate and, you know, it is just ignoring reality
and doesn't make sense. And it creates government duplication,
which is part of the problem we are talking about here today.
Mrs. Miller-Meeks. And it may be why they don't have enough
time to focus on getting their reviews done within 90 days.
Mr. Jahn. Exactly.
Mrs. Miller-Meeks. The amended TSCA requires EPA to use the
best available science, Dr. Engler, and when evaluating
chemical risks. But the law does not define this term. Critics
argue the EPA's recent risk evaluations have either overstated
or understated risks. How do you think ``best available
science'' should be defined?
And what changes, if any, are needed to EPA's process to
ensure it is using appropriate scientific standards?
Dr. Engler. Well, the best available science is--it has got
to be based on quality experiments that are objective and
reproducible. Good science is good science, regardless of who
funds it, whether it is industry or academia or NGO or the
government.
What we have seen--and we have seen uneven results in the
existing chemicals risk evaluation. Some of them, in my view,
have been based on sound science. Others, EPA is using the
lowest number they can possibly find and using that to justify
their existing chemical exposure limits, regardless of the
departure from other regulatory agencies or other scientific
bodies.
Mrs. Miller-Meeks. Thank you. I have a question on
formaldehyde risk, but my time has expired, so I will submit it
to be answered for the record.
Thank you, and I yield back.
Mr. Griffith. Thank you very much for yielding back. I now
recognize Mr. Langworthy for his 5 minutes of questions.
Mr. Langworthy. Well, thank you very much, Chairman
Griffith.
The chemical industry is critical to New York State's
economy. It ranks as our third-largest industry, and it
generates $14.75 billion annually. Over the years I have spoken
to many leaders in New York's chemistry industry, and one
message has been consistent: robust and predictable chemical
management policies, they are vital to driving American
innovation and meeting our Nation's needs in energy, national
security, healthcare, infrastructure, and many more areas.
Unfortunately, under the Biden years the industry has
experienced anything but predictability. Section 5 of the Toxic
Substances Control Act, TSCA, requires the EPA to review new
chemical notifications. But approvals without restrictions have
dropped sharply from 90 percent in previous years to just 10 to
20 percent under the Biden administration. Under TSCA section 5
the EPA must review each premanufacture notice and determine
whether a substance is not likely to present unreasonable risk,
may present unreasonable risk, or will present an unreasonable
risk to health or the environment.
Dr. Engler, has the EPA actually defined ``unreasonable
risk''?
Dr. Engler. Generally, there is a course of conduct where
they establish a concern threshold, and then they compare
exposures to that threshold. And that is--that--although they
haven't defined it, in practice that is how they determine
whether or not something is an----
Mr. Langworthy. So they really haven't defined
``unreasonable risk.''
Dr. Engler. They haven't defined it.
Mr. Langworthy. OK.
Dr. Engler. I can only tell you what they do.
Mr. Langworthy. What are the consequences of not having
clear definition?
Dr. Engler. Well, it gives EPA--or individuals at EPA--a
lot of latitude to make their own decision. And so we get the
inconsistency that I have mentioned previously.
Mr. Langworthy. So when evaluating a new chemical, should
all hazards lead to an unreasonable risk? For example, you
know, everyone is talking about vinegar here today, so an
irritant such as household vinegar is subject to--is that
subject to an unreasonable risk determination?
Dr. Engler. I mean, if--again, I--my prediction is that EPA
would find--if vinegar were submitted, EPA would find that
consumer use may be an unreasonable risk, and EPA would have to
issue some sort of restriction. I don't think that is
reasonable.
To Mr. Jahn's point earlier about--people do take
protective measures when they get something on their skin and
it hurts. So I think there is----
Mr. Langworthy. Right.
Dr. Engler [continuing]. There is some reasonableness to
people saying, ``You know what? `Corrosive or irritating
substances,' we don't need a regulation to force people to
protect themselves for those.''
Mr. Langworthy. President Trump, in his inaugural address,
said we are unleashing an era of a commonsense revolution, and
I think common sense needs to prevail a little more here.
