▶ 0:00:15all right looks like everybody's taking seats subcommittee will come to order and I recognize myself for an welcome I am really looking forward to working with you ranking member tono as we uh start this adventure I'm 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
▶ 0:00:46for the start of the 119th Congress the American people have spoken loud and clear they've had enough of rising prices and a regulatory burden that threatens energy reliability reduces American competitiveness and in some cases makes for a stag economy in general I've 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 Common Sense
▶ 0:01:16regulation I'm glad we've 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 to today's hearing we'll examine the Frank lenberg chemical safety for the 21st century act or the lenberg ACT nearly 10 years ago members of this committee work tirelessly to develop the lenberg ACT to reform toxic substances Control Act often referred to as Tusa Tusa governs the Environmental Protection
▶ 0:01:47Agency 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 lenberg Act made the most significant change es to tasa since it became law in 1976 the lenberg 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 lenberg acts passage both Democrat and
▶ 0:02:17Republican administrations at EPA have had the opportunity to implement the acts 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% of the pre-manufactured chemical reviews
▶ 0:02:47within the time limit laid out in the lonberg act with the 10year anniversary of the lonberg acts passage quickly approaching today's hearing will provide us an opportunity to learn more about what's working and what's not working at the epa's office of pollution prevention and toxics and it's important that we make the most of this opportunity to create that record among other things tasa as amended by the lenberg act governs the epa's process for reviewing new chemicals or in allowing new uses for existing chemicals before those products
▶ 0:03:18can 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
▶ 0:03:48and efficiently as chemicals are part of nearly every product and new chemistries are essential to develop better products the tasa regulatory scheme has profound 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
▶ 0:04:19overseas 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 John president and CEO of the American chemistry Council uh also known as the ACC course where I come from that's the Atlantic Coast Conference the ACC the ACC serves as an organization of chemical companies who often engage in epa's regulatory process including new chemical
▶ 0:04:49reviews also joining us is Mr Jeff Moody the vice president of government relations for the American Fuel and prochemical manufacturers he will share the experiences of refin ERS and manufacturers that comply with Tusa to make the products we depend on every day we are also glad to have Dr Richard Engler prior to his current roles director of chemistry at the ACTA group Dr engas served at the at the Environmental Protection Agency for 17 years and will be able to share more about the agency's staff experience
▶ 0:05:19in implementing the ACT additionally Dr uh 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 chemical sa chem working on chemical safety and Tusa so with that I will yield back and now recognize the ranking member of this
▶ 0:05:49committee for his first time this Congress uh as ranking member Mr tono for his FIV minute opening statement well I appreciate that Mr chair and uh let me start by congratulating you on becoming chair of this subcommittee uh I look forward to a sound working relationship and uh being productive as a partnership here to uh move forward good legislation that will be uh speaking to the needs of the American public yes sir this subcommittee has awesome responsibilities protecting Americans from
▶ 0:06:20air 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 um the toxic substances Control Act or Tusa 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
▶ 0:06:50and 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 Tusa to better protect people from both new and existing chemicals that pose an unreasonable risk ranking member palone and I were directly involved in the negotiations
▶ 0:07:20that led to the lenberg ACT being enacted 8 and a half years ago and I hope that our perspectives on that experience may help inform form the committee's reexamination of the law today let me start by saying that the effort to reform Tusa was a long and difficult process beginning many years prior to the enactment of the lenberg act in 2016 it required a considerable amount of member time of Staff time and committee resources and despite
▶ 0:07:51my 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 lenberg process was possible was because it started with a consensus amongst industry and environmental groups that tusco was in desperate need of Reform and I am curious whether we will hear a similar consensus
▶ 0:08:21today I'm 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
▶ 0:08:51work 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 tasa has had achievements that would not have happened
▶ 0:09:21absent the lenberg 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
▶ 0:09:52and 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 in industries that I believe are critically important to the Future competitiveness
▶ 0:10:22of the American economy but I also believe that the people who are literally closest to these cuttingedge 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
▶ 0:10:53however having lived through the last Tusa reform effort I can say that no one should expect such a big legislative task to be easy the lenberg 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
▶ 0:11:23reform Tusa will truly need it so thank you Mr chair and with that I yield back gentlemen yields back I now recognize uh officially for the first time the chairman of the full committee Mr Guthrie for five minutes for his opening statement thank you Mr chairman and and ranking member tono ranking member plone I really look forward to working with you guys in this area of the jurisdiction of this subcommittee is review regulations and and respond to them in a responsible manner this will
▶ 0:11:53be a busy subcommittee this Congress and I'm real excited about it and uh so welcome our Witness wies for being here today well and my colleagues in this morning's hearing we'll examine the implementation and impact of the Frank R lenberg 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 Tusa since the law was enacted in 76 Tusa is a unique statute it provides the US environmental agency
▶ 0:12:23prodection 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 lenbury act unfortunately it's still not working at least not how Congress intended the epa's flawed decisionmaking process has consequently inhibited American innovation and our ability to complete compete in the global market this morning's hearing is also timely
▶ 0:12:54today the committee will receive a report from the government accountability office requested last Congress by former chair MCM Morris Rogers and Senator cap uh Capo now chair of the CER environmental and Public Works committee that assesses the epa's new chemical review process in addition section 26 of the lottenberg ACT epa's authority to collect fees from chemical manufacturing and processors to defay certain costs of administrating ad administering the Tusa programs will expire June of 26 with that in mind both
▶ 0:13:24today's discussion and the g Jo report will provide this committee yet again with with the opportunity to develop a bipartisan solution to unleash American innovation 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 kof Texas thank you chairman Guthrie thank you chairman Griffith for holding this important hearing and thank you to our Witnesses for being here I just want to start off by noting how important chemicals are to a strong economy essential in
▶ 0:13:54making all of the products that are necessary for our Modern Life in the 21st Century yet even the word chemicals what 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 life-saving medical devices to computers and smartphones and cuttingedge Military platforms
▶ 0:14:25the 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
▶ 0:14:56additionally the program that allows companies to bring bring Innovative safer and Greener chemicals to Market has been utterly mismanaged over the past four 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 these delays they threaten American leadership on chemical research and development and they impose massive costs on the
▶ 0:15:26American 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 jamman yields back I now recognize the ranking member of the full committee Mr palone for his F minute opening statement thank you Mr chairman today the committee is holding its first hearing of the Congress two days after president Trump was inaugurated
▶ 0:15:57on 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 weaken economy and a worse off climate that pass
▶ 0:16:27on to Future now today we're actually examining the legacy of the Frank R lenberg 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 lenberg he was a champion of the right to know the idea that if you give people information uh then they empowered themselves to protect their own safety and the law updated and modernized the toxic substances Control Act otherwise known as Tusa for
▶ 0:16:57the first time in 40 years uh since its passage I've worked to ensure that Tusa lives up to Senator lenberg commitment to protecting Americans from dangerous chemicals particularly children pregnant women workers and environmental justice communities and a key goal of the lenberg Act was to finally give the Environmental Protection Agency the ability to address the threats of harmful chemicals on the market the original Tusa simply did not give EPA the tools it needed to address risk even though we had a long we had long known of the dangers of chemicals like
▶ 0:17:28asbestos after Decades of a broken chemical safety law and years of negotiation Congress enacted the lenberg 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
▶ 0:17:58by 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 risk especially for workers and overburdened communities delayed Health protective rules and exerted undue political influence on the regulatory process but fortunately over the last four years the EPA has worked to get back on track the Biden EPA recommended to scientif went back to scientific
▶ 0:18:28Integrity 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 tasa as intended and addressing disproportionate risk for vulnerable populations under Biden's leadership epe was finally able to ban the use of known dangerous chemicals like New Uses of asbestos methylene C chloride and tce an EPA is also well on its way to properly addressing Legacy uses of a besus
▶ 0:18:59now the epa's tasa office has also played a critical role in addressing the rampant pasas 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 past but despite these significant improvements during the Biden Administration the tasa office still faces its fair share of challenges and I'm concerned that this hard for pro this this progress that we had under the B Administration is going to be stifled
▶ 0:19:30under the new Trump Administration which did not have a great record four 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've seen how vulnerable communities bear the brunt of a weak chemical safety office we've heard the tragic stories of Americans Gone Too Soon because of lacks or non-existing chemical regulations and we cannot afford to go back if my Republican colleagues want to explore the possibility of a reauthorization of Tusa we must work to strengthen
▶ 0:20:00it 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 lenberg ACT today it is important it's important to me and all of us that this law live up to the government to to its environmental Legacy that's what Senator lenberg left behind this idea um and I 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
▶ 0:20:30so they know what is uh necessary to protect their own health and safety so I look forward to today's hearing of Mr chairman and I yield back 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 uh in a timely fashion if it shows up six months later it's probably not going to make the
▶ 0:21:01record uh 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 uh and we do appreciate it I introduced the witnesses previously so I'm going to skip reintroducing them so we can get everybody um time to ask their questions and then move along so Mr John you're going to be recognized for a f minute opening statement thank you thank you chairman Griffith and ranking member tonco Vice
▶ 0:21:31chairman krenshaw chairman Guthrie ranking member palone 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 chemical manufacturers can help not not only are we the driving force behind the entire manufacturing
▶ 0:22:02economy 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 tasa updated it for the first time in decades it included in that a 10-year expiration of the fees
▶ 0:22:32that 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 require there we need to improve Tusa 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 on what I'm saying here today I'm not talking about opening
▶ 0:23:02up Tusa what I'm saying is I'd like Congress to utilize the built-in oversight through the fees reauthorization process to assess the program and make necessary improvements Dr mial freedhoff who ran the chemicals office in the Biden Administration uh 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 us manufacturing and allow us to outcompete
▶ 0:23:32other countries for years to come to accomplish this ACCC is Guided by principles that we ask Congress and the Trump Administration to consider number one to put science first drive predictable transparent and facts-based policies number two create a sensible regulatory environment that Fosters Innovation here in the United States instead of offshoring it to other countries and number three Safeguard our communities and protect
▶ 0:24:02our environment our industry is safer and cleaner than ever before because because of acc's mandatory third-party audited program called responsible care focused on our members environmental health Safety and performance American innovation relies on new chemicals and 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
▶ 0:24:33the statute requires a determination within 90 days however the EPA consistently missed that Mark hindering Innovation and seeding our nation's competitive advantage to manufacturers overseas based on the epa's updated public da data in January there were 394 chemicals in the queue under review 93% of them were past the statutory deadline 63 % of them have been under review for more than a year this is a permitting reform
▶ 0:25:04issue that urgently needs to be addressed so what do these delays mean to our industry and US competitiveness first delays mean that uh create uncertainty for manufacturers and they're less likely to invest in R&D that brings new Innovative and more sustainable chemistries to Market their customers whether they're producing Autos semiconductors or anything else cannot wait second delays and uncertainty make it more more likely the manufacturers will bring products to Market overseas in fact we conducted a
▶ 0:25:34survey of our members and 70% 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
▶ 0:26:04about exposures to chemicals 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 Common Sense regulation to the law and strengthen the requirements of the best available science and Inter agency coordination so I appreciate the committee holding this hearing today uh a healthy Nation a secure Nation an economically vibrant Nation relies on chemistry thank
▶ 0:26:36you gentleman yields back and now recognize Dr inler for his F minute opening statement good morning chairman Griffith ranking member tonco chairman Guthrie ranking member palone and members of the subcommittee on environment I thank the subcommittee for inviting me today I have extensive experience with tasa from my 17 years at EPA where I participated in review of thousands of pre manufacture factur notices and low volume exemptions pmn and lves I participated in all aspects of those reviews from the initial chemistry review to regulatory decision-making
▶ 0:27:07I 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 tasa expert while I'll focus on the tasa new chemicals program I can respond to questions on any aspect of tasa 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 US in part because since 2016
