[House Hearing, 116 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
MISMANAGING CHEMICAL RISKS: EPA'S FAILURE
TO PROTECT WORKERS
=======================================================================
HEARING
BEFORE THE
SUBCOMMITTEE ON ENVIRONMENT AND CLIMATE CHANGE
OF THE
COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND COMMERCE
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED SIXTEENTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
__________
MARCH 13, 2019
__________
Serial No. 116-18
[GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Printed for the use of the Committee on Energy and Commerce
govinfo.gov/committee/house-energy
energycommerce.house.gov
__________
U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE
38-825 PDF WASHINGTON : 2022
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND COMMERCE
FRANK PALLONE, Jr., New Jersey
Chairman
BOBBY L. RUSH, Illinois GREG WALDEN, Oregon
ANNA G. ESHOO, California Ranking Member
ELIOT L. ENGEL, New York FRED UPTON, Michigan
DIANA DeGETTE, Colorado JOHN SHIMKUS, Illinois
MIKE DOYLE, Pennsylvania MICHAEL C. BURGESS, Texas
JAN SCHAKOWSKY, Illinois STEVE SCALISE, Louisiana
G. K. BUTTERFIELD, North Carolina ROBERT E. LATTA, Ohio
DORIS O. MATSUI, California CATHY McMORRIS RODGERS, Washington
KATHY CASTOR, Florida BRETT GUTHRIE, Kentucky
JOHN P. SARBANES, Maryland PETE OLSON, Texas
JERRY McNERNEY, California DAVID B. McKINLEY, West Virginia
PETER WELCH, Vermont ADAM KINZINGER, Illinois
BEN RAY LUJAN, New Mexico H. MORGAN GRIFFITH, Virginia
PAUL TONKO, New York GUS M. BILIRAKIS, Florida
YVETTE D. CLARKE, New York, Vice BILL JOHNSON, Ohio
Chair BILLY LONG, Missouri
DAVID LOEBSACK, Iowa LARRY BUCSHON, Indiana
KURT SCHRADER, Oregon BILL FLORES, Texas
JOSEPH P. KENNEDY III, SUSAN W. BROOKS, Indiana
Massachusetts MARKWAYNE MULLIN, Oklahoma
TONY CARDENAS, California RICHARD HUDSON, North Carolina
RAUL RUIZ, California TIM WALBERG, Michigan
SCOTT H. PETERS, California EARL L. ``BUDDY'' CARTER, Georgia
DEBBIE DINGELL, Michigan JEFF DUNCAN, South Carolina
MARC A. VEASEY, Texas GREG GIANFORTE, Montana
ANN M. KUSTER, New Hampshire
ROBIN L. KELLY, Illinois
NANETTE DIAZ BARRAGAN, California
A. DONALD McEACHIN, Virginia
LISA BLUNT ROCHESTER, Delaware
DARREN SOTO, Florida
TOM O'HALLERAN, Arizona
------
Professional Staff
JEFFREY C. CARROLL, Staff Director
TIFFANY GUARASCIO, Deputy Staff Director
MIKE BLOOMQUIST, Minority Staff Director
Subcommittee on Environment and Climate Change
PAUL TONKO, New York
Chairman
YVETTE D. CLARKE, New York JOHN SHIMKUS, Illinois
SCOTT H. PETERS, California Ranking Member
NANETTE DIAZ BARRAGAN, California CATHY McMORRIS RODGERS, Washington
A. DONALD McEACHIN, Virginia DAVID B. McKINLEY, West Virginia
LISA BLUNT ROCHESTER, Delaware BILL JOHNSON, Ohio
DARREN SOTO, Florida BILLY LONG, Missouri
DIANA DeGETTE, Colorado BILL FLORES, Texas
JAN SCHAKOWSKY, Illinois MARKWAYNE MULLIN, Oklahoma
DORIS O. MATSUI, California EARL L. ``BUDDY'' CARTER, Georgia
JERRY McNERNEY, California JEFF DUNCAN, South Carolina
RAUL RUIZ, California, Vice Chair GREG WALDEN, Oregon (ex officio)
DEBBIE DINGELL, Michigan
FRANK PALLONE, Jr., New Jersey (ex
officio)
C O N T E N T S
----------
Page
Hon. Paul Tonko, a Representative in Congress from the State of
New York, opening statement.................................... 1
Prepared statement........................................... 3
Hon. John Shimkus, a Representative in Congress from the State of
Illinois, opening statement.................................... 4
Prepared statement........................................... 5
Hon. Frank Pallone, Jr., a Representative in Congress from the
State of New Jersey, opening statement......................... 6
Prepared statement........................................... 7
Hon. Greg Walden, a Representative in Congress from the State of
Oregon, prepared statement..................................... 110
Witnesses
Jeaneen McGinnis, Benefits Representative, United Auto Workers... 10
Prepared statement........................................... 12
Answers to submitted questions............................... 183
Patrick J. Morrison, Assistant to the General President,
International Association of Firefighters...................... 14
Prepared statement........................................... 16
Answers to submitted questions............................... 194
Wendy Hutchinson, on Behalf of the Baltimore Teachers Union and
American Federation of Teachers................................ 23
Prepared statement........................................... 25
Answers to submitted questions............................... 197
Giev Kashkooli, Vice President, United Farm Workers.............. 32
Prepared statement........................................... 34
Answers to submitted questions............................... 198
Thomas G. Grumbles, Certified Industrial Hygienist, American
Industrial Hygiene Association, and the Product Stewardship
Society........................................................ 45
Prepared statement........................................... 47
Mark N. Duvall, Principal, Beveridge and Diamond PC.............. 49
Prepared statement........................................... 51
Adam M. Finkel, D.Sc., Clinical Professor of Environmental Health
Sciences, University of Michigan School of Public Health....... 62
Prepared statement........................................... 65
Answers to submitted questions............................... 202
Submitted Material
Letter of March 12, 2019, from Linda Reinstein, President and Co-
Founder, Asbestos Disease Awareness, to Organization, Mr.
Pallone, et al., submitted by Mr. Tonko........................ 111
Statement of Environmental Defense Fund, by Richard Denison, Lead
Senior Scientist, March 12, 2019, submitted by Mr. Tonko....... 118
Article of March 2013, ``Human Health Effects of
Trichloroethylene: Key Findings and Scientific Issues,'' by
Weihsueh A. Chiu, et al., Environmental Health Perspective,
submitted by Mr. Tonko......................................... 121
Report of the Government Accountability Office,``Workplace Safety
and Health: Multiple Challenges Lengthen OSHA's Standard
Setting,'' April 2012, submitted by Mr. Tonko \1\
Statement of International Union, UAW, January 14, 2019,
submitted by Mr. Tonko......................................... 130
Statement on ``Accidental Release Prevention Requirements: Risk
Management Programs Under the Clean Air Act, Proposed Rule,''
by Brett Fox, Director of Health and Safety, International
Union, UAW, submitted by Mr. Tonko............................. 139
Letter of August 23, 2018, from Chlorpyrifos Agricultural
Retailers Association, et al., to Hon. Sonny Perdue, Secretary
and Hon. Andrew Wheeler, Acting Administrator, submitted by Mr.
Tonko.......................................................... 150
Fact sheet of January 17, 2017, by Dow Agricultural,
``Chlorpyrifos in Agriculture,'' submitted by Mr. Tonko........ 153
Article of March 12, 2019, from Coalition of Pesticide
Registration Improvement Act, et al., submitted by Mr. Tonko... 154
Letter of March 12, 2019, from Liz Hitchcock, Acting Director,
Safer Chemicals Healthy Families, et al., to Mr. Tonko, et al.,
submitted by Mr. Tonko,........................................ 156
Letter of March 12, 2019, from Alexandra Dapolito Dunn, Assistant
Administrator, Environmental Protection Agency, to Mr. Tonko
and Shimkus, submitted by Mr. Tonko............................ 159
Letter of March 12, 2019, from Kathleen M. Roberts, Toxic
Substances Control Act, New Chemicals Coalition, to Mr. Tonko
and Mr. Shimkus, submitted by Mr. Tonko........................ 161
Statement of March 13, 2019, by Riki Ott, Washington State,
submitted by Mr. Tonko......................................... 172
Written evidence ``Trans Mountain Pipeline'', by Riki Ott,
submitted by Mr. Tonko \2\
Appendix B--Photo Documentations, by Riki Ott, submitted by Mr.
Tonko \3\
Report on A GAP Whistleblower Investation, by Shanna Devine,
Investigator and Legislative Director, and Tom Devine, Project,
Legal Director, Government Accountability, submitted by Mr.
Tonko \4\
Addendum report of April 22, 2015, ``Deadly Dispersants in the
Gulf: Are Public Health and Environmental Tragedies the New
Norm for Oil Spill Cleanup?'', by Shanna Devine, Investigator
and Legislative Director, and Tom Devine, Project, Legal
Director, Government Accountability, submitted by Mr. Tonko \5\
Letter of March 12, 2019, from Deepthi K. Weerasinghe Ph.D.,
Winter Haven, The Gainesville Sun, submitted by Mr. Tonko...... 176
Article of ``Florida officials delayed telling residents about
tainted water, emails show,'' January 3, 2019, by Samantha J.
Gross and Elizabeth Koh, Tampa Bay Times, submitted by Mr.
Tonko.......................................................... 177
----------
\1\ GAO Report has been retained in committee files and also is
available at https://docs.house.gov/meetings/IF/IF18/20190313/
109117/HHRG-116-IF18-20190313-SD016.pdf.
\2\ Written evidence has been retained in committee files and
also is available at https://docs.house.gov/meetings/IF/IF18/
20190313/109117/HHRG-116-IF18-20190313-SD021.pdf.
\3\ Appendix B--Photo has been retained in committee files and
also is available at https://docs.house.gov/meetings/IF/IF18/
20190313/109117/HHRG-116-IF18-20190313-SD022.pdf
\4\ Report has been retained in committee files and also is
available at https://docs.house.gov/meetings/IF/IF18/20190313/
109117/HHRG-116-IF18-20190313-SD020.pdf.
\5\ Addendum Report has been retained in committee files and also
is available at https://docs.house.gov/meetings/IF/IF18/
20190313/109117/HHRG-116-IF18-20190313-SD007.pdf.
MISMANAGING CHEMICAL RISKS: EPA'S FAILURE TO PROTECT WORKERS
----------
WEDNESDAY, MARCH 13, 2019
House of Representatives,
Subcommittee on Environment and Climate Change,
Committee on Energy and Commerce,
Washington, DC.
The subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 10:30 a.m., in
room 2322 Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Paul Tonko
(chairman of the subcommittee) presiding.
Members present: Representatives Tonko, Peters, Barragan,
McEachin, Blunt Rochester, Soto, DeGette, Schakowsky, Matsui,
McNerney, Ruiz, Dingell, Pallone (ex officio), Shimkus
(subcommittee ranking member), Rodgers, McKinley, Johnson,
Long, Flores, Mullin, Carter, Duncan, and Walden (ex officio).
Staff present: Jacqueline Cohen, Chief Environment Counsel;
Adam Fischer, Policy Analyst; Waverly Gordon, Deputy Chief
Counsel; Rick Kessler, Senior Advisor and Staff Director,
Energy and Environment; Brendan Larkin, Policy Coordinator; Mel
Peffers, Environment Fellow; Teresa Williams, Energy Fellow;
Mike Bloomquist, Minority Staff Director; Adam Buckalew,
Minority Director of Coalitions and Deputy Chief Counsel,
Health; Jerry Couri, Minority Deputy Chief Counsel, Environment
and Climate Change; Jordan Davis, Minority Senior Advisor;
Peter Kielty, Minority General Counsel; Mary Martin, Minority
Chief Counsel, Energy and Environment and Climate Change;
Brandon Mooney, Minority Deputy Chief Counsel, Energy; Brannon
Rains, Minority Staff Assistant; and Peter Spencer, Minority
Senior Professional Staff Member, Environment and Climate
Change.