Dr. Doa, yes or no, when you say that over the last 8 years
over 3,600 chemicals have been approved, does that mean that
they have been commercialized too?
Dr. Doa. For some of them, it is--
Mr. Langworthy. Yes or no.
Dr. Doa. Respectfully, sir, it is not a simple yes-or-no
answer because, once EPA approves it, then it is up to the
company to take the next step and commercialize it.
Mr. Langworthy. So it was a no.
Dr. Engler, are you aware of any instances in which a
chemical has been approved but not gone to market because of
EPA restrictions?
Dr. Engler. Absolutely.
Mr. Langworthy. So delays that stem from EPA's
interpretation of the Toxic Substances Control Act extend
beyond chemical producers. It ripples through the entire supply
chain. Manufacturers across sectors rely on new chemical
innovations to create essential products, from medical devices
to semiconductors to construction materials.
When approval processes stall, so does innovation, leaving
businesses unable to upgrade to safer, more effective
chemicals. This forces many industries to continue using older
chemicals and hinders their ability to compete globally,
especially against the Chinese, and expands--you know, the
Chinese are constantly expanding their own chemical production
capabilities at a very rapid pace. To strengthen the supply
chain and ensure that the U.S. remains competitive, we need
predictability and clarity in chemical regulations, not
roadblocks and delays in innovation.
Dr. Engler, given the ripple effects of regulatory delays
on the entire supply chain, how can we ensure that EPA's
chemical review processes are streamlined to allow American
manufacturers to access safer, more effective chemicals in a
timely manner so we don't fall behind global competitors like
the Chinese?
Dr. Engler. I think there are some critical, targeted
changes that Congress can make to the statute that gives EPA
clear guidance when--for new chemicals--when it should and
should not be issuing restrictions.
Mr. Langworthy. Excellent. As global competition,
particularly from China, intensifies, we need more
predictability in the chemical regulation space so American
manufacturers can innovate and expand with confidence. And I am
eager to work alongside--as a member of the Energy and Commerce
Committee--along with the Trump administration, our new EPA
Director-in-waiting, Lee Zeldin, to ensure that the American
chemistry industry remains a global leader in safety,
production, and innovation.
And Mr. Chairman, I yield back.
Mr. Griffith. I thank the gentleman for yielding back. I
now recognize Mr. Carter of Georgia for his 5 minutes of
questions.
Mr. Carter of Georgia. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And let me
begin by congratulating you, Mr. Chairman, as chair of this
subcommittee. This is an extremely important committee, and
this is an extremely important subject, issue that we are
discussing today. And I appreciate you bringing it up as the
first hearing that we are having this year.
Before I begin, Mr. Chairman, if you will, I would like to
ask that--submit a letter from the American Cleaning Institute
on the need of--for a predictable and reliable chemical program
for the record.
Mr. Griffith. We will take that up at the end. We have a--
we put together a list. I need to let the minority party take a
review of it, but it is--
Mr. Carter of Georgia. OK.
Mr. Griffith [continuing]. Usually not objected to, but
they will take a look at it and let me know.
Mr. Carter of Georgia. Well, the ranking member is a good
friend of mine, so he will make sure we get it taken care of.
[Laughter.]
Mr. Carter of Georgia. Thank you again.
Folks, thank you all for being here. I know it has been a
long hearing so far, but I want to talk specifically. I am a
pharmacist by profession, so this is very important to me.
Chemicals are, obviously, used in drugs and manufacturing, and
one of the things that we say in healthcare is that, you know,
does the benefit outweigh the risk? And that is something that
we have to look carefully at. And it is certainly something
with chemicals.
And I will tell you that I had some tribulation when I went
to the golf course and was given some insect repellent, and
they told me, ``You can spray it on you, but don't get it on
the grass because it will kill the grass.'' Well, wait a minute
here, you know? That brings me pause.
But at the same time, we have gotten to a situation now
where we have seen unacceptable delays in the new chemicals
program. It has almost stopped, and we can't have that. We have
got to have research and development. We have got to have new
chemicals coming into the market. And a lot of it is being
pegged and blamed, if you will, on overregulation. And we all,
again, understand that there are risks involved in this, but we
also understand that we can mitigate those risks effectively so
that products can be used in commerce.