▶ 0:27:37EPA is taking a hazard-based approach to chemicals rather than the risk-based approach that Tusa envisions the expiration of Tusa user fees in 2026 provides congress with an opportunity to make tusco work better it's important to understand the difference between risk and Hazard 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 practice EPA is
▶ 0:28:07effectively barring swimming and lets you ask EPA if you can swim on the beach on that day this is not how Congress intended Tasco to work under Section Five EPA must review each pmn and make one of several determinations on that substance it that is the substance not likely to present unreasonable risk to health or the environment including a risk to subpopulation 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
▶ 0:28:37likely to present risk that substance can proceed to Market without restriction otherwise EPA is required to to um Implement some restrictions currently EPA reviews a pmn and if EPA finds any Hazard above its lwh 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 expected EPA would bar its use by consumers vinegar has hazards it is irritating and if it's left on the skin it causes chemical burns if
▶ 0:29:07inhaled it'll damage the respiratory tract epa's current policy is that corrosive substance may not be in a consumer product above 3% acetic acid the key ingredient in vinegar is corrosive and V vinegar contains about 5% 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 in routine and do not require EPA to issue restrictions as with vinegar there are also other statutes that protect workers consumers and the environment
▶ 0:29:37EPA simply assumes that none of these has any protective effect EPA has issued as a result EPA has issued restrictions on about 85% of pmn since 2016 recently that percentage is over 90% over eight and a half years in three administrations later we have seen essentially no change EPA clearly thinks it is implementing Tusa Section 5 you might ask the restrictions allow you to do what you want to do so what's the big deal the big deal is the effect on the supply chain each company in the supply chain must
▶ 0:30:07follow 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 you keep records your car 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
▶ 0:30:37to pull it over to review the records wouldn't you hesitate to buy that car this is the biased against new chemicals with restrictions and this is what's happening now some pmns need to be restricted but others do not take for example pmn for chemicals that are on or nearly identical to chemicals on EPA safer chemical ingredient list safer Choice ingredient list a list of the best of the best chemicals for household products in several cases EP EPA found that these chemicals were too hazardous to be allowed in consumer products this
▶ 0:31:08makes no sense how can it be safer but also to hazards 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 tasa 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 thank you very much appreciate it Mr Moody you are
▶ 0:31:38now recognized for your F minute opening statement good morning chairs Griffith and Guthrie ranking members TKO and palone and members of the committee uh my name is Jeff Moody I'm the senior vice president for government relations and policy at the American Fuel and petrochemical manufacturers afpn proudly represents the petrochemical refining and Midstream Industries it's a privilege to testify this morning about experience with the tasa uh 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
▶ 0:32:08that are the backbone of US Energy security and uh 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 ever more safely responsibly and sustainably we therefore support a balanced and workable Taska I would like to spend my lied time today summarizing a few key points in my written testimony first tasa must remain a risk-based statute grounded in reality and underpinned by sound
▶ 0:32:38science 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 better program management and targeted statutory changes us Manu manufacturing and Innovation will suffer my testimony contains additional details but I'd like to briefly discuss a few key points about tusa's new and existing key uh programs uh starting with the
▶ 0:33:08existing chemical program section six the 2016 amendments require EPA to prioritize existing chemicals based on the 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 promate mitigation measures EPA has not been adhering to this in fact they've been largely regulating in a vacuum disregarding other agencies overlapping regulations industrywide safety practices and rear World data one
▶ 0:33:38glaring example is in the risk modeling which uses unrealistic default assumptions ignoring O'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 uh in its engagement with the agency provided uh real world data about how chemical is actually managed at our facilities and uh rather than uh accepting real world data
▶ 0:34:08EPA relied on its own model assumptions which uh resulted in a miscalculation of risk and now chemicals are being uh 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 are 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 AFM members to go through
▶ 0:34:38a 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 Five the new chemicals program it is no secret that it faces some significant challenges the 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
▶ 0:35:08with 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 um 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 reduced ing Global demand for these products what they're doing is sending manufacturing opportunities overseas just closing where I started we support a Taska program that determines risk based on sound science and real world information and impacts
▶ 0:35:39we 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 us manufacturing confidence and to promote Innovation under the statute fpns 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 thank the gentleman now recognize Dr DOA for her five minute statement thank you chairman Griffith ranking member tono chairman Guthrie ranking
▶ 0:36:10member palone and members of the subcommittee for the opportunity to testify today on the implementation of the Frank R lottenberg 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
▶ 0:36:40held various leadership positions focused on the regulation of toxic chemicals including the toxic substances Control Act for nearly 40 years after Tusa 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 risk from many highly toxic chemicals remained unaddressed in 2016 after a decade of legislative debate
▶ 0:37:10Congress took decisive action and passed lottenberg act with broad bipartisan support the lenberg 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 us Commerce and the second is how the risks
▶ 0:37:40of existing chemicals are evaluated based on real exposures prior to the lottenberg app 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 US market this meant that many chemicals particularly those with little or no toxicity information made it onto the market without any restrictions the lenberg ACT
▶ 0:38:10requires 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 lottenberg Act passed yet there have been claims 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
▶ 0:38:40up 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 pasas that have resulted in hundreds of millions of dollars in cleanup costs Tusa explicitly
▶ 0:39:10recognizes 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 upfront to make adequate efficient and expeditious reviews and where necessary allow for restrictions to protect health and the environment while supporting
▶ 0:39:41Innovation another significant Improvement is for how existing chemicals are managed under the lenberg ACT EPA took the first meaningful action in 25 years to address the unreasonable risks of some of the worst chemicals including disbest trioral ethylene or tce and methylene chloride these chemicals cause harmful effects on our health including Cancer birth effects and even death in the last two years EPA finalized
▶ 0:40:11five 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 risk presented by the real world exposure to the chemical rather than examining the risk of exposure to an individual use the lotenberg ACT fundamentally improved our nation's approach to chemical safety and is the driver in reducing
▶ 0:40:42unreasonable risks from toxic chemicals maintaining these aspects of the law is essential for safeguarding public health and supporting smart Innovation reopening the lenberg ACT would undermine these critical achievements thank you thank you for your time and I look forward to questions I thank the gentle lady we'll now begin questioning and I recognize myself for five minutes Dr angler in your testimony today you talked about new chemical the new chemicals program and you imply that EPA misinterpreted
▶ 0:41:13the task a 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 Tusa so when when EPA reviews new chemical they look at all the hazards they also they look at information provided by the submitter if the submitter provides or has information about releases and exposures they'll review that if that information is not provided EPA will predict releases and exposures using its own models and worst case
▶ 0:41:43assumptions and so this has been routine and this has been done for as long as I've been working on Tasco which is 27 years now um what happens now is regardless of the outcome of epa's models even if EPA does not find risk using its worth case assumptions if there is a hazard above epa's low Hazard threshold EPA issues a restriction of one form or another so the the risk is gone from the equation if there's a hazard there EPA views that there must be a restriction any uncertainty leads to a
▶ 0:42:13restriction and so you're not talking about unreasonable risk you're just talking about any any possible risk any possible risk yeah so so the I mean EPA uses thresholds they they 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's no unreasonable risk even when EPA finds that the exposure is below the concern they still issue a restriction
▶ 0:42:44so 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 lemon juice would also probably be banned from consumer use yes I got to ask cuz I eat too much of it I'm sure but how about my my sodium chloride that love I I'll I'll leave that to you and your doctor all right so you don't think tasa would get involved in that if it were a new chemical suddenly uh sodium chloride might pass it might pass all right that's good to know um Dr
▶ 0:43:14angler do you believe epa's new chemicals division follows basic evidentiary procedure in its decision making process yes or no uh generally we've had mixed results and it depends a lot on the on who's reviewing a case um 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 yeah um in some cases we provide data we provide measured data and EPA will use that data and
▶ 0:43:44assess the risk and they will still issue a restriction if it's 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 um and they just use whatever conservative assumption and again we end up with a restriction 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
▶ 0:44:14it 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 quote apply learning to decisionmaking end quote at the division I'm sure that that has to do with different people making decisions based on reading the testimony I'm not surprised by this and I look forward to working with all of our witnesses to improve the new chemicals
▶ 0:44:45program 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 um Mr John could you expound some on what in your opinion should be considered the best available signs for evaluating new chemicals so as you just said the the GAO report I found out about that on the way over I'm not surprised our MERS were interviewed uh in that process and you know they provide science for
▶ 0:45:15example for the EPA to use that they request uh however very often what EPA ends up doing is model doing it its own modeling and using that data rather than the real world data that our members provide to EPA for the assessment that's one of the reasons that the new chemicals program takes so long all right I appreciate that Dr angler again could you explain just briefly the advantages and disadvantages of statistical modeling for chemical releases well statistical modeling can be can be used to see
▶ 0:45:45what 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're not looking at the very and when you talk about a statistical analysis they don't look all the way at the very end of the tale they look for that 95th percenti as a worst case all right I appreciate that my time is up so I now yield back and recognize Mr tono for five minutes of questioning thank you Mr chair um I appreciate that Congress will
▶ 0:46:15need to reauthorize tusa's fee authority to help provide the program with the resources it needs to function and function effectively but I'm 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 you have any recommendations for how the incoming leadership at EPA can use its existing statutory authorities to better protect health and effectively administer
▶ 0:46:47tasa thank you um there are a number of ways that EPA Can U protect Health more rigorously one would be the consideration of the multiple chemicals that communities that are around facilities are exposed to many uh companies will specialize in a type of chemical such as P or brominated flame retardant
▶ 0:47:17and while they will send uh 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 pasas that the company submitted to EPA as a new chemical previous brominated flame and so I think given that tasa specifically requires that EPA considers that EPA consider exposures and risks to more highly exposed
▶ 0:47:47and susceptible populations such as those surrounding uh 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 uh 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
▶ 0:48:17to use the best available science thank you and tasa 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 it's up to EPA to and they do seek
▶ 0:48:48out data and models and develop these data and models that they use in in the new chemicals um 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 they're going to be releases uh from this use is not sufficient uh EPA it is their role to be
▶ 0:49:18independent and assess the information and use the sum of the information to determine whether there are unreasonable and I heard some expression of concern about timeliness and thoroughness uh on behalf of the industry as it applies uh its efforts to EPA can you expand upon that please oh yes and I do have personal experience with this from when I was at EPA um what will happen is
▶ 0:49:49a company will submit information and because they're they're only required to submit what's reasonably known or ascertainable they may tell EPA that U they have a chemical and they're 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
▶ 0:50:19an 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 and 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
▶ 0:50:49the 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 um to the industry and it's not the 90day clock that just goes EPA must make an affirmative determination on the safety
▶ 0:51:19of the chemical thank you I had have the questions but I'll submit those to the subcommittee to get to uh our Witnesses thank you and that that I back now recognize the chairman of the full committee Mr Guthrie for his five minutes of questioning thank you very much thank you Mr chairman thanks for our Witnesses for being here today and as I said in my opening statement we're looking to review regulations and do what's what's reasonable and uh so I just have a question so epa's current policy is that corrosive
▶ 0:51:49substance may not be present in a consumer product above 3% as Dr inler pointed out in your testimony the active ingredient in vinegar is acetic acid which is an irritant it may cause chemical burns and most vinegar contains about 5% of acetic acid so around Christmas time my family was in town and our coffee pot turned off because it need to be descaled the old days the coffee pots just powered through you got a lot of steam and you took you a little longer but now the coffee pot turns off so I'm not going to work till
▶ 0:52:20you descale me well who has these scaling 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 use that vinegar to descale my coffee pot then it would be a toxic substance effectively yes and so the EPA would prohibit the the sale of vinegar as a coffee descaler so I just want to go from Dr John or C does that I mean Mr John I'm sorry does that seem
▶ 0:52:51reasonable that does not seem reasonable to me to unfortunately this is too often in the exper experience that our members have when they're bringing new chemistries to Market whether they're more sustainable they have better performance and they go into medical devices automobiles fighter jets you name it it is reasonable and it needs to addressed we just go down all the way down the list to answer that do you think that's reasonable Dr Engler no I think it I think EPA is over interpreting what is reasonably