Mr. Tonko. The Subcommittee on Environment and Climate
Change will now come to order. I recognize myself for five
minutes for the purpose of an opening statement.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. PAUL TONKO, A REPRESENTATIVE IN
CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF NEW YORK
One of the great recent achievements in Federal
environmental policy was the passage of the Frank R. Lautenberg
Chemical Safety for the 21st Century Act to reform the Toxic
Substances Control Act in 2016.
I had concerns with that final product, but I would be the
first to admit it had important provisions to help fix EPA's
long-broken TSCA program and I commend Mr. Shimkus and Mr.
Pallone for their work on that historic law to make real
bipartisan progress that gave EPA the tools necessary to
protect Americans from toxic exposure risks.
Unfortunately, EPA has chosen to ignore those tools and
has, in my view, failed to implement the law as Congress
intended. One of those important provisions I mentioned was a
requirement that EPA consider potentially exposed or
susceptible subpopulations.
The law explicitly identifies infants, children, pregnant
women, workers, and the elderly as high-risk groups. I have
many criticisms of this administration's failure to properly
implement the law, but its failure to protect these groups is
near the top of my list.
Today, we will hear from witnesses representing workers on
the front lines of toxic exposure risks, including
firefighters, farm workers, teachers, and industrial workers.
We will also hear about specific toxic chemicals that put
working Americans at unnecessary risk on the job. Asbestos is
killing thousands of Americans each year and, yet, somehow U.S.
imports of the substance continue to rise.
EPA has deliberately excluded exposure from legacy asbestos
and its disposal from the scope of its risk evaluation, leaving
workers at risk of dangerous exposure.
PV29 was chosen as the very first risk evaluation under the
Lautenberg Act. Last year, EPA released its draft risk
evaluation and found it presented no unreasonable risk.
Consideration of worker exposures were excluded from its
evaluation and methylene chloride is a paint stripper which has
killed dozens of Americans. Safer alternatives exist, but EPA
still refuses to ban this toxic killer.
At least four people have died since a proposed rule was
published in January 2017. At that time, EPA proposed
restricting its commercial and consumer uses. But as of
December 2018, EPA appears to have abandoned the ban for
commercial use, which will leave workers at risk.
These are just a few substances that we will hear about
today, and they are not isolated cases. If not corrected, I
suspect we will see even more examples in the future because
the TSCA framework rules, which were issued by the Trump
administration, enable systematic exclusion of risks to workers
on the job.
These framework rules include the risk prioritization rule
used to identify high-priority chemicals, which allows EPA to
exclude commercial uses and workplace exposures; and the risk
evaluation rule, used to scope and conduct an evaluation to
determine whether a chemical presents an unreasonable risk,
which leaves out legacy uses and leaves open the possibility of
ignoring worker exposure.
This dangerous approach is not limited to the TSCA office.
EPA's treatment of the Risk Management Plan rule under the
Clean Air Act and the decision to allow the continued use of
chlorpyrifos--a pesticide tied to impairment in children's
brain development--raise serious concerns about EPA's broader
efforts to protect workers.
Make no mistake, we are seeing a clear pattern--the
systematic failure of our Environmental Protection Agency to
protect workers under TSCA and other EPA programs against the
spirit and letter of the Lautenberg Act and the fundamental
mission of that agency.
I have met with families that have lost loved ones from
exposure to methylene chloride and asbestos. Strong EPA action
will not bring them back, but it can save others.
That is the very least we should do for these victims. TSCA
reform was not easy, but at its core, I believe those families
are why we did it. EPA needed better tools to protect
Americans. But today those new tools are being squandered and
workers will suffer the consequences the worst.
I hope we can continue to conduct oversight to ensure that
EPA is protecting workers as was envisioned and required by the
bipartisan TSCA reform effort.
I look forward to hearing from each and every one of our
witnesses. Thank you for joining us today. You will add a voice
of reason, I hope, to all the work that we do.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Tonko follows:]
Prepared Statement of Hon. Paul Tonko
One of the great recent achievements in Federal
environmental policy was the passage of the Frank R. Lautenberg
Chemical Safety for the 21st Century Act to reform the Toxic
Substances Control Act in 2016.
I had concerns with that final product, but I would be the
first to admit it had important provisions to help fix EPA's
long-broken TSCA program. And I commend Mr. Shimkus and Mr.
Pallone for their work on that historic law to make real
bipartisan progress that gave EPA the tools necessary to
protect Americans from toxic exposure risks.
Unfortunately, EPA has chosen to ignore those tools, and
has, in my view, failed to implement the law as Congress
intended.
One of those important provisions I mentioned was a
requirement that EPA consider potentially exposed or
susceptible subpopulations. The law explicitly identifies
infants, children, pregnant women, workers, and the elderly as
high-risk groups.
I have many criticisms of this Administration's failure to
properly implement the law, but its failure to protect these
groups is near the top of my list.
Today, we will hear from witnesses representing workers on
the front lines of toxic exposure risks, including
firefighters, farm workers, teachers, and industrial workers.
We will also hear about specific toxic chemicals that put
working Americans at unnecessary risk on the job.
Asbestos is killing thousands of Americans each year, and
yet somehow U.S. imports of the substance continue to rise. EPA
has deliberately excluded exposure from legacy asbestos and its
disposal from the scope of its risk evaluation, leaving workers
at risk of dangerous exposure.
PV-29 was chosen as the very first risk evaluation under
the Lautenberg Act. Last year, EPA released its draft risk
evaluation and found it presented no unreasonable risk.
Consideration of worker exposures were excluded from its
evaluation.
And methylene chloride is a paint stripper which has killed
dozens of Americans. Safer alternatives exist, but EPA still
refuses to ban this toxic killer. At least four people have
died since a proposed rule was published in January 2017. At
that time, EPA proposed restricting its commercial and consumer
uses, but as of December 2018, EPA appears to have abandoned
the ban for commercial use, which will leave workers at risk.
These are just a few substances that we will hear about
today, and they are not isolated cases.
If not corrected, I suspect we will see even more examples
in the future because the TSCA framework rules, which were
issued by the Trump Administration, enable systematic exclusion
of risks to workers on the job.
These framework rules include the risk prioritization rule,
used to identify high priority chemicals, which allows EPA to
exclude commercial uses and workplace exposures.
And the risk evaluation rule, used to scope and conduct an
evaluation to determine whether a chemical presents an
unreasonable risk, which leaves out legacy uses and leaves open
the possibility of ignoring worker exposure.
This dangerous approach is not limited to the TSCA office.
EPA's treatment of the Risk Management Plan rule under the
Clean Air Act and the decision to allow the continued use of
chlorpyrifos, a pesticide tied to impairment in children's
brain development, raise serious concerns about EPA's broader
efforts to protect workers.
Make no mistake, we are seeing a clear pattern: The
systematic failure of our Environmental Protection Agency to
protect workers under TSCA and other EPA programs, against the
spirit and letter of the Lautenberg Act and the fundamental
mission of the Agency.
I have met with families that have lost loved ones from
exposure to methylene chloride and asbestos. Strong EPA action
will not bring them back, but it can save others. That is the
very least we should do for these victims.
TSCA reform was not easy, but at its core, I believe those
families are why we did it. EPA needed better tools to protect
Americans, but today those new tools are being squandered, and
workers will suffer the consequences the worst.
I hope we can continue to conduct oversight to ensure that
EPA is protecting workers as was envisioned--and required--by
the bipartisan TSCA reform effort. I look forward to hearing
from our witnesses today, and I yield back.
Mr. Tonko. And with that, I yield back and will now
recognize the Republican Leader of this subcommittee,
Representative Shimkus, for an opening statement.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. JOHN SHIMKUS, A REPRESENTATIVE IN
CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF ILLINOIS
Mr. Shimkus. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate that you
are having this hearing on chemical management and I want to
congratulate you on calling this hearing.
You know, the Lautenberg Act passed in 2016, as the
chairman had mentioned. Then you've got the rules. Then you've
got to start going through the process, and now it is time to
do a look and see the good and the bad and the ugly that still
pervades through the system and to make corrective action.
As one of the authors and supporters of the TSCA reform
bill, we want it to work because we want it to protect--we want
the EPA to do due diligence on the science of the chemicals.
I think what I have learned by the process of this hearing
and doing work is that there is a couple agencies that have
responsibilities here and there seems to be, especially with
the Lautenberg Chemical Safety Act--TSCA Reform Act--there
seems to be, Mr. Chairman, some overlap that maybe we need to
keep looking at and start talking about because, we have an
agency that is supposed to be in the workplace to protect and
observe how chemicals are used in that processes to protect
workers, and that is one we know as OSHA--the Occupational
Safety Health Administration--and it is hundreds of
professionals.
And sometimes they are trained to do the same thing that we
have asked EPA to look at, especially under the TSCA reform. In
fact, they might--OSHA may have even more people in the agency
on a particular process to protect workers.
So, we are not on the Workforce or Labor Committee. So my
expertise in that area is not as much as in what we tried to do
under the Frank Lautenberg Chemical Safety Act, which was
focused on the EPA.
We need to find out why this takes so long, make sure that
they focus on defining whether a chemical is safe or not safe,
and if there are, because of the use in our society, how do the
people who--if it is deemed that it is still needed for
production how do you--what do you tell OSHA and the people who
are going to use it what they need to do to make sure they
protect the workers in and around these chemicals?
Ninety-eight percent of all things touched in this room
were--are touched by the chemical manufacturing sector whether
it is paints or acrylics or metal and furnishings and the like.
So understanding that chemical use is pervasive, I think
what brought us together--and it is good to see Chairman
Pallone enter--I think what brought us together was to say let
us do this right because the system was delayed.
We had old chemicals that weren't being evaluated. I am
particularly concerned about making sure we have new chemicals
vetted quickly because they may be more effective and efficient
and safe.
So if the EPA is not dealing with the new chemicals and we
may have some chemicals needed in the manufacturing sector that
might pose some risk, wouldn't it be better to get the new
chemicals onto the market?
So, as my colleagues on the other side know, I have been
wanting to have a hearing like this since passage. You have to
allow the EPA to at least set up and develop their rules. But
this is the right time to do it and I am glad you called the
hearing and I look forward--hopefully, we can have more and
some more in-depth and maybe also vet out this merging of the
agency's responsibilities and who is supposed to do what
because if you don't have clear definitive--you all know
especially if you don't have clear definitive rules then you
don't know who is supposed to do what and who to hold
accountable.
So with that, again, I appreciate the hearing and I yield
back my time.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Shimkus follows:]
Prepared Statement of Hon. John Shimkus
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate that we are having a
hearing on chemical management and I want to congratulate you
for calling this hearing.
Not too long ago, when I had your chair, I stated my
sincere interested in doing oversight of this area--
particularly as it related to EPA's implementation of reforms
this committee made to Title I of the Toxic Substances Control
Act.
Regrettably, within the confines of such factors as witness
availability and the committee schedule, there simply was not
time. I know that you now control the agenda, but I hope that
you will convene a future hearing to give this committee time
to more thoroughly inspect what is happening to new chemicals
under TSCA.
The GAO's recent report indicating a tripling of new
chemicals submissions being withdrawn, the persistent backlog
of applications and untimely completion of reviews, and the
significant drop in the rate of commenced cases are troubling
pieces of information. Together, this suggests to me that the
current new chemicals process is adversely effecting innovation
in new chemicals--resulting in a de facto favoring of existing
and more problematic chemicals.
Moving to the subject of today's hearing, I think it is
important that workers are protected in their workplace.
Whether an accident is related to a structural hazard or a
chemical hazard, workers--union and non-union--should be
protected through Federal or State law, industrial hygiene
standards, or collective bargaining agreements.
That said, and I say this with great respect for you, Mr.
Chairman, I am a bit perplexed by this hearing.
From a Federal perspective, the main thrust of worker
safety has been given to the Occupational Safety and Health
Administration (OSHA) and its hundreds of professionals. Yet
today's hearing is claiming EPA is letting workers down?