And one of the things that I think is important to note is
that EPA's evaluation of chemicals is a fee-based service, and
that it has increased significantly. And that doesn't seem to--
and it doesn't seem to be providing that service proficiently
at all. So a key component of the bipartisan Lautenberg Act is
section 26, as you all know, which authorizes the collection of
fees from chemical manufacturers and processors so they can
defray the cost of administering TSCA programs. This fee
authority, however, is set to expire in June of this--of next
year, so we need to keep that in mind.
Now, prior to the Lautenberg Act, as I understand it, it
was--the fee was in statute. But now we have got a fee that--
the fee collections are 25 percent of EPA's annual cost of
administering these activities, and it is capped at $25 million
a year. So when TSCA was amended, the fee for a premanufactured
notice, PMN, was $2,500. In 2018 EPA increased that fee to
$16,000. And just last year EPA again raised it to $37,000.
That is an increase of 1,380 percent.
Mr. Jahn, yes or no, is that increase reasonable?
Mr. Jahn. No. If this were a pay-for-performance system,
EPA would be fired.
Mr. Carter of Georgia. Dr. Engler, is it--do you think that
is reasonable?
Dr. Engler. I didn't see the basis for EPA raising the fee
the way they did in the fee rule.
Mr. Carter of Georgia. Mr. Moody?
Mr. Moody. No, it is not reasonable.
Mr. Carter of Georgia. Dr. Doa?
Dr. Doa. With all due respect, sir, EPA is not the
consultant.
Mr. Carter of Georgia. Yes or no. That is all I ask.
Dr. Doa. The fee--raising the fee is reasonable.
Mr. Carter of Georgia. Raising the fee 1,380 percent is
reasonable? OK. That is fine, that is fine.
OK, Mr. Jahn, let me ask you something. What do you think
is a reasonable amount to pay for a PMN or any other review
that is carried out under TSCA?
Mr. Jahn. So, look, the EPA has legitimate expenses it
needs to cover.
Mr. Carter of Georgia. Sure, we all understand that.
Mr. Jahn. And so we are happy to have a conversation about
what that looks like. But I am more concerned about, frankly,
whether or not the process works and we get to results from
that process, rather than how much it costs.
Mr. Carter of Georgia. Dr. Engler?
Dr. Engler. As I said earlier, I don't know what the right
level is because I don't think the process is working
efficiently.
Mr. Jahn. That is right.
Mr. Carter of Georgia. Right.
Mr. Moody?
Mr. Moody. I agree. I mean, I think what you would hear
from our membership is they are--if they are getting results,
then, you know, a higher fee might be justified. But we are not
getting results.
Mr. Carter of Georgia. OK. So, you know, we got a new
administration now, and we have been talking about a number of
different things. But one of the things is about permitting and
about permitting reform and regulation reform. It starts right
here, and this is extremely important. Thank you all for being
here. This is an extremely important issue.
And Mr. Chairman, I yield back.
Mr. Griffith. I thank the gentleman for yielding back. And
now, by unanimous consent, as we do in this committee on a
regular basis, we allow members of the committee from other
subs to waive on.
Having been here since we gaveled in----
Mrs. Harshbarger. Yes.
Mr. Griffith [continuing]. I now recognize for 5 minutes of
questioning Mrs. Harshbarger.
Mrs. Harshbarger. Oh, you are so sweet. Thank you, Mr.
Chairman and the ranking member, for allowing me to waive on.
You know, Mr. Jahn, you said yours was the most regulated
sector, and my pharmacy is the most regulated profession, if
you ask me. And as a compounding pharmacist, you know, I have
dealt with bulk chemicals, APIs, 90 percent of which originate
outside this country, in China, and you have to comply with USP
795, 797, now USP 800, have to deal with the NIOSH list with
hazardous drugs, antineoplastics. It is just a regulated
profession. And there is validity in dealing with these
hazardous regulations, but it has to be based on common sense
and scientific evidence. Do you agree?