▶ 0:53:21foreseen so the the 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 um and the assumption is over 3% of acetic acid in vinegar somebody might harm themselves with it because they have they have no certainty that someone will not misuse or misapply well you you can eat it you can't pour it through your coffee pot um that's yes okay that's what I don't want
▶ 0:53:51make that doesn't seem reasonable that Mr Moody I concur okay Dr do I think the issue is not acetic acid the issue is if you're using a corrosive chemical in an industrial process it might be fine but the ex restriction that EPA would put on it would be you can't use it in a consumer product but the issue is a c it would be sprayed the concentration could be higher could be much higher this is just the same I took the bottle
▶ 0:54:21and she made the sauce and I took the bottle and put it into the so that is that is the issue I mean that that's we can't just dismiss that's not the issue respectfully sir I think that EPA would not restrict that it would it would restrict it the percentage because it gets much more corrosive at a higher percent if it's used at a higher percent I think that's and so maybe they would say no it C it can't be used to descale at 15%
▶ 0:54:52because one you functionally it doesn't need to be above 3% right and it would be harmful at 15% okay I think it says anything about three but we can look at that so thanks so um so just being in in reasonable as well and in Tusa another area bipartisan discussion in this subcommittee has been the topics of advanced recycling um in your testimony Mr Moody uh you discussed epa's proposed regulation on pilosis oil which has been pending at EPA since
▶ 0:55:222023 pyrosis oil allows manufacturers to break down waste Plastics and return them to useful seed stock feed stock that can be put into new Plastics and this is a key function in recycling and so um Mr Moody do you think it's uh makes sense imped our ability to scale Advanced recycling to meet our sustainability goals Advanced recycling is a critical technology if we're going to effectively address the issue of plastic waste in the environment so uh we agree uh
▶ 0:55:53that things should go through review uh we should be assessing the risk um and mitigating risk but at the end of the day uh the the output of this this process is chemically identical to other things on the inventory it's napas this other things so uh what we would say is let's look at the data um but you know we shouldn't be impeding that technology uh because we we need it to address what do you think it's been so difficult to get it approved it's a great question
▶ 0:56:23um you know I I there I think there's probably dis different points of view on that and uh on how how to best address the plastic waste issue um and I think that people come at that in good faith from perspective this is critical and you can't dismiss it all right thanks well my time has expired now we yeld back thanks Mr chair genten yields back and now recognize the chairman or the ranking member of the full committee Mr palone for his five minutes of question thank you Mr chairman tasa as we know is our nation's chemical safety law under which EPA
▶ 0:56:53reviews and manages chemicals to protect the health of Americans and EPA is Task with ensuring the safety of chemicals that consumers interact with every day items like winter codes workout clothes bedding mattress pads computers and cell phones now the task office has been underfunded despite the significant increase in work requiring uh required under the lenburg act and without the appropriate staff and resources we can't expect uh the ACT to fulfill its Mission and epa's
▶ 0:57:24Mission to protect health safety and complete timely chemical reviews so I know we're not the Appropriations Committee but I do think I have to make a pitch that we need more money uh for the office but let me go to Dr DOA why is it important for EPA to conduct a pre-market review of all new chemicals and make an affirmative determination on safety before a chemical is manufactured if you will thank you for your question one very important reason why new chemical reviews are so important
▶ 0:57:54is so that we don't have more chemicals like P or pcbs or carcinogenic dyes or bromade flame retardants on the market these chemicals are harmful and once they are on the market and companies are invested in them it's very difficult to Li limit or uh decrease the amounts used uh and it's it's difficult to get them off the market even when they are shown to be extremely
▶ 0:58:25toxic um and then these reviews are important so we don't have to spend hundreds of millions of dollars as we are for past uh cleaning them up or take the multi-year process of regulating it as an existing chemical well thank you now have the changes included in the lenberg ACT provided EPA with the ability to address existing chemicals that have long been known to cause harm well most importantly
▶ 0:58:56the lottenberg ACT gave EPA the tools and the directive to take action before the lottenberg 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 tricoro ethylene which causes three types of cancer birth defects affects multiple parts of of the system this or
▶ 0:59:26asbest the poster child um causing cancer so lottenberg was crucial for being able to protect human health well thank you and I also think it's important to remember that the chemicals regulated under tusca 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 final question Dr do what
▶ 0:59:56does a strong tusca program mean for the health of Americans and the confidence consumers have in the safety of chemicals used in all aspects of their lives it is crucial because what led to the lottenberg Act was the widespread belief by consumers that they could not trust a lot of products that they were being exposed routinely to to toxic chemicals and I think this is a way to ensure more confidence
▶ 1:00:27that what we use every day won't harm us um and that um we will be protected from the most harmful chemicals I appreciate that you know I go back to I know they sound repetitive but I just can't help you know senator lenberg in so many areas of life was a champion for what I call the right to know um and you know you just got to that in other words you know people want information and data I mean how many times have people does somebody call my office and
▶ 1:00:57say well what is the data what is the information what can I rely on and I think that when you have a strong tasa program you're giving people information so they can you know make decisions and know what's bad for the health no what's not good for their safety um you know I can't emphasize enough uh why uh the the a strong tasa program really empowers people and and gives them as you you say the feeling that they can have the confidence
▶ 1:01:28in these products people are just so convinced that you know that whatever they use has already been approved has already been safe um but more and more they don't believe that anymore so that's just another reason why I think we need a strong tasa thank you so much thank you Mr chairman gentleman yields back now recognize the vice chairman of the subcommittee Mr kensaw for his five minutes of questioning thank you Mr chairman um start with you Mr Mr John um tusco requires that the EPA make a determination
▶ 1:01:59within 90 days uh are there any consequences if the agency fails to make a determination within the statutory mandated review period short version is no that the EPA is supposed to give the fees back to um the private company that applied but that does not happen in practice and so right now we're left in a situation where again as I said in my opening statement uh 63% of the sub misss are a year old when the deadline is 90 days
▶ 1:02:29and so um as we look at um the Reon authorization process for those fees we need to find some guard rails and some accountability for EPA to meet its deadlines I mean it was it was said by U um M DOA that a lot of the fault lies on the on the industry itself for not for not putting in the right paperwork or right information how much of that is true in in your opinion so EPA has a challenge in clearly communic unting with industry in regards to what it is looking for and it is
▶ 1:03:00notorious for coming to Industry on the 89th day and saying this is the additional information we would would like you have a couple of choices here you can either suspend your application and we work on that or you 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 Q takes so uh I would respectfully submit that EPA needed to do a much better job in communicating with the industry in terms of what it needs what it will use Mr angler
▶ 1:03:30do you have something to add to that yeah so we work very closely with our clients to prepare very robust U pmns and we we're very good at predicting what EP the sort of information that EP is looking for but even when we do that we find that EPA comes up with with questions that we could never predicted or during epa's review they've made some errors or they've missed some key information that's in the case and so some of the rework is just the the the necessary communication
▶ 1:04:01between the submitter and EPA to to make sure there's a shared understanding right uh Mr John 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 and chemistries were delayed as a result of of this kind of mismanagement under the tasa program yeah so I hear about this from Members all the time I could give you a couple of examples one is is an application for chemicals that goes into electric vehicle batteries um despite providing
▶ 1:04:31all the information EPA is requested that application has been pending now for almost five years okay so that's number one number two uh 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've been waiting for over a year from EPA to approve uh their pmns so there's at least a couple examples and there are many more uh We've also had EPA tell our members that well you know you need to notify us
▶ 1:05:01and put it on the cover page when you submit your proposal that's that's how bad it's gotten at this point and we've said look we do that with it's throughout the proposal is anybody actually reading this that's where we are right now yeah okay they don't like where the information is on the packet correct that's very annoying um Mr Moody this is this is kind of related because in your testimony you you say that they failed to differentiate between the risks risk posed by a chemical and a consumer product which is of course there's a wide amount of
▶ 1:05:31exposure there versus the risk posed in a closed loop process um how how can we promulgate better and more pragmatic regulations for existing Chemicals differentiating Between these different conditions of so risk is a is a combination of Hazard and exposure um we've talked about that where you have something we where we have a chemical in a closed loop system there is no exposure and so there should be it should be a lower
▶ 1:06:02risk risk assessment at the end of the day because there is no exposure uh we we've seen multiple incidents uh over the last few years of EPA assessing an unreasonable risk on a chemical as a whole uh but then intermediate processes get get wrapped into that and you know one example and TC has come up a couple times today but uh it's an impurity as part of a refining catalyst process all closed loop uh but uh where EP to ban that use we would have put half the gasoline Supply in the US at
▶ 1:06:32risk uh because uh it's used as a refining catalyst so thankfully we caught that and we engaged the agency and um you know we there's a dimin DI Minimus exemption in there but uh starting with this premise that all uses regardless of exposure um can create an unreasonable risk and then you're living by exemption is no way to run a program from our point of view right it's not a proper holistic risk assessment thank you I yield back gentleman yields back and now recognize Miss
▶ 1:07:02chikowski for her five minutes of questioning thank you Mr chairman and thank you to our Witnesses today really appreciate this um there's overwhelming evidence that we are all subjected in some way or another with uh chemicals that may not uh that that may hurt us um the children and of course workers are are are vulnerable
▶ 1:07:32and I think we have to um find out what is a danger to us and then to proceed um in the uh making the um most important thing our health and and and safety I was uh a proud uh co-sponsor of the Frank lottenberg act um and years ago and um I think that this is so incredibly uh
▶ 1:08:03important and deals with issues of uh chemical toxins that are that are there um and I I I saw that uh that that you um wait doctor where are you um hold on one second um
▶ 1:08:33okay no I still don't see it yeah Dr Del there we go I'm sorry my vision is not so great but I wanted to um thank you uh for mentioning that methylene chloride is dangerous um and it is is can be cancer causing um and I was so happy that during the Biden
▶ 1:09:03Administration um the EPA did actually um take off the U methylene chloride and is that's my understanding is that right yes ma'am it um prohibited certain uses and required protections for o worker protections for other uses so I wanted to um ask you um how important is the
▶ 1:09:34uh the the uh the lot the that legislation important why is it important and how has it proceeded to make our environment uh lenberg thank you um yes it's it's important because as you noted with methylene chloride and with other chemicals it is protecting um people children
▶ 1:10:05families 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 consum consumers and workers workers at businesses uh EPA was unable to take action under um Tusa
▶ 1:10:35before lottenberg 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 I want to thank you for year 30 years of service at the Environmental Protection Agency and and now um with the um private P
▶ 1:11:06the uh private sector uh continuing in in in your work um but I wanted to ask you I have heard that um those in the chemical industry want to take away some of the benefits that I see for the country for the for consumers um from the lottenberg bill I want don't you to comment on that thank
▶ 1:11:36you for the the question if we were to take away some of the protections to go back to Tusa before lottenberg we would be going back to a time in New chemicals where if there wasn't sufficient information chemicals just just went onto the market they were called drops because EPA couldn't make a determination and so many chemicals were uh went onto
▶ 1:12:06the 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 uh 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
▶ 1:12:36extremely harmful to large parts of um of the us we could do nothing about it thank you I realize my time is up is that right and I uh I yield back thank you thank you the generality yields back and chair right now recognizes Mr L from Ohio well thank you very much Mr chairman and thanks to our Witnesses for being with us today if I can start uh you know my district I have over 880,000 manufacturing
▶ 1:13:07jobs some of those are chemical companies and they produce a lot of different things that we have to use for everyday lives and uh Mr Jan if I could start my questions with you um you know I think it's interesting you know when you in your testim you're talking about we have we have to have a sensible regulatory environment Safeguard our communities protect the environment put Supply chains behind uh behind us and locking the full capability of our transportation Network you also state that our chemical program is broken
▶ 1:13:37and you also mention at the length of time you just mention it again for one of our members how long it's taking to get things done but you know one of the questions I think I'd like to ask is this when you say 63% have been under review for more than a year the question then becomes is are they approved are they denied or they just put out there for a longer wait period uh so it's a very good uh question and so uh yes there's no guarantee that these get approved and so some of the testimony you've heard earlier today
▶ 1:14:08talks about uh the thousands of chemicals that gone through the process I want to be really clear it's only been since the um the revised law passed it's about 1,700 chemicals that have gone through the process and been approved so we' we've heard uh much larger numbers that does not mean those are going into uh uh Commerce and you can go find that directly on the epa's website oh thank you and going back to your earlier statement about the our chain uh you