From my perspective, this hearing feels more like an airing
of grievances along the lines of a civil court proceeding
rather than a fact-finding mission. Neither OSHA nor EPA is
here to testify on the work they have done or to confront the
accusations of our panelists. Truth be told, I don't know if
they were even asked to appear.
From my perspective EPA and OSHA have different missions
but should work together and share information and expertise
rather than seek out ways to do each other's jobs. If any
member of this subcommittee sees that relationship
differently--as much as it pains me to suggest something is not
jurisdictional to our committee--they should contact the House
Education and Labor Committee about beginning to evaluate what
statutory changes need to occur and are warranted to the OSH
Act.
I want to thank our witnesses for being with us today. I do
appreciate your time and hope you understand that a difference
in means is not a dispute on the ends.
I thank the Chairman for this time and want to let him know
how much I have appreciated his friendship in the past. I am
glad we are looking at chemicals management and I look forward
to hopefully more oversight of specific aspects of TSCA.
If no one else wants my remaining time, I will yield back.
Mr. Tonko. Thank you very much, and the gentleman yields
back.
I now recognizes Mr. Pallone, chair of the full committee,
for five minutes for his opening statement.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. FRANK PALLONE, Jr., A REPRESENTATIVE
IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF NEW JERSEY
Mr. Pallone. Thank you, Chairman Tonko.
Today, we are here to continue this committee's critical
oversight work of the Trump administration by reviewing the
Environmental Protection Agency's mismanagement of chemical
risks and its harmful impacts on America's workers.
Two years ago, this committee came together after years of
work to pass the Frank R. Lautenberg Chemical Safety for the
21st Century Act to finally reform the Toxic Substances Control
Act, commonly known as TSCA.
One of the most important protections included in that
bill, from my perspective, was the new requirement that EPA
ensure protection for vulnerable populations, including
infants, pregnant women, environmental justice communities, and
workers.
Explicit worker protections are so essential because
workers bear the brunt of chemical exposures and harm. In fact,
according to the National Institutes of Environmental Health
Sciences, occupational diseases kill more than 50,000 workers
in our nation every year.
About a third of those cases are cancer. Globally, the U.N.
reported last year that toxic exposures at work kill one worker
every 15 seconds. To put that in perspective, by the time my
five minutes are up, toxic exposures will have killed 20
workers worldwide.
Clearly, our track record of protecting workers is
appalling. Many of us who worked to update TSCA hoped it would
help. But, unfortunately, I fear EPA's implementation of the
act is moving us in the wrong direction.
Methylene chloride is a prime example. EPA began a risk
assessment on methylene chloride before we completed action on
TSCA reform and that assessment looked at workplace exposures,
including numerous worker deaths.
Based on that assessment, the Obama EPA proposed a complete
ban on methylene chloride and now the Trump EPA is trying to
keep commercial uses in place, leaving workers at unacceptable
risk.
Asbestos is another serious example. Studies documenting
worker deaths from asbestos exposure go back to the 1960s, and
it was among EPA's first targets when TSCA was originally
enacted back in 1976.
When we passed the Lautenberg Act, we hoped it would fix
the flaws in TSCA and allow EPA to finally ban asbestos, 40
years after it began the regulatory process.
But EPA is now working on an asbestos risk evaluation that
ignores all exposures to legacy asbestos, which we all know is
a major driver of risk. And last year, the agency adopted a
Significant New Use Rule that will allow new uses of asbestos
in consumer products.
EPA political leadership took this action over the
objections of the nonpartisan career staff who were worried
about the very real public health impacts.
Because of these actions, I have lost confidence in EPA's
ability to implement this law and ban asbestos and that is why
last week I joined Representatives Bonamici, Slotkin, and
others in sponsoring the Alan Reinstein Ban Asbestos Now Act.
It is long past time that we banned this dangerous
substance which continues to kill American workers. The Trump
EPA's attack on workers goes beyond its refusal to properly
implement TSCA.
The Clean Air Act's Risk Management Planning program should
play an essential role in protecting workers and communities
from toxic chemical exposures, but the Trump EPA has repeatedly
tried to weaken it.
They have also tried to weaken farm worker protection
efforts. But this Congress recently passed legislation that
would prevent EPA from rolling back farm worker protections for
the time being.
And, finally, I must mention the unfortunate fact that
workers are among those most endangered and impacted by climate
change. Extreme weather and natural disasters pose serious
threats to emergency responders, chemical plant workers,
refinery workers, and more.
The Trump EPA has repeatedly undermined national efforts to
address climate change, leaving our workers and communities
vulnerable to ever-worsening extreme weather.
So this hearing, Mr. Chairman, I know it is just the
beginning of your efforts to hold EPA accountable to the people
it is supposed to protect.
I hope we can work together in a bipartisan fashion to
ensure EPA is meeting its statutory obligations and mission to
protect human health and the environment.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Pallone follows:]
Prepared Statement of Hon. Frank Pallone, Jr.
Today we are here to continue this Committee's critical
oversight work of the Trump Administration by reviewing the
Environmental Protection Agency's mismanagement of chemical
risks and its harmful impacts on America's workers.
Two years ago this Committee came together after years of
work to pass the Frank R. Lautenberg Chemical Safety for the
21st Century Act to finally reform the Toxic Substances Control
Act, commonly known as TSCA. One of the most important
protections included in that bill, from my perspective, was the
new requirement that EPA ensure protection for vulnerable
populations, including infants, pregnant women, environmental
justice communities and workers.
Explicit worker protections are so essential because
workers bear the brunt of chemical exposures and harm.
In fact, according to the National Institute of
Environmental Health Sciences, occupational diseases kill more
than 50,000 workers in our nation each year. About a third of
those cases are cancer. Globally, the United Nations reported
last year that toxic exposures at work kill one worker every 15
seconds. To put that in perspective, by the time my five
minutes are up, toxic exposures will have killed 20 workers
worldwide.
Clearly our track record of protecting workers is
appalling. Many of us who worked to update TSCA hoped it would
help, but unfortunately, I fear EPA's implementation of the Act
is moving us in the wrong direction.
Methylene (METH-A-LEAN) Chloride is a prime example. EPA
began a risk assessment on methylene chloride before we
completed action on TSCA reform. That assessment looked at
workplace exposures, including numerous worker deaths. Based on
that assessment, the Obama EPA proposed a complete ban on
methylene chloride. Now, the Trump EPA is trying to
keepcommercial uses in place, leaving workers at unacceptable
risk.
Asbestos is another serious example. Studies documenting
worker deaths from asbestos exposure go back to the 1960's, and
it was among EPA's first targets when TSCA was originally
enacted back in 1976. When we passed the Lautenberg Act, we
hoped it would fix the flaws in TSCA and allow EPA to finally
ban asbestos, 40 years after it began the regulatory process.
But EPA is now working on an asbestos risk evaluation that
ignores all exposures to ``legacy asbestos'' which we all know
is a major driver of risk. And last year, the agency adopted a
Significant New Use Rule that will allow new uses of asbestos
in consumer products. EPA political leadership took this action
over the objections of the non-partisan career staff who were
worried about the very real public health impacts.
Because of these actions, I have lost confidence in EPA's
ability to implement this law and ban asbestos. That is why,
last week, I joined Reps. Bonamici, Slotkin, and others in
sponsoring the Alan Reinstein Ban Asbestos Now Act. It is long
past time that we banned this dangerous substance which
continues to kill American workers.
The Trump EPA's attack on workers goes beyond its refusal
to properly implement TSCA. The Clean Air Act's Risk Management
Planning program should play an essential role in protecting
workers and communities from toxic chemicals exposures, but the
Trump EPA has repeatedly tried to weaken it. They've also tried
to weaken farmworker protection efforts, but this Congress
recently passed legislation that would prevent EPA from rolling
back farmworker protections for the time being.
And, finally, I must mention the unfortunate fact that
workers are among those most endangered and impacted by climate
change. Extreme weather and natural disasters pose serious
threats to emergency responders, chemical plant workers,
refinery workers and more. The Trump EPA has repeatedly
undermined national efforts to address climate change, leaving
our workers and communities vulnerable to ever worsening
extreme weather.
This hearing is just the beginning of our efforts to hold
EPA accountable to the people it is supposed to protect. I hope
we can work together, in a bipartisan fashion, to ensure EPA is
meeting its statutory obligations and mission to protect human
health and the environment.
Mr. Pallone. I know, Mr. Tonko, that you have--oh, I guess
I am supposed to--I didn't know I was supposed to give my time.
Whatever I have left I will give to Mrs. Dingell.
Mrs. Dingell. Thank you, Mr. Chair and Mr. Chair.
We are holding an important hearing today to examine how
EPA is mismanaging its responsibility to protect the health and
safety of the American worker. The American worker needs to be
protected from all harmful and toxic chemicals as every
American should be.
The American worker is the backbone of this country. I want
to briefly recognize and thank Professor Finkel from the
University of Michigan--go Blue--that began last weekend--and
Jeaneen McGinnis, a retired auto--we are going to do better
this weekend--and Jeaneen McGinnis, a retired auto worker, for
testifying before the subcommittee today to share their
respective expertise and their personal story. The committee
can learn a lot and I look forward to hearing from them today.
And I yield back.
Mr. Tonko. The gentlelady yields back.
I believe Mr. Walden, Republican Leader, is busy with the
Health Subcommittee downstairs. So we will proceed by reminding
members that pursuant to committee rules all Members' written
opening statements shall be made part of the record.
Now we introduce our witnesses for today's hearing and we
thank you again for joining.
Ms. Jeaneen McGinnis, benefits representative of the United
Auto Workers. Seated next to Ms. McGinnis is Mr. Patrick
Morrison, assistant to the general president for health,
safety, and medicine at the International Association of
Firefighters.
Next, we have Ms. Wendy Hutchinson on behalf of the
Baltimore Teachers Union. Then Mr. Giev Kashkooli--did I
pronounce that correctly?
Mr. Kashkooli. That is right.
Mr. Tonko. OK. On behalf of--serving as vice president of
United Farm Workers. Then we have Mr. Tom Grumbles, former
president of the American Industrial Hygiene Association and
past president of Product Stewardship Society on behalf of
AIHA.
Next, we have Mr. Duvall is it? Oh, Duvall. Principal of
Beveridge and Diamond PC, and then we have Dr. Adam M. Finkel,
clinical professor of environmental health sciences of the
University of Michigan School of Public Health.
We, on behalf of the--I, on behalf of the subcommittee,
thank all of our witnesses for joining us today. We look
forward to your testimony.
At this time, the Chair will now recognize each witness for
five minutes to provide his or her opening statement. Before we
begin, I would like to explain the lighting system.
In front of our witnesses is a series of lights. The light
will initially be green at the start of your opening statement.
It will turn yellow when you have 1-minute left. Please begin
to wrap up your testimony at that point. The light will turn
red when your time expires.
So we will now move to Ms. McGinnis and recognize Ms.
McGinnis for five minutes and, again, welcome.
STATEMENTS OF MS. JEANEEN McGINNIS, BENEFITS REPRESENTATIVE,
UNITED AUTO WORKERS; PATRICK J. MORRISON, ASSISTANT TO THE
GENERAL PRESIDENT, INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF FIREFIGHTERS;
WENDY HUTCHINSON, ON BEHALF OF THE BALTIMORE TEACHERS UNION AND
AMERICAN FEDERATION OF TEACHERS; GIEV KASHKOOLI, VICE
PRESIDENT, UNITED FARM WORKERS; THOMAS G. GRUMBLES, CERTIFIED
INDUSTRIAL HYGIENIST, AMERICAN INDUSTRIAL HYGIENE ASSOCIATION
AND THE PRODUCT STEWARDSHIP SOCIETY; MARK N. DUVALL, PRINCIPAL,
BEVERIDGE AND DIAMOND PC; AND ADAM M. FINKEL, D.SC., CLINICAL
PROFESSOR OF ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH SCIENCES, UNIVERSITY OF
MICHIGAN SCHOOL OF PUBLIC HEALTH
STATEMENT OF JEANEEN McGINNIS
Ms. McGinnis. Thank you.