And this issue is very important to me and to my district
because we have a company, Microporous. It is a battery
separator manufacturer in my district, which--there is only two
in the U.S. And it is currently facing an existential threat
due to a final rule the Biden administration made related to
trichloroethylene. The final rule would change the allowable
amount of TCE in the workplace at Microporous a factor of 500
times, from a limit of 100 parts per million to 0.2 parts per
million. And that is just not realistic, and it would be
impossible to meet. And it would cost jobs in the district, not
to mention these battery separators are critical and essential
for national security and national economy and to maintain
critical infrastructure. So today I am introducing a
Congressional Review Act with Congresswoman Mariannette Miller-
Meeks to scrap the Biden's TCE rule, just for your information.
My first question is to Dr. Engler: Would this change to
the allowable amount of TCE represent a risk-based or a hazard-
based approach?
Dr. Engler. Well, actually, let me change the question
here. The problem I have with the TCE rule is that EPA is
basing their exposure limit on a study that hasn't been
reproduced.
Mrs. Harshbarger. Exactly.
Dr. Engler. So I question whether what they are basing it
on is the best available science.
Mrs. Harshbarger. Well, it is a flaw. It is a flawed study.
Just say it.
OK, very good. Do you believe the--TSCA, the way it is
written, would require an administration to make a drastic
change to the particulate matter regulations surrounding TCE?
Dr. Engler. I am sorry, ask that again.
Mrs. Harshbarger. Do you believe the way TSCA is written
would require an administration to make such a drastic change
to the particulate matter regulations surrounding TCE?
Dr. Engler. Not when it is based on such flimsy science.
Mrs. Harshbarger. Yes, exactly. Thank you. Thank you for
backing me up.
It is really unfortunate that the Biden-Harris
administration chose to take these drastic measures to harm the
domestic production of battery separators. You know, it is
ironic, considering that battery production was so integral to
the Green New Deal that they wanted so badly. But we have a new
administration, and we have the opportunity to clarify the
TSCA's intent.
And with that objection, Chairman, I am including the
testimony from the CEO of Microporous.
Mr. Griffith. And again, if you can give us a copy of
that----
Mrs. Harshbarger. Yes.
Mr. Griffith [continuing]. So it can be reviewed.
Mrs. Harshbarger. I will do it.
Many Members have discussed in one way or the other the
significant backlog in the review process for chemicals at EPA.
So my question is for Dr. Doa.
In your testimony you note that more than 3,600 chemicals
have been approved during the first 8 years of amended TSCA,
but do you know the number of chemicals that weren't approved
or are still waiting?
Dr. Doa. The number? I don't know the exact number in the
process right now, ma'am.
Mrs. Harshbarger. OK. Dr. Engler?
Mr. Jahn. Ma'am, if I could--
Mrs. Harshbarger. Yes.
Mr. Jahn [continuing]. Comment on that, please.
Mrs. Harshbarger. Go ahead.
Mr. Jahn. So again, to be clear, 3,600 chemicals have not
been approved since TSCA. The number is about half of that.
Mrs. Harshbarger. Really?
Mr. Jahn. That is based on--go to EPA's website and you can
find that there.
Mrs. Harshbarger. OK. That is what I need to know. I
appreciate you all. Thanks for being here today.
And I yield back, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Griffith. All right. If you could give me that document
so that we can get that--that is our next--yes.
[Pause.]
Mr. Griffith. I am giving my colleagues an opportunity to
look at the document that was presented for unanimous consent.
That will conclude our witness questions for the day.
I ask unanimous consent to insert in the record the
documents included on the staff hearing document list. That
would include Mrs. Harshbarger's, Mr. Palmer's, and Mr.
Carter's documents that they wanted to have submitted under
unanimous consent.
[The information appears at the conclusion of the hearing.]
Mr. Griffith. I remind Members they have 10 business days
to submit questions for the record, and I ask the witnesses to
respond to the questions promptly.
Without objection, the subcommittee is adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 1:30 p.m., the subcommittee was adjourned.]
[Material submitted for inclusion in the record follows:]
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
[all]