▶ 1:14:38know during Co we all know how broken we found that our supply chain became but you also bring talk about the supply chain and also that likely our manufacturer bring products to overseas markets what's what's that going to do our supply chain I think that's really important here in the United States because we don't have the necessary chemicals to make something you're going to go have to go offshore but what's that going to do to the American manufacturing we have to do right here for own National Security that's exactly right so again as a reminder chemistry is at
▶ 1:15:08the beginning of the manufacturing supply chain literally everything starts with us and so therefore there's a direct correlation between smart chemical management policy and the ability to maintain a robust and resilient supply chain give you one example semiconductors so it takes five 500 chemistries to manufacture one computer chip so Congress uh has worked very hard to try to make sure that we're onshoring the manufacturer of computer chips we need to take equal care in chemical management policy
▶ 1:15:38to ensure that the inputs that make that possible are also made here to protect our national and economic security and just real Bri briefly what what are foreign competitors doing our foreign competitors in terms of um improving new chemistry you know if you look at uh look at Canada you look at Korea you look at the EU typically you're looking at one to three months to get their chemistries approved at the outside about six months so we are well well behind and if you look at the manufacturing space as a whole China
▶ 1:16:09is nearly four times our size in terms of their production of chemistry that lead is growing thank you Mr uh Mr Dr angler you mentioned about you know we've got reduced innov Innovation uh hampered the adoption of sustainable chemistry uh one of question like to ask uh do we re need reform or more money in the in the whole system I'm sorry we need to have uh reform or do we have to have more money in the system I'm not I'm not sure what the correct funding level is
▶ 1:16:39um I I think there's because of Staff turnover there have been a lot of new hires there have been changes I think the program is still uh getting its feet under itself so I think there's some inefficiencies built in there um I'd like to see some more maturity before say yes the program needs a lot more uh resources but it may it may need more people um I think it certainly needs more resources to help with its um it systems but uh you know we've been seeing in the and hearing from the testimony you know about uh
▶ 1:17:10happening with this reduced Innovation and as youve talked about in sustainable chemistry you know the concern again is we got to move things to Market are things moving to Market quickly or not oh no things are things are delayed literally for years okay let me let me ask this question um again U you know we're we're falling behind is what it sounds like in this country and also U you know you you your question about vinegar vinegar is found on every I I'd like to go to any grocery
▶ 1:17:40store in the United States not finding the 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 uh we're not going to even have have EPA on grocery shelves you think that would happen if they would they were're going to look at vinegar once more well I think if if EPA looked at a lot of products um they would they would a lot of current consumer products they would probably ban them because of the potential that somebody might misuse it well thank
▶ 1:18:10you very much sure my time's expired I yield back gentleman yields back now recognize Dr Ruiz for his five minutes of questioning thank you so much um you know I just we we updated the amendment to make it reflect 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 uh you know Dr do just explained that indeed no there's no
▶ 1:18:40EPA Banning of household vinegar to scrub your pots uh and you know I want you to all know as a scientist and as a physician uh we've known for many years by Dr Vera who said that uh any substance in in the right quantity can be toxic to your to your health so you know let's just put aside these different hypotheticals and and let's talk about tasa because it's it's an important piece of legislation
▶ 1:19:11it it uh 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 substance Control Act is vital to protecting Americans from dangerous chemicals like asbestos chloride trior ethylene that can cause cancers severe heart liver renal diseases to people and for decades the former
▶ 1:19:41task law failed to safeguard our communities allowing people to H be exposed to harmful chemicals in their homes and workplaces and this failure disproportionately impacted vulnerable populations especially our children children who are particularly susceptible due to their size physiology developmentally uh growing brain and and certain behaviors and as an Emergency Physician I've treated kids from the devastating effects of inhaling or ingesting these
▶ 1:20:11toxic chemicals and um exposures during critical development stages can lead to severe lifelong Health consequences that's why the uh 2016 lenberg Act was so important you see it strengthened Tasca by among other changes requiring the EPA to protect susceptible populations including children said hey these are the ones that can be affected the most if ingested or inhaled accidentally so you know we need to evaluate
▶ 1:20:42these 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 bical approach to provide more safety and protection so these methods examine all exposures Pathways and real life real life scenarios so it is important step forward to safeguarding the health of all Americans Dr D you know why is it important that EPA moved to a whole
▶ 1:21:12chemical approach when assessing the risks of a chemical substance especially for vulnerable populations and what does the whole chemical approach mean 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 it from the air water including drinking water from soil from consumer products
▶ 1:21:42um because that looking at all the things you are exposed to prevents an accurate assessment of of the risk that you will counter and I look at it as analogous to your diet when you think about calories you take or let's say you have a goal of 2000 what you ate for breakfast what you had for lunch you just don't compare to your goal what you had for breakfast and say
▶ 1:22:13that's fine you look at everything you have compared to your goal and it's particularly important for children because children's bodies don't distinguish whether they're exposed to something from a consumer product from the air from the water uh from dust kids put uh things in their 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 I have 30 seconds
▶ 1:22:43left I have one last question um the EPA considers susceptible population such as children its chemical reviews How does it go about doing that what additional protections do they have children so it looks at multiple steps uh it looks at the total whole chemical um it looks at the fact that children metabolized chemicals different are exposed a little bit different a lot of hand to mouth it it um
▶ 1:23:14focuses on the harms that are U more important for uh children and it should also be looking at um filling data gaps on children's exposure thank you I yield back gentleman yields back now recognizes Mr Palmer for his five minutes questions okay appre thank you Mr chairman I um appreciate the witnesses if you give me very brief answers I got a lot of material to cover um Mr Moody
▶ 1:23:44uh 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 uh mitigate other environmental issues yes sir looking yes sir uh that from our members they have uh multiple applications that have been pending for EPA in front of years that so it could improve
▶ 1:24:15and and uh M Dr angler uh you you made a point about the the pre-manufacturing notifications have declined by over two-thirds and um U 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 other uses to improve quality of life and lower the cost of living absolutely many of our clients are are commercializing overseas let me
▶ 1:24:45um point out some things I I ran a think tank for years and we used to publish um an environmental indicators that covered air emissions water quality land use Toxic release including Toxic release inventory so I started looking at the epa's Toxic release inventory and uh it's remarkable how much we've improved in that area just from 2012 uh to 2022 uh We've uh
▶ 1:25:15We've decreased the amount of of Toxic release inventory by by 21% and since 2000 it's over 50% uh is that does that indicate um uh the commitment of of the industry to improving Environmental Quality it's a an indication of the commitment to the industry it's also an indication of the innovations that are coming in to replace the more harmful things that also includes risk scening environmental indicators which is gone down at 22% um yeah actually I worked on the risk
▶ 1:25:45Greening environmental indicators while I was at EPA as well and and the and the REI scores have improved significantly um when we talk about the tox release inventory that includes some uses that my colleagues across the aisle are very high on particularly in terms of renewable energy production uh it you you require toxic U chemicals used in in wind turbines would that be true drct Mr John yes it is uh and in addition to that I would say
▶ 1:26:15there's also 10 tons of plastic and a wood turbine as well right and 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 uh there's 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 uh posos chemicals now this my colleagues across the aisle when they were in
▶ 1:26:46majority moved legislation to to ban posos they want to completely eliminate it but according to couple articles I have here Mr chairman that uh I think we should introduce into the record uh the truth about dangerous chemicals and solar panels and P waste from solar panels uh Mr chairman I'd like to introduce those into the record if there's no objection uh what we'll do is we'll put that onto the list assuming that there's no objection from the Democrat side and we'll
▶ 1:27:16take it up at the end of the hearing well I'm sure they won't object to sign I'm sure they won't either but um I it's it is courtesy for me to give them an to at least review it well you're very courteous chairman thank you thank you um in 2022 the market share for posos materials and and the which are used in the outer layers of uh solar panels was close to 80% and as I said most of the solar panels have no characteristics for recycling is that problematic
▶ 1:27:46um Dr Engler um well it's it's it's only from let me restate okay is it hypocritical because there are there are legitimate uses for pii and I would say that solar panels using posos to harden the the outer layer to make them more durable would be a legitimate use would you agree with that yes I would would you agree that
▶ 1:28:17to uh eliminate all pii or or to support pii for certain uses that they favor as opposed to other uses well I think an evaluation of P should depend on the specific P it's an extraordinary broad cat a legitimate you would you would agree with that yeah categorically I would I would support Alternatives if if there are alternatives and I think the technolog is catching up so with that Mr chairman I'm happily yield back thank you gentleman for yielding back now recognize Mr Peters for his
▶ 1:28:47five minutes of questions thank you Mr chairman thanks to the witnesses uh and thanks for holding this hearing today I have to acknowledge upfront that my first job out of college was in the office of toxic substances where I was what is sometimes called a faceless unelected bureaucrat but the the acronyms um CBI and pmn are seared into my memory will never never leave um and look I know the chemical industry plays a vital role in Innovation uh including development of safer alternatives to replace hazardous substances I know these advancements
▶ 1:29:17are crucial to the transition to clean energy for public health as Mr Palmer suggesting um and I do understand that uh tasa review can feel like a massive uh roadblock uh and I do remember the paperwork particularly when companies are introducing newer safer chemicals that align with our regulatory goals um 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
▶ 1:29:48Technologies and can discourage risk-taking which is important in this field um but Tusa was designed to Prior PR ize the protection of human health and the environment Above All Else the the requirement to Pro to determine unreasonable risk without considering costs is a Cornerstone of the 2016 lenberg amendments which this committee worked on as well uh and the idea is to ensure that decisions are based on science and Public Safety Not economic pressures um we can create a regulatory regime that supports Innovation protects Health in the environment maintains public
▶ 1:30:18confidence and chemical safety and I would like to look forward uh to work with this community to uphold the principles of Tusa while addressing the challenges and opportunities ahead many of which you've identified Dr angler um in your opinion are there changes to Tusa or its Administration that would both bolster critical Innovation and maintain protections can you give me two or three ideas yeah absolutely so I think it EPA needs clear guidance from Congress on what level of uncertainty is is acceptable does does does
▶ 1:30:48EPA 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 so a more objective um metric against which to decide that ye yes something to differentiate not likely from may present okay have have have you have you proposed um a particular kind of way to adjudicate that uh well the I mean as I was thinking about it the the intellectually the threshold that I would propose is
▶ 1:31:18not likely and more likely than not because more likely than not gives some clarity that there doesn't need need to be certainty um 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 Dr DOA outside of a ban what are the range of options available to EPA when we address the chemicals risks there are a wide range um of options and um they in Tusa also including
▶ 1:31:49changes to um the production processes uh limits on concentration of the use of the chemical it could be labeling there could be record keeping um and I would note you know these this menu is explicit for existing chemicals and this gets to the conversation you had where the the finding there is with a high degree of certainty for existing chemicals and that's why
▶ 1:32:19it's a multi-year process as opposed to new chemicals we more un certainty was foreseen by congress with the may present in particularly given U the lack of information that's usually uh included with the submissions yeah I mean I I wish I had been on the committee uh for the redo of that it happened just before I was on but I do remember um specifically in the area of dies that that even even small changes in the formulation with basically the same chemical
▶ 1:32:49group would come under this tremendous review and whether they were new or not I guess they were were technically new but often they were basically the same and so um what did you hear Dr Angler's um proposal for a for uh sorting out risk did you understand what he said I think the issue was on like the level of certainty and I think there's quite a bit of that that's already in the statutory language but I'd like to comment on the issue ask him what what what in the statutory
▶ 1:33:19language would you think needs to be changed uh 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's any uncertainty what what happens now is if they have uncertainty it may present unreasonable risk and there's always uncertainty and there's always in places where people are risk averse about making decisions so I would just say maybe we can work on on tightening that up again so we can we can get what we want we can also do it in a way that um that's constructive Mr chairman I look
▶ 1:33:49forward to working on this issue I you back thank you very much and I now recognize Dr Joyce for his five minutes of questioning first I want to thank you chairman Griffith and ranking member Tonka for holding this hearing 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 dollar it provides over a half a million of Highly skilled jobs for Americans just as important American Chemical industry
▶ 1:34:20produces 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 TR chloroethylene which is used to manufacture each and every battery batteries that brought us here in our vehicles today while China has invested heavily to dominate the global rare Earth
▶ 1:34:50mineral 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 feed stocks has given our nation a competitive advantage against the geopolitical competitors that we face and we cannot afford to Fumble this lead