Thank you, Chairman Tonko and Ranking Member Shimkus and
members of the committee, for the opportunity to testify before
you today.
My name is Jeaneen McGinnis. I am an FCA-UAW benefit
representative. I am also a retiree and I represent the UAW
Local 1413 and 1929 out of Huntsville, Alabama. I was hired as
an assembly line worker at the Chrysler plant in Huntsville
Alabama in 1983.
It was a profound time in my life when I was entering the
workforce for the first time. My husband had just been--gotten
out of the military after serving for several years and we
needed to supplement our income, so I had to seek employment.
I was overjoyed to land a job that was so highly sought
after in the area of our country with Chrysler Corporation
where the jobs were so scarce. It offered a decent wage and
opportunity for growth, which I quickly took advantage of and
soon--later on earned a degree.
Once known as the fastest-growing automotive electronic
operation in North America, the plant built many products that
went into the Chrysler vehicles and other vehicles.
When I started working there, there were approximately
2,400 employees and it rose to 2,800 employees. It was a fast-
moving plant that had different lines with large solder waves
throughout the plant.
Many of us began--became concerned due to the breathing
problems we experienced related to the solder paste and the
fumes that were coming from the solder wave machines.
The plant was very old, and very poor ventilated, and our
skin was exposed to the various chemicals used in the
production. There was a field adjacent to our--one of the old
buildings that we worked in where the ladies play softball and
our concerns were heightened when they closed the softball
field and later found out that the soil was contaminated.
But we continued to work in the plant that was right next
to the field. In the early 1990s, we moved to a newly-built
plant called the Huntsville Electronic Division of Chrysler, or
HEDC, and we moved to Madison, Alabama.
It wasn't until we moved that the workers were provided
guidelines and hazardous postings. Many had already, though,
been exposed to--in the old plants to all the chemicals that
were in those plants.
While there were improvements due to--and due to
unfamiliarity of the chemicals being used we were still
breathing fumes from TCE and dust from fiberglass created from
the printed circuit boards.
There were 16 assembly lines in a wide-open space with big
solder wave machines on most of the lines. Every line had
cleaning stations. These agents that were used for cleaning
were to clean the residue off the printed circuit boards and
that product that we used was TCE.
Chlorinated solvents like TCE were thought to be safety
solvent because they would not catch on fire. As workers, we
didn't understand the possible health effects of these
chemicals and just focused on completing our jobs and wanting
to do a good job and get it done. Now, later, we realize that
TCE is a known carcinogen.
Researchers have studied our death rate of our retirees and
they found that my co-workers have died at a higher rate than
the general population of disease related to TCE and other
chemical exposures including cancer of the brain, the nervous
system, as well as non-cancer nervous system diseases.
A lot more could have been done to protect our workers and
less chemical risk. Companies need to be held accountable and
more stringent legal requirements are needed to ensure that the
workers are not exposed to harmful chemicals.
We need to go forward and not backward to the 1970s. The
Obama administration has proposed banning use of TCE. However,
the Trump administration has not issued final rules on these
bans.
As more business and auto manufacturing jobs are coming to
my region of the country, we will be faced with the same
issues. Chemicals must be tested for rigorous testing and they
must be tested again and again and again before manufacturers
are permitted to use these chemicals in our plants and our
workplaces.
In 2016, President Obama signed the Lautenberg Act to fix
the Toxic Substance Control Act. We can't afford to wait
anymore. Implementation of the TSCA is a must and must be a top
priority for the EPA and this administration to protect our
workplace and our communities from untested toxic chemicals.
In this great country everyone should be able to work with
the expectation that their workplace is safe and that we all
should be able to enjoy our golden years.
Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Ms. McGinnis follows:]
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Mr. Tonko. Thank you very much.
We will now move to Mr. Patrick J. Morrison, speaking from
the International Association of Firefighters' perspective.
Welcome.
STATEMENT OF PATRICK J. MORRISON
Mr. Morrison. Thank you, Chairman Tonko and Ranking Member
Shimkus and members of the subcommittee.
My name is Patrick Morrison. I am assistant to the general
president for occupational health and safety and medicine of
the International Association of Firefighters.
Prior to that position, I was a firefighter for 20 years
with the Fairfax County Fire and Rescue Department. I
appreciate the opportunity to appear today before you on behalf
of General President Schaitberger and over 316,000 professional
firefighters and emergency medical personnel who comprise our
organization.
Our members face significant chemical exposures on the job
due to the vast quantity of chemicals in building materials,
consumer products, and the equipment our members use every day.
Firefighters have put our trust in the EPA to regulate
these toxic chemicals but have witnessed only modest efforts by
the current administration to protect the health and wellbeing
of exposed workers.
This is very concerning to us as firefighters have a higher
rate of certain cancers than the general population including
twice the rate of mesothelioma.
Unfortunately, in the year since TSCA's passage, little
progress has been made. Specifically, we are disappointed in
EPA's failure to evaluate all susceptible subpopulations and
address the use and disposal of legacy chemicals.
We are pleased that EPA included both asbestos and HBCD, a
flame retardant, as two of the first 10 chemicals to evaluate
under TSCA, as firefighters are regularly exposed to these
chemicals through their work.
The IFF presented evidence relating to firefighters'
exposure to these chemicals and the associated health problems
linked to occupational exposure in response to EPA's scope of
risk evaluation document released in June 2017.
These documents included firefighters as a susceptible
subpopulation and included legacy uses as part of the
evaluations. Unfortunately, EPA's failure to include
firefighters as a susceptible subpopulation in their problem
formulation document for asbestos released in May of 2018.
Furthermore, EPA also removed the evaluation of both legacy
HBCD and legacy asbestos, including disposal from such
documents. Firefighters have high exposures to these chemicals
daily as part of their occupation and should be evaluated.
Additionally, according to TSCA, EPA must evaluate the
entire life cycle of a chemical from the moment these chemicals
enter the market until they are disposed of. The EPA should be
evaluating them through this entire life cycle.
Unfortunately, removing the legacy use of asbestos and HBCD
from EPA's evaluation will almost certainly skew the
evaluations' results, especially as it relates to workers. The
bulk of exposures to these chemicals are a result of legacy
use.
Further, from the firefighters' perspective, such exposures
are not legacy. They are occurring today. While TSCA is among
the highest profile chemical legislation that has directly
impacted our members, it is not our only concern.
Recently, Congress noted the dangers associated with PFAS.
These chemicals are found in AFFF firefighting foam primarily
used at military bases and airports, older protective clothing,
and potentially in newer protective clothing.
In 2006, EPA instituted the voluntary PFOA stewardship
program that resulted in reduced production of PFOA and other
long-chain PFAS production by eight major manufactures by 2015.
However, these are existing stocks of foam--however, there
are existing stocks of foam containing these chemicals still
being used.
In 2007, EPA issued significant new use rule regulating a
significant number of PFAS chemicals. This effort was specific
to PFAS chemicals reporting requirements and did not restrict
the use of existing stocks of legacy AFFF firefighting foam
containing long-chain PFAS chemicals.
In 2015, EPA proposed another SNUR PFOA, another long-chain
PFAS as a regulatory follow-up to the voluntary PFOA
stewardship program. Regrettably, this SNUR has not been
finalized.
We are also aware that EPA is starting to work on a PFAS
action plan to outline concrete steps to address PFAS and to
protect the public health. Unfortunately, yet again, EPA is
neglecting to look at the worker's perspective.
EPA's plan addresses communities affected by firefighting
foam runoff but they are not looking at the subgroup of airport
and base firefighters that are using these foams and exposed to
these chemicals on a regular basis.
Since there is little Federal oversight in this topic to
protect workers, we are taking matters into our own hand.
Currently, IFF is sponsoring three research projects relating
to PFAS, testing firefighters' blood, station dust, and turnout
gear for the substance.
While we are frustrated with the efforts from EPA on these
issues, the IFF will continue working with legislators and
other decision makers to address our concerns with these
chemicals and their use.
Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Morrison follows:]
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Mr. Tonko. Thank you very much, Mr. Morrison.
We will now move to Ms. Wendy Hutchinson on behalf of the
Baltimore Teachers Union.
Welcome.
STATEMENT OF WENDY HUTCHINSON
Ms. Hutchinson. Good morning, Chairman Tonko, Ranking
Member Shimkus, and members of the subcommittee.
My name is Wendy Hutchinson. I am a science and health
educator at Edmondson-Westside High School in Baltimore,
Maryland.
I appreciate the opportunity to offer my perspective on the
EPA's failure to protect school staff and students in our
public schools. My comments will focus on three issues.
The first is asbestos removal in Baltimore schools. In
2017, the Baltimore Sun and others reported that parents of
Rosemont Elementary and Middle School boycotted the school by
keeping their children home because of district plans for a
roof replacement, a project requiring the removal of materials
testing positive for asbestos.
Contractors plan to work during after school hours from
January through June. Pursuant to State and Federal guidelines,
contractors were expected to take precautions to prevent
particles from spreading.
In addition, air samples were taken daily before students
were let back into the building. Parents advocated for students
to be temporarily relocated but district leaders said that was
not necessary.
I share this story because my school was constructed at the
same time as Rosemont, a period when asbestos was commonly used
in construction. As our State's school buildings continue to
age and deteriorate, too many students and school staff are
being exposed to the deadly asbestos fibers.
While some school districts are ignoring the obvious, other
districts are simply not aware of their own hazards and the
scope of work abatement--that work abatement requires.
As I prepared for today, colleagues shared that the EPA is
narrowing how the agency assesses the impact and health risks
of toxic chemicals like asbestos on school employees and
students.
Thirty-three after Asbestos Hazard Emergency Response Act
became law, far too many people are still exposed to asbestos.
Virtually every expert will say there is no safe level of
exposure to asbestos.
Even minimal exposure can lead to significant diseases such
as mesothelioma or lung cancer. In fact, a two-year study by
NIOSH found an elevated rate of mesothelioma among public
school teachers whose only exposure to asbestos was at school.
I have a co-worker who died of lung cancer. She was in good
shape, athletic, a non-smoker, and ate well. She worked for
many years in a school built in 1955 that had asbestos and was
not completely renovated before her untimely death.
Although it is now a known human carcinogen, asbestos has
previously been used in school buildings like mine, especially
from 1946 to 1972. This means some 131,000 school facilities in
the United States as well as 57 million students and school
staff are potentially exposed.
Next, I would like to discuss lead in Baltimore schools.
Lead testing was mandate in 2017 after a decade of banned water
use in public school facilities in Maryland.
Since testing began, elevated levels of lead have been
found in nearly all of the 170-plus schools in the city school
system. For years city schools notoriously used plastic water
bottles to provide safe water for students. But fixing the
problem would mean replacing all the water pipes, costing
millions of dollars per school.
My school has not been renovated and is not on any list for
renovation currently. I visited the city school system Web site
and found that as the school district tries to improve school
buildings, it has installed water filtrations systems in some
schools and upgraded plumbing in new buildings. To date, some
14 have working water fountains and clean water in their
kitchens and no longer require bottled water.
Finally, I would like to share my personal experience with
a combination of hazardous environmental exposures in the city
school system. My fellow teachers and students understand the
lack of investment in school infrastructure, particularly in
schools serving many students of color. It impedes learning and
compromises our health and safety.
How do we send children to schools with contaminated water
or inadequate air quality? Too often parents are unaware that
they are sending their children to substandard learning
environments.
Our children and educators deserve better and that begins
with the EPA assuming full responsibility for these issues.
While the EPA has authority to mandate significant protective
measures to spare students and school staff from unhealthy
exposure, it has generally failed to do so.
Asbestos and lead are just two examples but there are
others. As a result, veteran educators who have been working in
the same building silently suffer and are at risk for potential
long-term consequences.