▶ 1:35:20because of bad regulations this is a heavily regulated industry and we must keep workers and the public safe but it should be with science grounded risk-based approach rather than Hazard Focus broad regulations and sadly over the past four years we have seen Tusa 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
▶ 1:35:51and 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 US to unleash energy production and how does that affect global competitiveness well thank you for the uh the question Congressman I would just say at the outset we have the world's most competitive refining and petrochemical Industry uh hands down this due to a combination of factors
▶ 1:36:21you mentioned uh natural gas so we have cost advantag feed stocks here we have an unsurpassed Workforce uh structural advantages throughout so these are economic drivers of our communities um and National Security assets that we we shouldn't be taking for granted um I would say affordable energy in general makes it easier to uh ship uh ship goods to manufacture Goods uh through Power Generation Um and it provides consumers with more disposable income at the end of the day to to spend in other parts of the economy
▶ 1:36:52so affordable reli energy is critical to everything we do um in the US you mentioned natural gas um that's both the transportation fuel um can also be used as a feed stock uh we're cost Advantage there most of the world uses a chemical called Napa which is more expensive our petrochemical manufacturers have a have a tremendous Advantage here in the US uh implementation of tasa and what we're talking about today is critical to make sure that we can take advantage of that and that we're taking advantage of these natural security assets so thank you Mr
▶ 1:37:22John oan sets enforcable 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 ecel in several Tusa section six roles and in most cases surpassing OSHA's set pel limits do you believe that the EPA has overstepped their statutory Authority and infringed
▶ 1:37:52upon OSHA's Authority by creating the E cells and how can the EPA utilize the best available science to set feasible reasonable and scientific limits absolutely so EPA has gone beyond its statutory mandate and it's now in OSHA's territory o OSHA is responsible for workplace safety EPA has seemed fit to regulate there as well and it creates a situation where not only we not using the best available science it's creating duplication if we're really focused
▶ 1:38:22on making things more efficient in government um we can't have a standard that's set by EPA that's 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'd like to see EPA to focus on rightly focus on everything we've talked about this morning on its area of expertise and have OSHA focus on its thank you Mr chairman my time is expiring and I yield
▶ 1:38:53appreciate that thank you for yielding back now recognize Miss Baragon for her five minutes of questioning uh thank you Mr chairman um I'm sitting here uh in my prepar and hearing this hearing and in my preparation I was thinking we were going to have a greater conversation about chemicals and what we're going to actually do to protect Children and Families across the country from chemicals that cause lethal or Life alterate Health harms and that's what I thought this where this hearing
▶ 1:39:24was 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 uh 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 Nations chemical safety
▶ 1:39:54law 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 eom Madres for a moment who was 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 uh Dr doe we've heard a lot today about delay delays on these new
▶ 1:40:24chemicals um I've also heard from public health and environmental groups about delays by the EP 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 yes I think it's important for EPA to move as expeditiously
▶ 1:40:55as 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 management uh to add address these risks and this will
▶ 1:41:25also by looking at them together it would also result in um not going towards uh regrettable substitution well thank you so I you know there was a all the conversation was about the new chemicals and the delay that's been happening I pulled up the EPA website um from January 6th you know of this year and I think it showed about a quarter of uh the delay was waiting on the submitter
▶ 1:41:55to submit something or to sign something um in this case you know my question is related to all of these chemicals that are already out there uh that happened pre 2016 where there is a delay and our children are being exposed to a day in and day out and I think that's where we've definitely failed our communities um Dr DOA for the fiscal year 2025 My House Republicans and colleagues have proposed a 20% cut to epa's budget
▶ 1:42:26can you talk about how this cut uh would cause further delays uh for chemical reviews and risk evaluations 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's not the right expertise trying to get that expertise will slow things
▶ 1:42:56down um 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 great thank you Dr do in 2024 the EPA updated its review process to consider the impact of chemicals on community ities already affected by pollution why is it important
▶ 1:43:26for the EPA to consider overburdened communities when they assess chemical health risk it's extremely important because overburdened communities often have higher exposures they're exposed to more chemicals including chemicals that cause the same harms um and not uh assessing them just leaves them at greater risk for a longer period of time well great thank you um I just uh want to say I think the previous administration uh you know made progress
▶ 1:43:56in helping protect our communities and our children and public health whereas this incoming um Administration and my colleagues are focused on making cuts and taking away those protection that's very harmful thank you with that I yield back gentle lady yields back now recognize Mr fluger for his five minutes of questions thank you Mr chairman uh I think this Administration is focused on Innovation which is the competitive Advantage this country has and instead of doing things in a uh rudimentary and out-of-date way
▶ 1:44:27uh why don't we do it in an expeditious and at the speed of Commerce and Technology kind of way Mr Jean it's good to see you again um 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 uh and and just the daily use thing just give us three or four examples in the room absolutely so the clothes you're wearing the phone that you're using microphone I'm talking to the Cherry you're sitting in everything starts with the chemical industry the
▶ 1:44:57and you know you you can look around in our daily lives and this is something that that we um we're not going backwards we're not going to abandon this but but we have to do this so that we lower cost and we use innovation to keep us safe and uh to to be able to um to continue to develop products so uh tusa's definition of unreasonable risk is Broad it's open to interpretation uh leading to regulatory uncertainty and my question for you Mr John is how has this lack of spec specificity impacted the chemical industry's
▶ 1:45:28ability to actually innovate yeah so again we see that CH challenge in the uh new chemicals program we had a nice discussion about what that threshold is be what is EPA looking for and how can they make decisions more quickly and I think the um important part to understand too going back to the previous conversation is that EPA has been doing less with more they've had higher Congressional Appropriations and they've had additional fees from industry double the twice the fees on new chemical submissions and triped the fees on existing chemicals
▶ 1:45:58so they've had me more resources and they've been less productive over this Administration so that uh impacts uh 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'll be done somewhere else our industry has not stopped innovating but 7% of our members have made the rational bus business decision to go somewhere else if it's made here you've just made it more costly coming off a period of high inflation
▶ 1:46:29prices up 23% over the past few years we're either killing jobs killing Innovation and harming consumers it's a bad combination I can't wait to see what uh Mr zeldon is going to do with that to make sure that government is not an impediment Mr Moody when it comes to the uh analysis the economic factors especially during the initial stages of risk evaluation in osca um you know can you provide examples uh of Industries or products significantly affected uh by the shift since the 2016 amendment was put in
▶ 1:47:03so we we there's kind two pro two part parts of the program so we have the existing chemicals program the new chemicals program um in the existing chemicals program which is uh really at this point uh dealing with a lot of the things at the top of the supply chain uh we're looking at risk evaluations under review now that will literally impact thousands and thousands and thousands of uh iterations so you know it hard to quantify that cost but it's significant
▶ 1:47:34on the on the new chemical program it's not only the existing um the existing cost and loss but it's also the opportunity cost right and there are things that we could be doing that we're not doing companies are not uh choosing to take the risk uh in you know of going through a lengthy R&D process in order to get to something the end of the day so there just has to be a better balance that we strike at the end of the day um Dr angler I'll I'll end with you in the last minute uh The epa's Authority Under Tusa extends to regulating the full
▶ 1:48:04life cycle of chemical substances including disposal and in your experience um has the EPA managed this respons this responsibility well in those areas uh and where is uh where is its approach um needing Improvement give us some examples uh of this full kind of life cycle regulatory idea so EPA routinely looks at endof life disposal for new chemicals they look at um potential exposures from landfill water releases Air
▶ 1:48:34um and they predict potential um uh dose to anyone who's nearby um but when EP even when EPA in using their worst case assumptions does not find any exceedances um even if it's you know orders of magnitude below their concern level they're still issuing some um to make sure that that would never ever exceed that level so we see it most acutely in water releases very good Mr chairman great hearing thank you for this thanks to the witnesses for your testimony
▶ 1:49:04I you back thank the gentleman and now recognize Mr aen Claus for his five minutes of questioning thank you chairman uh I've learned a lot in this hearing and through the written testimony thank you the hazard times exposure framework is is useful to me it what I'm hearing and reading is that um you industry seems frustrated that maybe EPA is not thinking about exposure the way that that it fully could whether it's intermediate closed loop systems or or protections that your workers are are taking on seems like
▶ 1:49:34EPA is very skeptical the industry is fully accounting for the hazards that actually exist in these chemicals because there is a financial incentive to downplay those hasb birds and both sides I think have have merits behind those arguments what I'm not hearing is industry see seing to unravel high standards that were put in place by Tusa or by the lenberg Amendments I mean Mr John Mr Moody are either of you arguing that we should undo the lenberg Amendments I I
▶ 1:50:04appreciate the opportunity to make that clarification I'll be very clear that we are not looking to undo roll back uh tusco reform and we are looking to get Common Sense science-based regulation yeah I think both sides are uh want high standards and I'm sure you know the GAO report has 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 Trump Administration is going to come in
▶ 1:50:35and just unravel the regulatory regime and it's actually not going to be the 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 that's not what it's going to be like it's going to reward the worst actors who are who are externalizing all the negative cost to society I'm not going to expect you to resp respond to that I'll put that out there let me move in though to P Faz uh because this is an area of particular concern for Massachusetts we have Pas Faz uh in our soil
▶ 1:51:05and in our water and I applaud and appreciate the muscular steps that EPA under the Biden Administration has taken to have higher standards for p Faz and drinking water as we all know though this is probably the hardest place to tackle the P Faz problem and it's at its absolute most diluted and the most expensive for Municipal Water Supplies to remediate strikes me that we really got to try to remediate P at the point of production now I've heard uh Dr I think it was you say that may not be able to treat P Faz as a class I would respectfully
▶ 1:51:36disagree there's scientific Merit behind treating pasas as a class and if you do so you can start to lean in to how we tackled cfc's 40 years ago through an essentiality framework where you divide them up into a non-essential substitutable and essential categories for example non-essential would be things like dental floss or water repellent ski surfaces um substitutable might be kind of textiles like for jackets that people wear and then essential would be for medical devices
▶ 1:52:06or For Occupational protective clothing and I want to open it up for our our uh Witnesses here just to comment on what you think about moving towards a a pretty near complete band of pad in production using an essentiality framework of non-essential substitutable and essential I'll start with you Dr uh D thank you for the question most of the uses on the market of pasas are for what would be characterized as non-essential uses were there already
▶ 1:52:36um really good alternatives on the market and even for some of the more essential uses solar panels uh were mentioned earlier and P is used for that but I think it's about 40% of the market is for uh uses nonpast so there are alternatives for hydrogen there are alternatives for uh hydrogen production for some uses there there's a lot of research um
▶ 1:53:07that is going into that and I think one important step is EPA has approvals that are still on the books for P that were made 10 to 20 years ago roke do yeah 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 and revoke them particularly for where the uses are not needed I want to give Dr Engler the last word here could we adopt an essentiality framework
▶ 1:53:37like we did for CFCs and apply it to PS well I think it really comes down to what is the the potential risk because respectfully I disagree this the science behind something that has a million molecular weight and something that has 40 uh molecular weight is very different the the the exposure to the humans is just vastly different so the the toxicities the hazards are not at all similar across the entire category but do you think even the six P FAS that EPA has already said are carcinogenic do you agree that those six P FAS which we don't want in our drinking water but we still allow in production
▶ 1:54:07should should they at the very least be phased out of production uh largely they have been the the the the most hazardous C8 Pat have already been phased out of the vast majority of uses and there's 300 more that the EPA indicated are potentially cryogenic should these be fed out um and EPA is moving forward with with looking at those and possibly restricting those I yield back chlan yields back now recognize Mr Weber for his five minutes of questions thank you Mr chairman Mr angel I'm going to come to you um I understand that under the Biden Administration
▶ 1:54:38EPA would sometimes provide federal agencies like NASA a lot of those work in my district it's about a half mile north of my district and DOD last minute exemptions for critical uses based on a broken process for DOD NASA and other federal agencies identify a problem and bring it to the EPA to plead for resolution seems like this process makes our national security chemical supply chain vulnerable and puts the burden on federal agencies like NASA or DOD
▶ 1:55:08to 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 inter agency process under Tasco and what do you recommend moving forward
▶ 1:55:38how do we fix this coordination problem and does providing last minute last minute critical use exemptions for DOD and others simply exacerbate the problem your thoughts well I think the the my in my the primary problem is is epa's approach if once they find that they can establish a safe uh level for workplace use both for inhalation and a protection plan for uh uh dermal exposure then they should set that as the standard and not nitpick about specific
▶ 1:56:08uses if NASA or DOD or one of their contractors can meet the standard there shouldn't be a ban for that use um and that's that's a question about what does the extent necessary mean it's one of the key terms in tasa um coordination between and among federal agencies it's been a problem it was a problem when I was EPA it continues to be a problem and it's a real challenge everyone's very busy but as you know it's critically important that that EPA speak with their sister agencies do we know do we have a way of monitoring measuring who is is responsible for
▶ 1:56:38the timing and those responses do we know that in the APA uh typically that's done during the in inter agency review of of rules and I've heard I haven't experienced it it because uh you know we don't represent other agencies but I've heard um from other Federal uh partners that EPA is giving other federal agencies very short periods of time to review rules Mr John I see you chomping at the bit over there so I'm actually coming to you chemical manufacturers in my district have long expressed concerns
▶ 1:57:09about epa's review of new chemicals now I'm going to go back to something that happened I don't know about a month or so back we're all aware that a lot of federal employees are working from home right and we're hoping that Trump does something about that and gets them back to you I know y all heard this something about this guy that actually was working from home and posted a video or picture of him in the bathtub taking a bubble bath so in in your view would it be advantageous for us to get those federal employees including EPA
▶ 1:57:39you know back to work in the offices minus the pictures of the bubble bath yeah I'm not interested in the bubble bath but uh uh uh yes it 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'd also like to clarify because we've heard a lot this morning about this idea that industry is withholding information it's too slow our we went through this this morning 11% of the applications that are behind schedule
▶ 1:58:10are waiting for industry information that means more than three quarters we're waiting on EPA to act so I just want to be clear about that that's great uh chemical manufacturing my district long have expressed concerns about those reviews of new chemicals and in fact they're tell they're 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 there's probably a whole lot of factors involved unfortunately there's no Avenue
▶ 1:58:40as y'all will painfully know there's 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're calling a 90-day shot clock for a temporary approval of the chemical to be granted while the EPA finishes that review absolutely I think that's fundamental to fixing the problems that we're having with tasa is having a shot clock and accountability
▶ 1:59:10for that deadline we'd be happy to work with anyone on the committee to help make that happen very quickly what's the high likelihood that a temporary approval would still be too much uncertainty for chemical manufacturers under under the current uh process very high well thank you for that Mr chairman i y back chair y's back now recognize Mr Carter of Louisiana for his five minutes of question thank you Mr chairman and thank the witnesses for being here we greatly appreciate your your time and expertise and interest in being with us
▶ 1:59:41I represent um south Louisiana New Orleans and the River Parishes um a district that encompasses uh the River Parishes where unfortunately a term that we don't like but we're 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 believe to be linked to industrial pollution I'm particularly
▶ 2:00:11interested in how the toxic substance Control Act incorporates the concerns and health of fenine communities like those in this industrial Corridor a prime example of these dangerous chemicals being manufactured in their homes and schools is methylene chloride a carogen with a wide range of commercial and Commercial uses we understand and I've heard discussions today about
▶ 2:00:42well this is important and it these are chemicals that are needed for uh everyday life no one's questioning that what we're 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 close proximity of chemical plants they matter and coexistence becomes the order of the
▶ 2:01:12day 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 to breathe it's not about us against them it's not industry against Community or vice versa it's about making sure that we're taking care of our most important commodity our Earth our people human lives
▶ 2:01:42industry 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 reduce these necessities of life without killing people right so so I want to I want to talk about how do we find a way to to to invest human capital research and development to do better so uh Dr DOA
▶ 2:02:13how did the lotenberg act in EPA to address dangerous chemicals like methylene chloride one important thing that the lottenberg 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 lottenberg
▶ 2:02:43did was what has been called the whole chemical approach it's doing a better job at looking at the range of exposures and risks the 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
▶ 2:03:13what folks are exposed to this leads to more informed decisions on how to mitigate those unreasonable r which is key they shouldn't be treated as as second class to the prophets for the use of these old school chemicals there should be Innovation to get to safer sub substitutes instead of using tce and perchloroethylene and methylene chloride all these that cause
▶ 2:03:43liver cancer and a range of other harms and the notion that because we've 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 uh alarming rates of of cancer deaths so uh Mr John can you share with me U from your perspective what what are we doing what are you doing to to to work to combat the the dangers
▶ 2:04:14of business as usual as we attempt to move forward to have a safer way of predicting Lives why while necessarily using chemicals that are important to everyday life I thank you for the opportunity to respond to that number one methylene chloride has been banned by EPA as a paint stripper that's totally appropriate and that's what they should do under Tusa number two and you and I had did an event in Louisiana a couple years ago and we talked about this our members uh comply with a program called responsible care
▶ 2:04:44we 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 it's a condition of membership I'm sorry I got 22 I got just I have no time actually can I just ask you real quickly can you in 10 seconds and that's probably more than I have tell me what what are you what's your industry doing 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
▶ 2:05:15we've 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 non-members we are four times safer than all of manufacturing but those are outcomes you're not telling what you've done to get there so I'm going to yield back my time is but I'd love to spend some more time talking with you about that and would remind all members that uh we do have the opportunity to ask questions for the record after the hearing is over I know five minutes is limited but we got a lot of folks who won't ask
▶ 2:05:45questions Miss Leah Florida is now recognized for five minutes thank you Mr chairman and thank you to our w 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 John 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
▶ 2:06:16real industry in those ways I'd like to focus on agriculture and hear your thoughts about how some of these same challenges affect our Growers and producers uh indeed so a number of the chemistries have been mentioned today whether it's from alide uh ethylene oxide and others uh have a significant role to play in agriculture keeping crops safe protecting them from harm and you know from our perspective as an industry food security is really National Security right we got 340 million Americans
▶ 2:06:46they all want to eat now tasa doesn't specifically get into EG chemicals that's in the pesticides office but we produce many of the uh chemicals that are used in precursors to manufacture pesticides and I will say that that office has the same problems that we are in uh same problems in timeliness in regards to tasa 70% of those chemistries are behind schedule as well so what I'm trying to say to the members of the committee is we have a cultural problem at EPA and not meeting deadlines and not being accountable and making sure that whether
▶ 2:07:16it's agriculture or any other industry has the resources they need to be able to feed and protect America 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 so we are the most heavily regulated sector in American manufacturing that burden has doubled over the last 20 years and the B Administration would have increased that by 50% with
▶ 2:07:46no commensurate environmental health benefits so there are a lot of things that I point to there 13 different regulations targeted just our industry seven of them economically significant more than the Trump um Obama and Bush administrations combined but I would point you to two one is the risk evaluation rule relevant to Tusa that doesn't actually focus on risk and number two the ne new chemicals rule does not fix the challenges that we are talking about here today which is why we are asking
▶ 2:08:16for legislative Solutions Dr inler your ear 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
▶ 2:08:47and how you believe it affects industry well it I I think it affects both industry and health in the environment because if we're 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 um it's 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
▶ 2:09:17team and what are your thoughts on ways that we might improve that process to ensure that we are receiving more consistent and predictable results so it's it's critical that EPA have um written policies and procedures and that everybody at EPA and their contractors follow those policies policies and procedures and how could that more efficient or improved review process specifically contribute to the development and use of green or more
▶ 2:09:48sustainable chemicals that would go back to my earlier question about helping and supporting uh farmers and ranchers in developing those precursor chemicals that are so important to their operations so if there's a clear standard that that people can design to for green or 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 it will be approved without regulation and done so timely thank you Dr inler and Mr Moody uh you mentioned in your
▶ 2:10:18testimony um food packaging as an example of an everyday product that consumers use that is important uh for us in utilizing our everyday life and getting existing chemistries uh and products that they need to Consumers uh would you discuss your thoughts on how we can ensure that the procedures in the regulatory review are uh productive efficient and share with us if packaging and the other products you've discussed today aren't
▶ 2:10:48available in the US where will we be going to Source those items thank you for the question um I'd just like to take a moment to associate myself with some comments Mr John said and you know afpm is not here calling for a roll back or an overhaul uh we're looking for I think some very targeted changes and gets to your question the one thing I'd point to um is probably one of our biggest issues is there's a term and to call conditions ofuse and it deals with things that are known
▶ 2:11:18or re reason to be foreseeable and you're supposed to assess risk based on conditions from our perspective when EPA comes in and starts uh talking about or evaluating rare occurrences accidents um closed loop systems uh those are not reason be foreseeable exposures that should be a condition of use for that chemical um and so one thing I would say is let's clarify that that that the the legislation does not
▶ 2:11:48Encompass those types of things um and really focused on the conditions of use that we really think about which is the uh the normal conditions of use where there would be an exposure uh if you do that and you're really focusing on where the pathways are uh where consumers are actually to come into contact with things I think that's where the the best use of resources are g l yields back now recognize Mr lansman of Ohio for his five minutes of questioning thank you Mr chair and thank you for this uh hearing for the testimony I appreciate uh everyone that this is um
▶ 2:12:19big takeaway from me is that there is Broad support for lottenberg that you know it's done some good things I want to get into one particular piece which is really important to me I know it's important to everybody but the ASB bestus uh work so I have a question on that there also seems to be alignment on the fact that we all know that it's in our best interest to manage the risk of chemicals before they come to Market
▶ 2:12:49and the question is how best to do that and and uh 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 uh you all can uh attract Capital um and and and and the 90day piece is where I want to sort of
▶ 2:13:19focus but first I want to ask Dr DOA the asbest piece uh can you just talk a little bit about the health implications and why it was so important for Congress to improve the law uh to you know properly address uh the toxic chemicals associated with the bestus thank you for the question well TheBus is highly toxic carcinogen and the real world
▶ 2:13:49implications are the 40,000 Americans die yearly from a speciesist exposure and this was something EPA tried to ban many years ago on sucessful unsuccessfully which is why lottenberg is so important and they ban being phased out the 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
▶ 2:14:19longstanding source of exposure similar to lead paint homes thank you for that and it demonstrates the value of the law the work uh the update the the question sort of moving forward and and I I know we're just getting started which is good uh is one of them has to do with the the process and I'm I'm curious and and and folks can answer
▶ 2:14:50or simply submit met or we can sort of take this up um later but if the majority of of things coming through aren't hitting that 90day Mark and that's a big part of uh the issue here because we want to make sure that uh we keep folks moving through the system while also ensuring that we're keeping people safe is there process Improvement that's being done is this something that the EPA has money for has invested
▶ 2:15:20in uh do we have a sense as to what kind of uh improvement work happens uh and and what we could be doing in an updated uh piece of legislation to invest in Improvement so that we don't take away safeguards but we make the process and I think you you've alluded to this uh Mr John uh make the process smarter more efficient and and the lines of communication just so
▶ 2:15:51so much better uh that uh people are getting in and out and we're protecting people I'm curious and maybe start with you Dr DOA and Mr John if if we have some time thank you I think one thing that's really important about this um is a decision that's made on the new chemical is something we will live with for a long time yeah and that um the 90 days com compared to the multi-year process for existing chemicals to address it later
▶ 2:16:21is key I think one thing that's important that EPA did they did a 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 uh redoing the risk assessment multiple multiple time so I think that's an important First Step thank you quickly so better communication uh uh accountability for
▶ 2:16:51the 90-day deadline and then one thing that nobody's mentioned today so far is artificial intelligence yeah we're in the cusp of changing the world in regards to artificial intelligence including in the advanced material 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 thank you a yo back gentlemen y's back now recognize M fedorak for her five minutes of questioning good morning uh chair Griffin and uh ranking member Mr Tonka so this is
▶ 2:17:22my first uh meeting of the subcommittee and first uh hearing as a member of the ENC and I'm really excited to be here and get started um 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 feed stock chemicals are essential to the production of fertilizers that fuel our
▶ 2:17:52billion and growing agriculture sector the farmers and ranchers in that sector produce the food that hopefully at some point today will get to eat for lunch or maybe dinner in 2024 the Biden administration's EPA finalized changes to chemical risk evaluations changing from statutorily Mand mandated risk-based approach to a zerob based uh hazard-based approach zero risk hazard-based approach we've talked a lot about that this morning
▶ 2:18:24already 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
▶ 2:18:54exposing them to intrusion by Foreign adversaries driving up costs for North Dakota farmers and ranchers and thereby for everything that we purchase these two 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