Congress can help make school buildings safer by providing
more resources for school infrastructure. In its 2017 report on
the nation's infrastructure, the American Society of Civil
Engineers gave school facilities a D. It found that nearly 53
percent of public schools needed to make renovations or
upgrades to be in good condition.
That is why I am pleased that the Rebuild America's Schools
Act is moving forward in the House.
In closing, I can only hope you understand that investing
in school infrastructure will increase the health and safety of
children and school staff. That is what my union, the AFT, has
launched Fund Our Future, a national campaign to secure
sustainable investments in our public schools and public
colleges.
It is our solemn responsibility to educate our nation's
future workforce in safe and healthy buildings so that all
students can reach their potential.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Hutchinson follows:]
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Mr. Tonko. Thank you, Ms. Hutchinson.
And now we welcome Mr. Giev Kashkooli, vice president of
the United Farm Workers.
Thank you.
STATEMENT OF GIEV KASHKOOLI
Mr. Kashkooli. Thank you, Chairman Tonko, Ranking Member
Shimkus. It is an honor to be here with firefighters, teachers,
and auto workers.
My name is Giev Kashkooli. I am the second vice president
of the United Farm Workers. In addition to our members, we are
proud to fight for the 2.5 million who feed the 325 million
rest of us in this country.
Unlike the other panelists, farm workers and the control of
pesticides is the one group of workers where EPA has full
responsibility to enforce. For every other worker in the United
States, it is OSHA that has that responsibility.
There is an ugly race-based history for why farm workers
were excluded from that. But we are pleased that some of that
is being changed, first, with EPA coverage and also just last
week bipartisan support by Congress including farm workers in
close to full protections as all other workers as part of PRIA
4. That is a great moment and we hope from here, we can be
moving forward.
We want to be moving forward because of incidents like what
happened on May 5th, 2017, in rural California. That was the
day--this is not going to be a war zone I am going to describe
but was a day when a group of principally women and some men
were harvesting cabbage when a noxious odor came into their
senses. Some of their lips began to go numb, there was an
extraordinarily awful taste in their mouth, and yet, as Ms.
McGinnis mentioned, when people are needing to work and put
food on their own families' plates, this group of women and men
continued to work.
But soon after, the headaches started to set in. Some women
began to vomit, and when another woman looked across at her
daughter who was working alongside her, and saw her begin to
convulse and rub her eyes-and then Bircmary, who was 37 years
old, fell to the ground, convulsing, a mother of three
children.
None of them knew what had happened. None of them knew that
day what had happened even after going through the humiliation
of being stripped naked out in the fields to be tried to be
cleansed of that toxic chemical.
So these were dangerous. They learned later that this was
chlorpyrifos. Most farm workers have children. Over 55 percent
of them do. Approximately 500,000 farm workers are under the
age of 18 themselves. And so these are really dangerous
impacts. Unlike the other chemicals, pesticides are
deliberately designed to harm species, including people.
I want to focus specifically on the chemical--the
neurotoxic chlorpyrifos. Chlorpyrifos is acutely toxic and
prenatal exposures to chlorpyrifos are associated with lower
birth weight, reduced IQ, loss of working memory, attention
disorders, and delayed motor development.
The women like Bircmary and Lucia and Aylin and Vicenta,
who I just mentioned, it turned out all had been exposed to
chlorpyrifos. Chlorpyrifos is a restricted use pesticide and
the scientific evidence about the dangers of chlorpyrifos, to
quote the American Academy of Pediatrics, ``The science of its
toxicity is unambiguous.'' That is a quote from their report.
Here is another quote: ``There is a wealth of evidence
demonstrating the detrimental effects of chlorpyrifos exposure
to developing fetuses, infants, children, and pregnant women.''
In the longitudinal study on impacts done by the University
of California, it was shown to reduce the IQ in children. EPA's
own risk assessments of chlorpyrifos document the health risks.
In 2014, they showed that the extensive body of peer-
reviewed science correlated chlorpyrifos exposure with brain
damage to children. It showed in treated drinking water
chlorpyrifos transforms to the more toxic chlorpyrifos oxon.
In 2016, the EPA scientists showed that all food exposures
exceed safe levels--all food exposures--with children ages one
to two exposed to levels of chlorpyrifos that are 140 times
what EPA deems safe.
They concluded that there is no safe level of chlorpyrifos
in drinking water. They concluded chlorpyrifos is found at
unsafe levels in the air at schools, homes, and communities
throughout rural America.
These are devastating impacts. At least 20 incidents of
exposure a year took place in California alone, where we have a
better database than other States.
So, very simply, now EPA, unfortunately, overturned that
and is ignoring the science and now Congress must act. So what
we ask of you, of the committee--we have a lot more detail in
the written testimony--but one, for farm workers EPA is the
only enforcement mechanism so you have oversight there and we
ask that this new law that you passed on a bipartisan basis
last week, that that law gets enforced.
I really appreciate Ranking Member Shimkus referencing that
we pass these laws and then there needs to be a process of
enforcement.
And second, we ask you to join your colleague,
Representative Nydia Velazquez, in H.R. 230, which would ban
the use of chlorpyrifos which, again, the American Pediatric
Association has shown it is unambiguous in its impacts on
children.
Thank you so much.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Kashkooli follows:]
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Mr. Tonko. Thank you, Mr. Kashkooli.
Next, we will move to Mr. Tom Grumbles on behalf of AIHA.
Welcome.
STATEMENT OF THOMAS G. GRUMBLES
Mr. Grumbles. Good morning. My name is Tom Grumbles. Thank
you for the opportunity to be here today.
I am here to share my experience from 40-plus years as a
certified industrial hygienist practicing occupational health
and safety in the workplace prior to my retirement in April
2018.
In addition to my direct work experience, I spent many
years working with professional organizations focused on
industrial hygiene and worker protection. I am a past president
of the American Industrial Hygiene Association and of the
International Occupational Hygiene Association.
I also was a founding board member and past president of
the Product Stewardship Society. I am currently a board member
of the American Board of Industrial Hygiene, the group that
administers professional certification programs for the
profession.
I served in leadership capacity within industry trade
associations as well. Through many years of engagement in these
different groups, I grew to understand the practice of industry
as a whole, not just my company.
What I want to describe here today is what I have seen
related to safety data sheets and personal protective equipment
in the workplace. This is important to me in light of recent
trade journal articles questioning EPA's ability to protect
workers form chemical risk and the misperception that a SDS--or
that SDSs are not followed and have no effect.
Contrary to press accounts, I believe SDSs have a critical
role in the safety of workers' daily life. Based on my
experience, which I believe to be pretty standard industry
practice, this is what happens when an SDS for a chemical is
introduced into the workplace.
A hazard assessment is developed that informs the need for
additional training, workplace labelling, changes in standard
operation procedures, additional engineering controls, and PPE
needs.
And yes, SDSs are made readily available to workers. SDSs
are more than just a document to be read. The SDS is a catalyst
for hazard assessments that ultimately guide how workers'
safety and health will be achieved in the workplace.
In my experience, the SDS development process for any
chemical is rigorous and involves multi-tiered reviews
including research and development groups, toxicology, and
transportation departments.
In my view, SDSs have improved dramatically with the
implementation of HazCom 2012 by OSHA. This standard is
utilized to globally harmonize a system for classification and
labelling, to drive content and format improvements, hazard
classification practices, and hazard communication through
labels and, for the first time, symbols.
Regarding the effectiveness of PPE used in the workplace to
control exposures, OSHA regulations require that a hazard
determination for PPE selection be done. In addition, the
employer shall verify that the required workplace hazard
assessment has been performed through a written certification
that identifies the workplace evaluated, the person certifying
that the evaluation has been performed, the dates of the hazard
assessment, and which identifies the document as a
certification of hazard assessment.
The OSHA requirement creates an effective PPE selection
process that is documented and verifiable. In fact, OSHA's
statistics dating back to the 1970s shows less than 1 percent
of violations to the lack of eye protection, lack of general
dermal protection, and lack of or inappropriate glove use,
despite the fact that these violations are relatively easy to
observe by an inspector.
This confirms that workers are wearing PPE and compliance
with those requirements in the workplace is likely.
I hope this helps inform the discussion this morning
regarding the collaborative relationship between EPA and OSHA
in protecting worker health and safety. Clearly, there is work
to be done to get that better defined.
Thank you for the opportunity to share my perspective with
you this morning.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Grumbles follows:]
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Mr. Tonko. Thank you very much for your comments.
Next, we will move to Mr. Mark Duvall of Beveridge and
Diamond PC.
Welcome.
STATEMENT OF MARK N. DUVALL
Mr. Duvall. Thank you. I would like to thank the chairman,
the ranking member, and members of this subcommittee for the
opportunity to testify.
I am Mark Duvall, a principal in the law firm of Beveridge
and Diamond. My testimony relates to actions by EPA under TSCA
to protect workers, particularly since enactment of the Frank
R. Lautenberg Chemical Safety for the 21st Century Act on June
22nd, 2016.
EPA has always had worker protection among its high
priorities, particularly since most of the chemicals that are
reviewed under TSCA are industrial chemicals to which primarily
workers are exposed, or potentially exposed.
But the 2016 amendments amended TSCA in a number of ways
including by making worker protection an even higher priority
by requiring, as the chairman said, consideration of
potentially exposed or susceptible subpopulations, a term which
is defined to include workers.
But this obligation to protect workers is risk based. It
does not require EPA to protect workers without regard to the
particular conditions of use, i.e., on the basis of hazard
alone. Instead, every risk determination that EPA makes under
TSCA must consider risk in light of the applicable conditions
of use including the circumstances under which a chemical is
intended, known, or reasonably foreseen to be manufactured,
processed, distributed in commerce, used or disposed of.
Thinking about new chemicals first, EPA has always made and
continues to make worker protection one of the key
considerations. Indeed, many in industry believe that EPA goes
too far being unduly conservative in its Section 5 risk
evaluations.
Under the new chemicals review program since enactment of
the statute EPA has granted--since enactment of the 2016
amendments, EPA has granted 824 exemption applications. Those
exemption applications come with restrictions. Each of the 824
granted applications has worker protection requirements.
EPA has also imposed worker protection requirements on many
submitters of pre-manufacture notices, or PMNs, in the form of
an order that includes requirements for particular kinds of
respirators, gloves, and protective clothing and specific
hazard communication requirements.
EPA has then mostly extended those requirements to other
manufacturers and processors through proposed or final
significant new use rules. EPA has adopted 463 final rules that
incorporate worker protection provisions and 404 final rules
that incorporate hazard communication requirements.
These requirements are tied to OSHA's requirements on
respirators, other uses of personal protective equipment, and
hazard communication.
Since enactment of the 2016 amendments, EPA has made 564
final determinations on PMN substances not counting those that
were invalid or withdrawn, and issued orders restricting 441 of
those, or 78 percent of the total.
Thus, almost four out of every five chemicals reviewed in
the new chemicals review program is regulated, a dramatic shift
from the situation prior to enactment of the amendments when
only about one out of every five that completed EPA review was
regulated.
EPA has also initiated or completed significant new use
rulemaking for 378 PMN chemicals, or 85 percent of the total,
that have received an order since enactment of the amendments.
Turning to existing chemicals--methylene chloride--EPA
should any day now be publishing a final rule on methylene
chloride. We will learn the nature of the final rule and any
additional rulemaking shortly. At the moment, none of us knows
what EPA--what the rule will include.
Regardless of what is in that rule, EPA's actions will
supplement OSHA's occupational health standards on methylene
chloride, both the general industry standard and the
construction standard.
Those standards set mandatory requirements on permissible
exposure limits, exposure monitoring in regulated areas,
methods of compliance, respirators, protective work clothing
and equipment, hygiene facilities, medical surveillance, hazard
communication, employee information and training, and record
keeping.
They will also supplement EPA's NESHAP--the National
Emissions Standard for Hazardous Air Pollutants--for paint
stripping and miscellaneous surface coatings, which require
commercial paint stripping operations using methylene chloride
to institute management practices including to ensure that
there is not an alternative technology that can be used and to
reduce inhalation exposure. EPA is also working on other
aspects of methylene chloride.