▶ 2:19:25are far-reaching impacts that go beyond just what we're talking about here this morning so I want to just dig into that a little bit more the change in the uh approach that the EPA is taking um 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 of its evaluations the agency has also claimed that
▶ 2:19:55quote provides Tasca Pro provides the agency the authority to consider the combined risk for multiple chemical substances or a category of chem chemical substances Mr John does tasa clearly give the EPA this Authority or is this a new interpretation of the statute we believe this to be a new interpretation of the statute and in the statute there's a requirement to use the best available science there's a requirement to focus on the weight of scientific evidence
▶ 2:20:26and to look at uh exposures um 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 okay thank you Dr angler would you agree with this characterization of what EPA is supposed to consider when conducting a risk evaluation for a particular chemical well I think there are circumstances it's scientifically Justified
▶ 2:20:56for EP to look at at potential um cumulative risk um but it's the the they simply can't say we have to look at every co-exposure of every possible thing and Mr John as the EPA looks at doing this and evaluate in all possible ways people might be exposed to a chemical instead of focusing only on its Prim AR use as someone in Industry how would you go about trying to determine that
▶ 2:21:27and uh helping to manage chemical exposure I think this is some of the challenges that we're run into with the implementation of Tasco was the here is appropriate to take a fresh look at this because it this is the 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 took told us to look at it up front and we're just guessing at what EPA wants in terms of information and potential exposures that they're looking at beyond the condition of use which the company is
▶ 2:21:57focused on are you ever asked to quantify Mr John the um impacts of the delays in you're not getting uh answers from the EPA in a timely manner yeah so it's very difficult uh to quantify the exact impacts on that but again when we're in a situation where the Chinese are the biggest producers in the world nearly four times our size that lead is growing and 70% of new molecules we create are going somewhere else the
▶ 2:22:27economic impact is significant and uh Dr inler from your perspective as someone with scientific background is this approach consistent with scientific principles um I would argue no I think EPA is is taking far too precautionary approach um um not considering what is realistic okay Jen lady yields back I recognize Mr Soto for his five minutes questioning thank you Mr chairman when the Frank L
▶ 2:22:57lenberg chemical safety for the 21st century Act was passed uh then Republican chair John shimkus was quoted as saying this legislation on the floor today will Mark the first consequential update of the tox toxic substances Control Act in 40 years the end result of our work is a vast improvement over Public Law uh these reforms were a bipartisan achievement I think we could all agree on that and we have to start from that
▶ 2:23:28going forward uh and we have three choices we could strengthen keep the same perhaps make it more efficient or weaken uh the laws I was happy to hear that many of you you're more looking at the paperwork than you are about lowering the standards that would be egregious you know we've heard about making America healthy again but it hasn't really been defined right I mean folks were outraged about red di recently and there's been demonization of vaccines and fluoride uh so I don't know how this would
▶ 2:23:58work coming right out of the gates in the first hearing uh 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 um but just not simply make it easier for toxic chemicals to be approved uh Dr DOA you one of the top three causes of cancer as you know is uh toxic chemicals and I think we all agree that Americans deserve the
▶ 2:24:28best information about the chemicals that they come into contact with and the risk of cancer uh China over the last 20 years um saw about 82 to 84% of their population exposed to carcinogens while we've seen a decline in the US uh should we really be looking at a China standard when we're coming to um protecting our constituents against uh toxic chemicals
▶ 2:24:58um excuse me I I think I miss part of what you said about China their standard do you mind repeating so we've seen about 83 84% of the Chinese population exposed to carcinogens over the last 20 years uh and at that same time we've seen a decline in the United States should should China really be the standard when we're looking at Public Health in these areas of toxic chemicals oh no my goodness um we shouldn't approve chemicals
▶ 2:25:29and harm significant parts of our fellow of our population harm our fellow citizens um I I believe American innovation can develop useful chemicals that Embrace health and safety they're not mutually exclusive and certainly our lives are not inappropriate tradeoff um for chemicals thank you Dr Ango I really liked your vinegar example you know people know
▶ 2:25:59vinegar though right they know not to rub it on their faces they don't uh drink it straight um it's commonly known that it can be an irritant in those areas but folks don't know poly floro Al kill right um a chemical that has caused a cancer cluster and uh among firefighters in Florida so how much is of a heads up do we really need to give folks for all these chemicals unlike vineger that they would have no idea about
▶ 2:26:30well I think there's an extraordinary range of Hazards from things that are minor things that are um knowable like vinegar but manageable and things that are very hazardous and so the same approach um isn't applicable across that entire range so what EPA has done historically and in my view should be doing is looking focusing on um the particular hazards of the particular chemical and deciding does this particular chemistry need to have restrictions going forward and there are definitely
▶ 2:27:00pmns and some of our clients pmns that are highly hazardous that EPA has restricted and entirely Justified ways and there are others that I think EPA is taking far too precautionary approach because these are hazards that don't need EPA to to issue restrictions now we saw a parallel Al this with FDA with red die recently being banned how do you make a consistency between these two things I'm sorry I didn't understand that there was a ban recently on red Dy um perhaps Dr do you're aware of it as well I see you nodding
▶ 2:27:30on it how do we make these things consistent with even with this being with the FDA Dr doe do you have a a reflection on that oh the ban of red dye number three 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
▶ 2:28:01true freedom and public health requires informed choices so I'm really concerned to make sure that we have those for our constituents and I yield back gentleman yields back now recognize Mr Evans Colorado five minutes thank you Mr chair uh thank you ranking member and thank you to our Witnesses for are coming today um whenever I've heard these conversations in the past and even today it seems like they're broadly framed in the economy versus Health outcomes and I guess I disagree
▶ 2:28:32a little bit with that characterization uh I have a son that has special needs to include some breathing issues uh 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 uh get him the health care that he needs to be able to provide that health insurance and I also need um 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 uh
▶ 2:29:02my district produces tens of billions of dollars of oil gas fuel petrochemicals agriculture fertilizer Etc um and those are the jobs that allow these families to be able to provide for the health needs um of their kids and of their families um and finally we know that finan itial stressors have a direct correlation to negative Health outcomes people either delaying seeking care until that problem becomes bigger and more expensive uh Financial stressors causing uh negative mental health
▶ 2:29:32outcomes and so really a two-part question here um Mr Moody I'll start with you um two-part question number one any sort of ballpark estimate that you can provide uh in terms of either lost jobs uh inability to create jobs stemming from how the EPA uh is uh interpreting Tusa and then part two any insight into uh negative Health impacts as a result of that either loss of jobs or loss of economic um uh productivity uh in terms of either the job itself or the loss of
▶ 2:30:02manufacturing ability for medicines medical supplies things of that nature uh thank you for the question Congressman I don't have a a good estimate on on the economic impacts uh is is the short answer um the longer answer is very complicated um and it gets into a lot of opportunity and most of these chemicals going through the the new chemicals process are subject to CBI um and so we don't even know really what's on the list our members won't even share it with us but they assure us they they could be game changers
▶ 2:30:33um one thing I would say though and I I want to pick up on something you said uh I agree that there's uh Innovation and health are not mutually exclusive uh so you know hear me say that very clearly and actually Tusa itself discusses these things in terms of reasonable risk making it clear that there are uh Hazard considerations exposure considerations and then there's actually risk tolerance considerations in here because uh what you might consider risky somebody else might not right and so these are going to be some subjective um
▶ 2:31:03judgments at the end of the day our concern is that EPA has gotten away from the science here and that they're making unreasonable assumptions about exposure uh and that's driving decisions based um not on sound science so uh not exactly an answer to your question but if if I ever get a better number I'll make sure we convey it thank you and Dr inler so um 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 uh the manufacturing
▶ 2:31:33to provide medicines and medical supplies I can't speak directly to that but um a group that that um that we manage um did a we had a couple dozen members um and surveyed them and did an economic analysis and the economic analysis uh they they ran the results from the uh uh from the members through impl economic model and the the model predicted something on the order of billions of dollars a year of lost economic activity because of
▶ 2:32:04um the the issues with the new chemicals program thank you uh Mr John it looked like you had some yeah I could speak directly to that in this case so uh I have asthma as well and and thankful I don't need to use an inhaler very often but you actually need form Malahide to make and inhaler work and the epa's evaluation of from Malahide and the bad science that they used to reach their conclusions was such such a low level below background levels that this room would have not been in compliance
▶ 2:32:34with their original proposal that's the kind of science that we're talking about that is driving decisions that are not in our health interest or our economic interest so can you just expound on that a little bit the ability to get something as simple as an albuterol inhaler um which has form Malahide as one of the precursors to manufacture that could be potentially impacted by the current interpretation that the EPA is taking for Tasco absolutely now we have been successful in getting them to back off of that but they are still times still
▶ 2:33:04three times lower than the level that was just determined by the EU which did that in the last year or two so we orders of magnitude out of line with everywhere else in the world real quick I know my time's short how much time and effort did it take you to get the EPA walk that back uh well over a year thank you yield back gentan yields back now recognize Mr Menendez for his five minutes thank you Mr chairman I'd like to take a moment to acknowledge
▶ 2:33:34the service of the late senator Frank lenberg the namesake of the legislation we are discussing here today Senator lenberg 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'm 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
▶ 2:34:04thousands of people it also means that tens of thousands of people in New Jersey are exposed to chemicals every day at work and in fenceline communities located near high-risk chemical facilities Dr DOA can you share with all those who call New Jersey home how the lenberg ACT has worked to protect workers and fence line communities from the potentially harmful effects of toxic chemicals so tasa
▶ 2:34:35has long considered the risk to workers for both new and existing chemicals and under lottenberg it's improved um 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've heard today OSHA pels mentioned that OSHA itself has said they are not protective for the most part don't use them and then
▶ 2:35:05OSHA also considers non-risk factors so just taking into account the non-risk factors that their Pals even if they weren't outdated would not be protective so EPA said performance standards that people can meet uh either through changes in production they EPA does not assume that every worker has a respirator strap to them and they can't because a respirator
▶ 2:35:35that's 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 important thing that 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're just going to on
▶ 2:36:05the assumption that they're going to wear a respirator sure I appreciate that thanks to the laudenberg ACT EPA is now required to review all new chemicals before they can enter Commerce previously EPA only reviewed about 20% of new chemicals that has a significant increase in workload but a necessary one to protect the health of all Americans unfortunately for much of the last eight years EPA has not received additional resources due to the added work or to address the added work a 2023 GAO report highlight the
▶ 2:36:35office'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% of the implementation cost Dr Doan your own words what is the impact of an underfunded and understaffed Tusa program thank you an underfunded program affects the reviews and so it affects the incred Integrity of the reviews and the decision that get made and it's less
▶ 2:37:06protective and remember before many chemicals just dropped from review because there was insufficient information now EPA is required to make an affirmative def decision on on each chemical and cutting back resources Cuts back on the expertise the knowledge the experience because people will leave people will um so there won't be the and you want to make sure balance of resources on both sides right because it seems
▶ 2:37:36Dr Engler that where ACTA does partner with the folks who are submitting and provide services I am running out of time so I have to go back but I will try to give you a chance Dr do 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 need no they need greater support overall so we should consider additional resources through the Appropriations process thank you yeah I just want to challenge the 20% I've heard this number bandied
▶ 2:38:06about it it was certainly on the record in 2016 when I 17 years at EPA I reviewed literally thousands we never we never let a case go through without somebody looking at it we may have dropped things from taking action because that's what was required under the statute statute once we decided there wasn't a potential unreasonable risk but that doesn't mean it wasn't reviewed okay I would like to ask more questions but I am out of time so I'll have to submit them to record including uh schedule F under the Trump administration
▶ 2:38:36because we love your thoughts on that uh but we'll submit those uh after this commedia hearing thank you so much thank the gentlemen for yielding back now recognize Dr Miller Meeks for her five minutes of questions uh thank you chairman Griffith and ranking member tono for holding this hearing today I want to also thank our Witnesses for testifying before the subcommittee in Iowa's first district alone the chemical industry provides over 2,000 direct jobs pays over 100 million in wages and is the second largest manufacturing indust industry in the state
▶ 2:39:07this subcommittee has the responsibility of addressing the aggressive overregulation of the chemicals industry by the B Administration which has severely hindered American company 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'm both a a former operating room nurse and a doctor and when the EPA came
▶ 2:39:37out with its rules on ethylene oxide which is the uh source for non steam 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 non-sterilized 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