On asbestos, EPA banned most uses of asbestos in 1989 but
in 1991 a court overturned that ban. That development led to
enactment of the Lautenberg amendments 25 years later.
In June of last year, EPA proposed a significant new use
rule for 14 former uses of asbestos. The final rule is expected
this year. Once final, that rule will achieve much of what
EPA's 1989 ban on asbestos was intended to achieve but could
not, due to the court decision.
It will effectively ban many of the uses listed in the 1989
rule as well as several others, thus preventing their
recommencement without advanced EPA review and approval.
EPA is also working to publish the risk evaluation for
certain ongoing uses of asbestos with statutory deadlines. The
scope document----
Mr. Tonko. Mr. Duvall, if you could wrap up, please.
Mr. Duvall. I will.
The short answer is EPA has much work to do but its work
will include attention to worker protection.
Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Duvall follows:]
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Mr. Tonko. Thank you. Thank you very much.
And finally, we move to Dr. Adam M. Finkel of the
University of Michigan School of Public Health.
Welcome.
STATEMENT OF ADAM M. FINKEL, D.Sc.
Dr.Finkel. Good morning. Thank you very much for the
opportunity. My bio is in the written testimony but, briefly, I
was OSHA's chief rulemaking official in 1995 to 2000 and later
was chief enforcement official in the Rocky Mountain States out
of Denver.
I have been on the EPA's Science Advisory Board, Board of
Scientific Counselors, and on both of the National Academy
Committees convened to review EPA's risk assessment methods.
I am a strong supporter of risk assessment and cost benefit
analysis, having helped pioneer some of the methods EPA uses. I
am going to pose four questions in this brief statement, but my
main message is that, as others have said, TSCA now requires
EPA to provide protections to workers and requires it to use
readily available information and the best available science to
do so.
Many of EPA's actions and inactions over the last two years
are contrary to the plain meaning of the law, arbitrary, and
unscientific. Congress needs to give EPA clear direction to
follow the law it enacted and to oversee the agency's
corrective actions.
So question one, ``why should EPA protect workers?''----
Chairman Pallone mentioned 50,000 premature deaths per
year. One might think that because EPA has been instructed by
Congress to reduce risk to one in a million where possible, and
because OSHA has always interpreted its Supreme Court decision
to let it stop at one in a thousand, that workers would be
exposed to about a thousand, times more of these chemicals than
the general population.
But I have looked at all the data. It is actually 10,000,
100,000, sometimes a million times greater concentrations in
the workplace than in the general environment.
There is a reasonable belief that when workers are
compensated and are informed about their risks they could bear
somewhat more risk than the general population. But come on,
10,000 times more?
EPA should begin its risk assessment and management in the
workplace because the risks physically begin there. Just as it
is cheaper to put ice on a frozen sidewalk than to put a plate
in a broken leg, the most efficient way to reduce
concentrations for everyone is to reduce them at the source
where they are highest, so they don't diffuse into the air that
non-workers breathe all day and that workers breathe when they
come home at night.
And in many cases businesses will find it less expensive
and less illogical to control these exposures simultaneously,
using substitution or engineering controls, rather than having
to deal with half the problem, then the other half in retrofit.
So I think EPA, both the Air Office and the Chemicals
Office, should regard workers as one of their primary
constituencies. EPA doesn't ignore water pollution because
there is a Fish and Wildlife Service and they shouldn't ignore
workers just because there is an OSHA.
Question two, ``why was EPA given this statutory
authority?''--I have read comments by the American Chemistry
Council (ACC) and the Halogenated Solvents Industry Alliance
claiming that EPA must coordinate with OSHA before doing
anything that might reduce worker risk. That is legally
inaccurate.
TSCA 9(a) gives the administrator complete discretion to
decide when to confer, and this makes sense because for most or
all of the chemical risks that EPA finds may be unreasonably
high to workers, OSHA's accurate answer to the question ``can
you do more?'' would be ``no.''
And so asking the question is only going to complicate and
delay needed analysis and action. I am proud of my former
agency but it is overmatched and unable to reduce unreasonable
risks. Many of those factors are explained in my testimony.
Mr. Kashkooli is right that most workers are covered by
OSHA, but not public sector workers, not independent
contractors, not safety hazards on small farms. So there is a
lot of lack of coverage, a budget one-twentieth of the EPA's,
19 chemical-specific standards in 49 years compared to over a
thousand in Germany.
And, again, declaring victory at one in a thousand, which
is far above where EPA would ever even begin to contemplate
starting a rulemaking.
Now, we have talked about methylene chloride a bit. I
presented a graph in my written testimony showing over 12,000
samples divided between pre-1999, when the standard I helped
write took effect, and the 15 years later.
The new PEL is 25 parts per million but in the 15 years
before we went to all that trouble to regulate, the average
exposure was about 85 parts per million. Now it is all the way
down to 69 parts per million--widespread noncompliance.
And that is one of 19 OSHA-regulated chemicals. There are
thousands more that are unregulated or use standards that were
grandfathered in in 1970 based on 1950's science.
Question three,-- ``how is EPA failing to protect
workers?'' I see a pattern of rather clumsily designed
pronouncements designed to make worker risks go away without
actually doing anything helpful.
Methylene chloride--it is clear from the titles of the
rules that we are headed towards a split in the rule where
consumers may be protected--I would be happy to answer
questions about how I think they probably will not be--but
workers will not be, deferred for restarting a rulemaking on an
issue, certification, and training that EPA already said, ``we
view the costs and challenges of certification and training as
a limitation of that approach'' and they rejected it.
1-bromopropane--a multi-site animal carcinogen, known human
neurotoxin--we have known this now for at least 12 to 15 years.
EPA has still not listed it as a hazardous air pollutant, which
is only a hazard determination, and the thing I want to
highlight about this, just to give you a sense of what is going
on in the workplace, there is ``manufactured doubt'' out there
that says that when animals are exposed to far more than
workers in the laboratory we may have trouble extrapolating
down to lower doses.
But in the animal test, at 62 parts per million the animals
got 800 percent more cancer than the background. Workers are
exposed today--at least 20 percent of them are--to over that
limit so it is above the amount that we are giving to animals
in the cage.
My time is almost done. I would be happy to talk about
PMNs. My fourth question was ``how is EPA failing everyone
else?'' I think the methylene chloride rule is not going to
necessarily protect consumers because there are going to be
small cans still available. The bromopropane rules says
consumers will avoid it because it is expensive.
Again, I am proud of OSHA but it is not solving the
problem--let us begin. Let us begin. That is what EPA should be
doing.
Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Dr. Finkel follows:]
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Mr. Tonko. Thank you, Dr. Finkel.
That concludes the opening statements of our witnesses.
Thank you, everyone, of the panel for your thoughts.
We will now move to member questions and each Member will
have five minutes by which to ask questions of our witnesses. I
will start by recognizing myself for five minutes.
We have heard from representatives of workers in four
different and distinct industries. But each are raising similar
concerns.
Ms. McGinnis, Mr. Morrison, Ms. Hutchinson, and Mr.
Kashkooli--in your opinions, is EPA doing enough to protect
workers in your line of work? And just need a yes or no answer
there and let us begin with Ms. McGinnis.
Ms. McGinnis. I feel like they are doing some, but they
could do better--more.
Mr. Tonko. OK. So that is a they are not doing enough, so
no.
Ms. McGinnis. Not doing enough.
Mr. Tonko. OK.
Mr. Morrison, yes or no?
Mr. Morrison. Not doing enough. No.
Mr. Tonko. No.
Ms. Hutchinson?
Ms. Hutchinson. No.
Mr. Tonko. Thank you.
And Mr. Kashkooli?
Mr. Kashkooli. No, and they now have a new tool and that I
hope Congress will help them--make sure that they use it.
Mr. Tonko. Thank you.
Mr. Morrison and Dr. Finkel, the Lautenberg Act explicitly
designated workers as a susceptible subpopulation. Do you think
that was a warranted decision for Congress to make and, if so,
is EPA doing enough to live up to that statutory change?
We will begin with Mr. Morrison, please.
Mr. Morrison. For our class of workers, the firefighters, I
think what they fail to do is they prevented us from being that
sub-worker group with the legacy asbestos. We were not
considered that.
We were not considered a high-hazard group on that and,
therefore, we were excluded. So we feel that EPA has really let
us down, especially around that legacy asbestos issue.
Mr. Tonko. Thank you.
And Dr. Finkel?
Dr. Finkel. Well, workers are not--I mean, they are a
susceptible population but they are there because they are an
incredibly highly-exposed population and in every single case
where OSHA has regulated and in every single case where OSHA
has not regulated, unreasonable risk to workers by definition
remains.
So, obviously, I feel EPA must always consider, assess, and
their conclusions, if they are scientific, should be that there
is unreasonable risk that we may or may not be able to deal
with.
Mr. Tonko. Thank you.
And, Dr. Finkel, in EPA's TSCA framework rules, for
example, the risk evaluation rule, do you think EPA has taken
sufficient consideration there to protect workers?
Dr. Finkel. I have been looking more at the specifics of
the initial rules that have--the drafts that have come out on
methylene chloride and PV29 and bromopropane. They are
certainly thinking about workers in those. But the idea that
exposures will not be ``reasonably foreseen:'' the non-use of
protective equipment, noncompliance with requirements,
noncompliance with guidelines, that is the very definition of
``reasonably foreseen.''
So all of these attempts to say that if everything goes
swimmingly and workers, instead of having clean environments
are wearing respirators, all will be well, ``reasonably
foreseen:'' that can't happen.
Mr. Tonko. Thank you.
And Mr. Morrison, same question with the TSCA framework
rules--the risk evaluation rule specifically. Do you think EPA
has taken sufficient consideration to protect workers?
Mr. Morrison. No. I really think that EPA just
misunderstood our occupation, I mean, as----
Mr. Tonko. In what--in what way?
Mr. Morrison. In that, you know, how are we exposed to--and
I am going to back to asbestos--how are we exposed to
asbestos--how do we do it.
When we arrive on a fire, we have to fight that fire. We
have to go into that house. We have to start pulling ceilings.
We have to make sure that that fire spread is stopped.
Asbestos is--in some of those cases are completely covered
with asbestos. They didn't understand that we can't stop and do
an abatement program. We are there as rescuers. We are there as
firefighters. We are going to get in there. We are going to do
it.
But they failed to see what our job was. They needed to
understand what is that end user--what is that firefighter
doing? What are the exposures and what are the significant
amount of mesothelioma that we have from a NIOSH cancer study
for firefighters that show that increase that we are not doing
enough for our work in this----
Mr. Tonko. Thank you.
We have one risk evaluation example, that being PV29. Based
on how that process has gone forward under the new framework
rules, I think we have some evidence of what to expect in the
future and in my opinion--my opinion--it is not good.
Mr. Morrison, as EPA goes forward with the other first 10
chemicals or even future action, for example, on PFAS, are you
confident that worker exposure risk will be given appropriate
consideration?
Mr. Morrison. Mr. Chairman, I am hoping that it is. I mean,
I think PFAS right now, I am hoping that we have a lot more
detailed discussion about PFAS. It is probably the one chemical
exposure for firefighters now that scare us more than anything
else because of not having that protection.
Mr. Tonko. Right. I think you even mentioned, right, that
it was part of turnout gear, like part of the----
Mr. Morrison. Part of the legacy turnout gear. We are--
right now, we are doing a study on the current gear to find out
the current gear's--what levels of that are on there even
before that PFAS.
Mr. Tonko. Thank you. And do you or Dr. Finkel have any
other suggestions on how the TSCA framework rules could better
conform with the letter of the law? Either of you? Both of you?
Dr. Finkel. For example, on the PV29 risk assessment the
kind of casual way that EPA talks about, well, ``we have some
evidence that this material is not genotoxic and therefore
there is no foreseeable carcinogenic risk,'' that is just
unscientific. And, again, I think the nexus between EPA and
OSHA is, obviously, the key both from a management point of
view but also from a scientific/analytic point of view.