▶ 2:40:07is a leader in biofuels production in your testimony you state that when renewable feed stocks are co-processed with petroleum feed stocks even at low percentages EPA considers this resulting fuel products to be new substances to Tusa review many believe this creates barriers and deay 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 co-processing should be considered
▶ 2:40:38should not be or should be considered new substances under Tusa thank you for the question and I just say apm's members in addition to being refiners and petrochemical manufacturers are some of the largest biofuel producers in the country country uh so we appreciate your advocacy um you're correct the uh the EPA came out several years ago and said uh new uh biofuels are going to be subject to section five of Tusa significant new use rules um and they've been pushing uh new fuels through that process from our
▶ 2:41:09perspective whether it's a biofuel or a biobase plastic so you have a you know bio feed stock going into a plastic you're gonna there's going to be things that are already on the inventory that uh we should be evaluating against so rather than going through an expensive lengthy seemingly endless process let's uh look at whether there's something actually equivalent and whether there's actually any kind of real new risk there and you know from our perspective that would help serve resources so the current approach would um I think uh um hinder
▶ 2:41:39our Farmers uh ability to increase Renewable Fuel production and seed that Marketplace to Brazil who doesn't have the same restrictions and then we import it back to the United correct thank you Mr John in your testimony you expressed concern that in conducting Tusa 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 tasas directed for the EPA to defer to other
▶ 2:42:09agencies as a general matter if OSHA is already having regulations do we need tasa 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 absolutely so the the 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
▶ 2:42:39this is not an accurate assessment of how our members operate and um you know it's just ignoring reality and doesn't make sense and it creates government duplication which is part of the problem we're talking about here today and it may be why they don't have enough time to focus on getting their reviews done within 90 days exactly the amended tasa requires EPA to use the best available science Dr inler and when evaluating chemical risk but the law does not define this term critics argue the epa's recent risk evaluations have e either overstated
▶ 2:43:10or understated risk 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 well the best available science is it's got to be based on quality experiments that are objective and reproducible um good science is good science regardless of who funds it um whether it's industry or Academia or an NGO or the government um what we've seen and we've seen uneven results in the uh in the existing chemicals
▶ 2:43:40risk evaluations some some of them in my view have been based on sound science others EPA using the lowest number they can possibly find and using that to justify um their existing chemical exposure limits um regardless of the departure from other regulatory agencies or other scientific bodies thank you I have a question from aldhy RIS but my time has expired so I'll submit it to be answered for the record thank you and I yell back thank you very much for yielding back and now recognize Mr Langworthy for his five minutes of questions well thank you
▶ 2:44:10very much chairman Griffith uh the chemical industry is critical to New York State's economy it ranks as our third largest industry and it generates four 1.75 billion annually uh over the years I've 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 Health Care infrastructure and many
▶ 2:44:40more areas uh unfortunately under the Biden years the industry has experienced anything predictability section five of the toxic substances Control Act toxa uh requires the EPA to review new chemical notifications but approvals without restrictions have dropped sharply from 90% in previous years to just 10 to 20% under the Biden Administration under taxa Section Five the EPA must review each pre-manufactured notice in determine whether
▶ 2:45:11a substance is not likely to present unreasonable risk uh may present unreasonable risk or will present an un reasonable risk to health or the environment Dr Engler has the EPA actually defined unreasonable risk um generally there's a course of conduct where they establish a a concern threshold and they compare exposures to that threshold and that's that although they haven't defined it in practice that's how they determine whether or not something is an unre so they really haven't defined unreasonable
▶ 2:45:41risk they haven't defined it I can only tell you what they do uh what are the consequences of not having clear definition well it gives it gives EPA or and individuals at EPA a lot of latitude to make their own decision and so we get that inconsistency that I've mentioned previously so when evaluating a new chemical should all hazards lead to an unreasonable risk for example you know everyone's talking about vinegar here today so uh an irritant such as household vinegar subject to is that subject to an unreasonable
▶ 2:46:11risk determination I mean if again I my prediction is that EPA would find if 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's reasonable to to um Mr John's Point earlier about people do take protective measures when when they get something on their skin and it hurts um so I think there's there is some reasonableness to people saying you know what corrosive or irritating substances
▶ 2:46:42we don't need a regulation to force people to um to protect themselves for those president Trump in his inaugural address says are unleashing an era of a common sense 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 eight years over 3,600 chemicals have been approved does that mean that they've been commercialized too for some of them it is yes or no respectfully
▶ 2:47:12sir it's not a simple yes or no answer because once EPA approves it then it's up to the company to take the next step and commercialize it so no uh Dr angler are you aware of any instances in which a chemical has been approved but not gone to Market because of EPA restrictions absolutely 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
▶ 2:47:42to create essential products uh from medical devices to semiconductors to construction materials when approv approval processes stall so does innovation leaving businesses unable to upgrade to safer more effective chemicals this force is many Industries to continue using older chemicals and hinders their ability to complete globally especially against the Chinese and expands uh you know the Chinese are constantly expanding their own chemical production capabilities at a very rapid Pace uh to strengthen the supply
▶ 2:48:12chain uh and ensure that the US remains competitive we need predictability and Clarity in chemical regulations not roadblocks and delays and Innovation Dr angler 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 Aman American manufacturers to access safer more effective chemicals in a timely manner so we don't fall behind Global competitors like the Chinese I think there's some some critical targeted um changes
▶ 2:48:43that Congress can make to the statute that gives EP EPA clear guidance when for new chemicals when it should and should not be issuing restrictions 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'm eager to work alongside uh as a member of the Energy and Commerce Committee along with the Trump Administration our new EPA director in Waiting Lee zeldon uh to ensure that the American chemistry
▶ 2:49:13industry remains a global leader in safety production and Innovation and Mr chairman I yield back thank the gentleman for yielding back now recognize Mr Carter of Georgia for his five minutes of questions thank you Mr chairman and let me Begin by congratulating you Mr chairman as uh chair of this subcommittee this is extremely important committee and this is an extremely important subject issue that we're discussing today and I appreciate you bringing it up as the first hearing that um that we're having this year before I begin Mr chairman if you will um I'd like
▶ 2:49:43to ask that um submit a letter from the American Cleaning Institute on the need of for a predictable and reliable chemical program for the record we'll take that up at the end we have a we put put together a list I need to let the u u minority party take a review of it but it's okay usually not it's usually not objected to but they'll take a look at it and let me know well the ranking member is a good friend of mine so he'll he'll make sure we get it taken care of
▶ 2:50:14um thank you again uh folks thank y'all for being here I know it's been a long hearing so far but um I want to talk specifically I'm a pharmacist by profession so this is very important to me chemicals are are obviously used in drugs and Manufacturing and one of the things that we say in healthc care is that you know does does the benefit outweigh the risk and that is something that we have to look carefully at and it's certainly something with chemicals now I will tell you that I I I had some tribulation when I went to the golf course and was given
▶ 2:50:44some insect repellent and they told me you can spray it on you but don't get on the grass because it'll kill the grass well wait a minute here you know that that brings me pause but at the same time we have we've gotten to a situation now where we've seen unacceptable delays in the new chemicals program it's almost stopped and we can't have that we've got to have research and development we've got to have new chemicals coming into the market and a lot of it's being being pegged and and blamed if you
▶ 2:51:14will on overregulation and we all again understand that there a risk involved in this but we also understand that we can mitigate those risk 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 um it's increased significantly and that doesn't seem to and it and it doesn't seem to be providing that service proficiently at all so a key
▶ 2:51:44component of the bipartisan lenberg Act is section 26 as you all which authorizes a collection of fees from chemical manufacturers and processors so they can defray the cost of administering T Tusa 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 lenberg act as I understanded it was the fee was was in statute but now we've got a fee that um the fee collections are 25%
▶ 2:52:15of epa's annual cost of AD of of administering these activities and it's capped at $25 million a year so when Tusa was was amended the fee for a pre-manufactured 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's an increase of
▶ 2:52:45per. Mr Mr John yes or no is is is that increase reasonable no If This Were A payer for performance system EPA would fired Dr Engler is it is you think that's reasonable uh I didn't see the basis for EPA raising the fee the way they did in the fee rule Mr Moody no it's not reasonable
▶ 2:53:16Dr do with all due respect sir EPA is not the consultant yes or industry that's all I ask the fee raising the fee is reasonable raising the fee 1380 per is reasonable okay that's fine that's fine okay Mr John let me ask you something what do you think is a reasonable amount to pay for a pmn or any other review that's carried out under tasa so look EPA has legitimate
▶ 2:53:46expenses it needs to cover sure we we all understand and so uh we're we're happy to have a conversation about what that looks like but I'm more concerned about frankly whether or not the process works and we get to result from that process rather than how much it costs Dr angler as I said earlier I don't know what the right level is because I don't think the process is working efficiently right Mr Moody I agree
▶ 2:54:16I mean I think what you would hear from our membership is they're if they're getting results then you you know a higher fee might be justified but we're not getting results okay so you know we got a new Administration now and and we've been talking about a number of different things but um one of the things is about permitting and about permitting reform and regulation reform starts right here and this is extremely important thank you all for being here this is extremely important issue and Mr chairman I yield back thank you gentleman for yielding back and now
▶ 2:54:46by unanimous consent as we do in this committee on a regular basis we allow members of the committee from other subs to wave on having been here since we gaveled in yeah I now recognize for five minutes of questioning Miss harshbarger oh you're so sweet thank you Mr chairman and ranking member for allowing me to wave on um you know Mr John you said yours was the most regulated sector and my Pharmacy is the most regulated profession if you ask me and uh as a compounding pharmacist
▶ 2:55:16you know I've doubt with with bulk chemicals apis uh 90% which originate outside this country uh in China and you have to comply with USP 795 797 now USP 800 have to deal with an niosh list with hazardous drugs uh antineoplastics it's just a regulated profession and there's validity in dealing with these hazardous regulations but it has to be based on common sense and scientific evidence do you agree
▶ 2:55:47and uh this issue is very important to me uh and to my district because we have a company microporus is a battery uh separator manufacturer in my district which there's only two in the US and uh it's currently facing an exential threat due to a final rule of the Biden Administration made related to Tri choro eeling the final rule would change the allowable amount of tce in the workplace at micropores a factor of 500 times
▶ 2:56:17from a limit of parts per million to 0.2 parts per million and that's just not realistic and it it'd be impossible to meet and it 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'm introducing a congressional review act with congresswoman marionette Miller Meeks to scrap the Biden's tce rule just
▶ 2:56:47for your information my first question is to Dr inler would you uh would this change to the allowable amount of tce represent a risk-based or a hazard-based approach well actually let me uh change the the the question here I the problem I have with the tce rule is that EPA is basing their exposure limit on a study that hasn't been reproduced exact so I question whether what they're basing it on is the best available science it's a flawed it's a flawed study just just say it
▶ 2:57:17uh okay very good do you believe the uh the uh Tusa the way it's written would require an Administration to make a drastic change to the particular matter regulations surrounding tce I'm sorry ask that again do you believe the way Tusa is written would require an Administration to make such a drastic change to the particular matter regulations surrounding tce um not when it's based on such flimsy science yeah exactly thank you
▶ 2:57:48thank you for backing me up it's really unfortunate that the Biden Harris Administration chose to take these drastic measures to harm the domestic production of battery separators you know it's ironic considering uh that battery production was so intrical to the green New Deal U that they wanted so badly but we have a new Administration we have the opportunity to clarify the tusa's intent and with objection uh chairman I'm including the testimony from the CEO of microor
▶ 2:58:19and again if you can give us a copy of that so it can be reviewed I will do it uh 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 3600 chemicals have been approved during the first eight years of amended tusca but do you know the number of chemicals that weren't approved or are still waiting the the number I don't know the exact number in the process
▶ 2:58:49right now ma'am Dr ma'am if I could comment on that please uh so again to be clear it 3600 chemicals have not been approved since tasa the number is about half of that really that's based on EP go to epa's website and you can find that there okay that's what I need to know I appreciate you all thanks for being here today and I Y back Mr chairman all right if you could give me that document so that we can get that that's our next
▶ 2:59:24yeah but it's going to be the same they need to approve giving my colleagues an opportunity to look at the document that was presented for unanimous consent that will conclude our Witness uh questions for the day uh I ask unanimous consent to insert in the record the documents included
▶ 2:59:55on the staff hearing document list that would include uh miss harbers Mr Palmer's and Mr Carter's uh documents that they wanted to have uh submitted under unanimous consent 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 subcommittee is adjourned thank you all very much thank you there Mr chair