OSHA does not require employers to follow manufacturers'
recommendations on the data sheet. They often do, no question
about it. But to say that there is no foreseeable risk just
because there is a nonbinding recommendation from a
manufacturer out there, again, it might not be crazy in the
management stage but in the assessment, they are supposed to
say, is there foreseeable risk? That is abdication of the law,
I think.
Mr. Tonko. OK. And, Mr. Morrison, any suggestions? Quickly,
because we----
Mr. Morrison. Yes. One suggestion that I think that we have
to do is that we are a susceptible population. You know, what I
would ask of the EPA is to acknowledge that and number two is
to really acknowledge the fact that legacy asbestos is an issue
for us and that we have to address that.
And one other thing, real quickly, Mr. Chairman: PFAS. We
have to look at those substitute foams that we can use as
firefighters that don't put us at risk for the exposure that we
are today.
Mr. Tonko. Thank you. Thank you very much.
The Chair recognizes Mr. Shimkus, the Republican Leader of
the subcommittee, for five minutes.
Mr. Shimkus. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
We want to, again, welcome you here and I want to welcome
my colleagues who have joined the subcommittee.
These acronyms, this science, these agencies--just hearing
this testimony would--just tires me out and, you know, and I
have been in this space, especially the six years we worked on
TSCA. The Frank Lautenberg Act took us five and a half, six
years to work through.
And so I welcome my colleagues to this discussion and
debate because it is just--this is just not an easy space and
so we appreciate you all being in it.
For an example, it is, like, you have asbestos, PFAS, PFOA,
and HBCD. All were really designed to help firefighters--fire
retardant substances that are now--and a lot of them came on
way before we even had any of these agencies, right.
We had--OSHA, came on in 1970, actually prior to the TSCA
legislation in 1976. So, I always like to look back at the past
to find out where we are at. That kind of explains why we got
so many chemicals out there that we are trying to get our hands
wrapped around because they were in and around or used before
we even started thinking as legislators, hey, we need to do
something about this.
So, hence, our movement to try to move things up and,
hence, the importance of this hearing.
I want to go back to Mr. Grumbles and try to get this nexus
of this OSHA-EPA debate vetted a little bit. So--and I pulled
it up on the iPad, too--what is the role of OSHA in this
process?
Mr. Grumbles. This process, the PMN process?
Mr. Shimkus. Just the safety of the--the workforce safety
areas that we were--we have been discussing.
Mr. Grumbles. Oh, gosh. I could speak paragraphs----
Mr. Shimkus. Don't. Just briefly. Why do we have OSHA?
Mr. Grumbles. OSHA is to protect the workers. Implement
regulations to protect workers.
Mr. Shimkus. Thank you. Would it be fair to say that to get
a full picture of what is necessary to understand worker
chemical safety you must understand the role of OSHA and its
relationship with the EPA?
Mr. Grumbles. Yes.
Mr. Shimkus. When it comes to worker protection and safety,
from your experience, where has a line been drawn between EPA
and OSHA authority and involvement?
Mr. Grumbles. So in the workplaces I worked in, EPA's
presence in worker safety and health was not much. The workers
certainly knew EPA existed. We trained them in TSCA 80 and 8(c)
rules because we needed their input.
They knew we had permits. They knew there were operating
procedures that had----
Mr. Shimkus. Let me ask you this. Would you have concerns
if EPA began writing its own specific worker protection,
standards, and to significant new use rules for chemicals under
the--under TSCA?
Mr. Grumbles. Yes, absolutely. I would just worry about the
conflicts that occur--could occur in terms of differing
requirements under OSHA and what EPA would write.
Mr. Shimkus. Right.
Mr. Grumbles. And, to me, that is the key issue of working
out this what does consultation with OSHA mean.
Mr. Shimkus. Yes. And maybe we can help, as we move
forward, because I do think there is an abutment of agencies,
except for Mr. Kashkooli, which you noted that EPA is the sole
authority under that and I would be interested in learning
more, just the history of that, too, because there should be no
differentiation between how we treat our workers and how we
protect them, in my view.
Mr. Morrison, we all love firefighters so and so I am
trying to understand this going into the burning building--
pipes still wrapped with asbestos. You don't know it is there.
We get it. We can all envision this. It could even crumble,
airborne. What can we do about it? I mean, so what can OSHA or
EPA do about that? That is what I am struggling with. That is
my question. What can they do?
Mr. Morrison. Well, I think OSHA could do a couple things
here. One is the right to know. You know, we have to--we should
have a right to know where that asbestos is when we respond to
that call.
Mr. Shimkus. Right. Right.
Mr. Morrison. Second, I think, OSHA can help us with the
monitoring devices on the scene to make sure that we stay
within our full protective ensemble until the air is safe or at
a safer level.
Mr. Shimkus. But--OK, so they would have a monitoring
device in the facility. I mean, they are not going to get there
before you guys and start putting in a monitoring device.
Mr. Morrison. A lot of--you know, a lot of the exposures
that we have is during overhaul, too. I mean, it is not just,
you know, we are in there. We put the fire out. Then we have to
come back in and make sure the fire is completely out and
extinguishing. We want to make sure that firefighters aren't
taken off their SCBA----
Mr. Shimkus. Amen.
Mr. Morrison [continuing]. Prior to doing that and they
can't do that. They should not do that.
Mr. Shimkus. And we have seen numerous buildings torn down
and all the work that has to be done--old schools, the tiles
or, you know, the ceiling things----
Mr. Morrison. Correct. Yes.
Mr. Shimkus [continuing]. And we have made great progress.
But I think you made a good point. My time has expired. I want
to thank you all for being here.
Mr. Tonko. The gentleman yields back.
Now the Chair will recognize Mr. Pallone, full committee
chairman of Energy and Commerce, for five minutes to ask
questions.
Mr. Pallone. Thank you, Chairman Tonko.
Clearly, we have some differences of opinion on the panel
between the chemical industry lawyer and the impacted workers.
Mr. Duvall, I appreciate your testimony because it shows
exactly what industry wants from EPA on worker protections
under TSCA which is, in my opinion, nothing at all, and I am
going to focus my questions on asbestos because it is very
serious as a threat to workers across the economy and we have
known about its dangers for decades. But we are still importing
it and it is still present in consumer products and even
cosmetics in the U.S.
Mr. Duvall said in this testimony the EPA's proposed
significant new use rule for asbestos would finally achieve
much of what EPA tried to do in their '89 asbestos ban. But it
is not a ban. It doesn't apply to any ongoing uses. It only
applies to a limited set of old uses and it doesn't even ban
manufacturers from resuming those uses.
All it does is set up a path for EPA to review those uses
if a manufacturer chooses to resume them. So in light of that,
I want to start with Dr. Finkel but most of this is just going
to be yes or no. Otherwise, I will never get through it in the
three minutes here.
So Mr. Finkel, do you believe that EPA's significant new
use rule for asbestos is effectively an asbestos ban, as Mr.
Duvall claimed? Yes or no.
Dr. Finkel. No, I don't.
Mr. Pallone. Do you think that asbestos should be banned,
and do you think EPA is on track to ban it?
Dr. Finkel. Hard to give a yes or no to two different
questions. There are different forms of asbestos, but I don't
think EPA is on track to ban the most dangerous ones.
Mr. Pallone. And you don't think they are going to do it,
obviously?
Dr. Finkel. I am hopeful.
Mr. Pallone. OK. You are hopeful. Good. I always like
optimism.
And I want to turn to those on the panel who have had
personal experiences with workplace hazards including asbestos.
It can be easy when we are talking about technical subjects
like risk assessments and regulatory maneuvers to lose sight of
the people who are impacted.
But all of you should be our focus. So I really want to
stress how valuable it is for us to hear from you.
So I want to start with Ms. Hutchinson. Do you and your
colleagues worry about your exposure to asbestos and the impact
it might have on your health?
Ms. Hutchinson. Yes.
Mr. Pallone. OK. Do you think we should continue to allow
the use of asbestos in this country?
Ms. Hutchinson. No.
Mr. Pallone. And let me go to Ms. McGinnis. Auto workers
have historically been exposed to asbestos in automotive parts
and asbestos is still used in brakes and clutches.
Do you and other UAW members you know worry about the
health effects of asbestos exposure?
Ms. McGinnis. Yes.
Mr. Pallone. Do you think we should continue to allow the
use of asbestos in automotive parts?
Ms. McGinnis. No.
Mr. Pallone. Mr. Morrison, what impact does asbestos
exposure have on firefighters in this country? That is a more
open question.
Mr. Morrison. Well, one effect it has is the--as the NIOSH
cancer study said that we have twice the rate of mesothelioma
from exposure to asbestos in our firefighter population and it
was a study of three cities--Philadelphia, Chicago, and San
Francisco.
So what that is telling us is that firefighters are being
exposed to asbestos at a higher rate and right now we have to
stop that. We have to end that currently.
Mr. Pallone. All right. Now I have a yes or no. Do you
think we should continue to allow the use of asbestos?
Mr. Morrison. No.
Mr. Pallone. OK. Do you have confidence that EPA will ban
asbestos under the newly reformed TSCA?
Mr. Morrison. I am going to be optimistic, too. I hope so--
they do. Right now, no.
Mr. Pallone. Everybody is--right now, no, but you would
like them to. OK. Well, you know, in politics they always say
the optimist wins the election. So maybe we will take a lesson
from that.
Now I just wanted to say--I have a minute left--that when
we adopted the Lautenberg Act, and I will point out to my
friend, Mr. Shimkus, I think you said, what, four years--I
would say more like 14 years.
I mean, I remember when we were meeting with Lisa Jackson,
who was the New Jersey DP commissioner and then the
administrator under Obama in the first--in the first four years
and----
Mr. Shimkus. I was being optimistic.
Mr. Pallone. You were being very optimistic. OK.
So when we adopted the Lautenberg Act, many of us in this
room hoped that we were paving the way to an outright ban on
asbestos. But I think it is clear now that EPA is not moving
towards that ban and the Congress will have to act directly to
ban asbestos.
So I hope we can work together in a bipartisan fashion as
we did on the Lautenberg Act to move the Alan Reinstein Ban
Asbestos Now Act and finally end the use of asbestos in this
country. So I will be optimistic as well that we can do that.
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Mr. Tonko. You are welcome, and the gentleman yields back.
The Chair now recognizes the gentlelady from the State of
Washington, Mrs. Rodgers, for five minutes.
Mrs. McMorris Rodgers. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I too
want to thank everyone for being here today and sharing your
insights on this important issue.
You know, we have several different Federal agencies that
are involved. Our goal is to make sure that we are doing
everything we can to protect workers and especially those who
routinely handle all manner of potentially hazardous chemicals
and to ensure that they are able to perform their duties in a
safe and effective manner.
OSHA is involved, EPA is involved in guaranteeing the
safety of these employees, whether it is TSCA or OSHA. I wanted
to ask and I thought I would start with Mr. Duvall but if
others want to answer, too--I wanted to ask about OSHA,
specifically, how do you differentiate between the scope of
protection for workers under OSHA and the suite of laws
implemented and enforced by EPA and what protocols exist
between OSHA and EPA for sharing information and deferring to
each other when it comes to exposure issues?
Mr. Duvall. OSHA's jurisdiction is entirely devoted to
worker safety and protection. EPA also must consider worker
safety but it also has to worry about exposures to the general
population, other sensitive populations, and the environment.
The EPA worker protection provisions have typically
referenced and built on OSHA requirements, which is
appropriate. I would encourage EPA and OSHA to converse much
more often and in more detail about the best ways that EPA can
leverage OSHA requirements and make them effective in
particular instances.
Mrs. McMorris Rodgers. Would you speak to how information
is currently shared and how they work--how we are deferring--if
they defer to each other when it comes to these issues?
Mr. Duvall. I spoke to a deputy administrator of OSHA last
week about that very issue. He told me that EPA and OSHA meet
monthly to discuss process safety issues and when I asked him
about getting together to talk about TSCA issues, he said, oh,
we have met several times over the years.
So I do not see a rigorous line of communication between
the agencies, which I would encourage them to develop.
Mrs. McMorris Rodgers. Mr. Finkel?
Dr. Finkel. Yes, thank you.
I just wanted to clarify one thing that was said earlier.
You know, I have worked at both agencies. Nobody likes
duplication and unnecessary piling on of requirements.
But, in fact, for example, if the methylene chloride rule
as it would have been promulgated had it looked the way it did
in 2017 there would not have been a conflict.
OSHA got it down to 25 parts per million, not very well
enforced. It is now--it is still about 70 ppm. EPA would have
banned several uses of it. That would tell a narrow swath of an
industry that there is no more need for controls because there
won't be that chemical.
The new methylene chloride rule that we think is coming out
will be conflicting because it is telling--it is headed towards
a certification and training program for workers, which is
going to duplicate the OSHA certification and training. It is
not going to be helpful.
So just because there are two agencies involved doesn't
mean it is duplicative at all.
Mrs. McMorris Rodgers. OK.
Mr. Grumbles, some people have argued that it would be
better if EPA rather than OSHA set permissible exposure
levels--the PELs. Would you just speak to that question and
maybe some of the concerns or practical effects of having PELs
set by EPA?
Mr. Grumbles. Yes. So PELs, in my profession, have been a
struggle forever. Everyone in the process is frustrated.
So we have got to find a better way to do it. Based on what
has happened in the last 30 years, we have a lot of experience
with how OSHA has done it, what barriers they run into, how
they make their risk decisions and determine the permissible
exposure limit.
For EPA process there is a document that describes how they
do that in the new chemical review. But I am not sure that that
process is similar enough and/or is as transparent as the OSHA
process.
So I think we all would have some concerns if they started
doing it certainly outside the new chemical notification
process. But even in that process I think it would be better to
have a little more transparency on what their process is.
Mrs. McMorris Rodgers. OK. Thank you.
Mr. Morrison, I had the chance to meet with some
firefighters earlier this week from Washington State. I learned
about the work that you are doing on the exposure study of PFAS
chemicals.
I represent Fairchild Air Force Base. We have had some
issues around the base and are working right now to make sure
that there is water made available and filtration systems for
homes.
I wanted to just ask what is the--kind of the next steps.
What is the plan to conduct a health effects study to better
understand whether the detections might be found are indicating
disease?
And I am out of time but maybe you can just follow up with
me.
Mr. Morrison. Yes, just real quickly.
Mrs. McMorris Rodgers. OK.
Mr. Morrison. We have--we are actually sponsoring a bill
trying to protect our Federal firefighters that work in the
military bases and one is the medical monitoring--would be a
blood test to try to recognize right now.
What we have right now is we have to have some sort of--
almost a moratorium on that--on the PFAS and look for safer
substitutes. But the problem with the safer substitute is that
we have to make sure it is safer.
We just can't say substitute and then not really understand
that. So for us right now it is removing that stock of PFAS
away out of firefighters' contamination zone and getting into
something safer.
Mrs. McMorris Rodgers. OK. Thank you. I certainly want to
work with you on that, and I will yield back. Thanks.
Mr. Tonko. The gentlelady yields back.
The Chair now recognizes the gentleman from the
Commonwealth of Virginia, Representative McEachin, for five
minutes.
Mr. McEachin. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you for
calling this hearing, and to all of our witnesses, thank you
for sharing your expertise with us today.
Last week, I was pleased to host a briefing and partnership
with Earth Justice to discuss some of the EPA's attacks on
workers and community health protections, including the failure
to adequately regulate some of the toxins we are discussing
today.
We were able to hear from members of impacted communities.
There is no one who can better explain what is at stake or the
moral imperative to change our course.
I was not on this committee during its consideration of
TSCA, but I appreciate the good work done by my colleagues to
ensure protections for vulnerable populations including workers
in disproportionately exposed communities.
Unfortunately, many workers in chemical facilities qualify
as vulnerable and disproportionately exposed on two fronts--
first, because of the way their workplace--first, because of
their workplace exposure and second because they often live
around the facilities where they work.
So, to me, the issue of worker protection is very closely
tied into the issue of environmental justice.
Dr. Finkel, do you think the EPA is doing enough to protect
disproportionately exposed communities around chemical
facilities under TSCA?
Dr. Finkel. No. You are exactly right about the nexus
between where workers work and where they live. I have major
concerns going back 30 years about EPA's--you know, the
conventional wisdom is--you hear it all the time--EPA is very
precautionary about its risk assessment.
Not the case. EPA is deliberately underestimating risk to a
susceptible people of all kinds, workers and non-workers. So
that is a constant struggle and, scientifically, they are still
resisting modernizing and being appropriately precautionary.
Mr. McEachin. For workers in chemical plants who live near
their workplaces, do you think EPA is failing them twice over?
I assume from your answer that you probably do believe that.
Dr. Finkel. I mean, they have certainly have done a lot in
terms of process safety, along with OSHA. But in terms of
chronic exposures, no.
Mr. McEachin. Thank you.
Mr. Kashkooli--did I pronounce that right?
Mr. Kashkooli. You did.
Mr. McEachin. All right. I also see a serious concern that
workers in some areas in some industries might receive better
workplace protection than some in less affluent or majority
minority areas.
You mentioned historical inequities that have left farm
workers less protected than other workers in other industries.
Can you elaborate on what those historical references that you
make?
Mr. Kashkooli. Thank you, Congressman McEachin, for asking
that question. I know Congressman Shimkus earlier asked what
was--what is the basis for why farm workers are treated
different from all other workers. So I really appreciate you
asking the question and given the time to ask.
So it is an ugly race-based history. In the 1930s when the
United States passed most of our labor laws--Fair Labor
Standards Act, National Labor Relations Act, and others--the
principal population working as farm workers in the United
States were African American. And I am not going to use the
exact words that a member of Congress used at that time but I
am going to quote minus one word, and this is what a
Congressman said when they were voting on the law. Quote, ``You
cannot put an African-American and white man on the same basis
and get away with it.''
That is what said and those were the reasons why farm
workers were specifically excluded from all national labor laws
and that continued on to the Federal Insecticide and Fungicide
Act.
So that was wrong then when farm workers were principally
African American. It is wrong now when farm workers are
principally Latino. Fortunately, in some States, those laws are
now being changed.
Fortunately, last week on a bipartisan, unanimous basis, I
should add, farm workers were finally included in equal set of
protections--it was signed into law last Friday--on pesticides,
not in any other area. But we now have a--finally, a way to
move forward.
I will add that the exclusions include things like workers
compensation in many States within the United States. So thank
you very much for the question.
Mr. McEachin. And thank you for your expertise.
And, Mr. Chairman, I only have 29 seconds so I will give
them back to you. I yield.
Mr. Tonko. The gentleman yields back.
The Chair now recognizes the gentleman from Ohio, Mr.
Johnson, for five minutes.
Mr. Johnson. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
You know, I hope at some point we can hear from the EPA on
the issues being discussed today and perhaps OSHA as well.
EPA's implementation of TSCA, which was recently amended,
thanks to the bipartisan work of this committee, does provide
opportunities for the agency to take steps to protect workers
as well as consider data from important Federal partners like
OSHA.
I think having the EPA and OSHA here to really flesh out
that work could be beneficial for everyone in this room today
and lead to a more constructive conversation.
Mr. Duvall, your written testimony mentioned TSCA Section
3, the definition there of, and I quote, ``potentially exposed
or susceptible populations.''
Does that definition as it relates to workers only apply if
EPA identifies those workers as relevant because those workers
face higher than average risks of adverse health effects from a
chemical's higher level of exposure?
Mr. Duvall. The definition is based on EPA's discretions as
identified by the administrator. So it is appropriate for the
administrator to consider particular groups of workers rather
than all workers if all workers are not affected.
Firefighters might be a perfectly appropriate group of
workers to focus on. But since EPA has so much to do and so
many areas to look at, it is appropriate for EPA to select the
areas where it could be most effective under TSCA in protecting
the different groups that it must address.
Mr. Johnson. OK. Well, following onto that, does TSCA,
particularly Section 6, give the EPA discretion to choose
whether and which workers will be the subject of a chemical's
risk evaluation?
Mr. Duvall. Again, EPA has discretion and the key area
where that discretion is addressed is on the conditions of use
that will be addressed in the scope of a risk evaluation.
That is where the legacy uses issue arises. The EPA must
consider workers and the other areas that it has responsibility
for. But the reality is the EPA has so much to do that it
cannot effectively do its work if it tries to do everything for
everyone.
Mr. Johnson. OK. Does TSCA authority pre-empt OSHA
authority?
Mr. Duvall. It does not. Section 9(c) of the act
specifically states that EPA actions under TSCA do not pre-empt
OSHA actions. I believe that is an indication that Congress
always intended EPA and OSHA to work together on worker
protection rather than to have EPA supersede OSHA.
Mr. Johnson. OK. Does TSCA Section 5(f)(5) require EPA to
consult to the extent practicable with OSHA in evaluating
workplace exposure issues in new chemicals?
Mr. Duvall. Yes. There is a specific direction for EPA and
OSHA to talk to each other. They have done so to some degree.
It has not been very transparent.
I would encourage better and more transparent
communication.
Mr. Johnson. OK. And does TSCA Section 9(a) address EPA
deferring to the laws of other Federal agencies that might
prevent sufficiently addressing an unreasonable risk determined
by the administrator?
Mr. Duvall. It does. Under Section 9(a), EPA under TSCA
must consider the ability of other Federal agencies to regulate
the same issue. Section 9(b) requires EPA to think about other
EPA programs that can effectively address the same issue.
There is a procedure proscribed in those--particularly in
9(a), which is a little clunky, in my view. I think it is best
read as encouraging a discussion and an open mind as to which
is the best authority for addressing a particular issue.
Mr. Johnson. OK. Your testimony also states that, and I
quote, ``TSCA is not a particularly good statute for addressing
asbestos remediation and disposal.'' Why is that?
Mr. Duvall. The 1989 rule on asbestos similarly did not
address remediation and disposal. It had to do with ongoing
use--then ongoing uses of asbestos.
Since 1989, many ongoing uses have been discontinued and
the significant new use rule is intended to prevent those
discontinued uses from resuming.
In a separate activity, EPA is doing the risk evaluation on
current ongoing uses. For the in-place asbestos that has been
there in buildings from the 1920s onward, EPA is--I am sorry,
the TSCA statute as opposed to, say, the RCRA statute, just is
not well structured to focus on the kinds of demolition
controls that the OSHA standards and the NESHAPs on asbestos
and that 50-State asbestos abatement statutes address in
extraordinary detail.
Mr. Johnson. OK. All right.
Thank you, Mr. Duvall.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back.
Mr. Tonko. The gentleman yields back.
The Chair now recognizes the gentlelady from Delaware, Ms.
Blunt Rochester, for five minutes.
Ms. Blunt Rochester. Thank you so much, Mr. Chairman, and
for convening this hearing as well on this important topic, and
also thank you to all of the witnesses for your testimony.
I hope we can all agree on both sides of the aisle that
worker safety should be a top priority at EPA. Thanks to the
bipartisan work of this committee, Congress has made major
strides updating our nation's toxic chemicals laws to reduce
environmental health risk for all Americans.
But reforming those statutes is only the first step. It
will require a commitment of time and resources from the
executive branch to implement those changes and protect
workers.
President Trump's budget released earlier this week falls
short. What little detail we have raises alarming concerns that
environmental programs will be cut to pay for props. Even in
areas where we should agree, the budget falls short, and I want
to focus on one example relevant to today's hearing.
The president's budget for EPA pledges to, quote, ``support
healthier schools and create safer and healthier school
environments for American children.''
This is something that we call can support. But even here,
the administration is ignoring worker risks. There is no
mention of workers responsible for renovating and maintaining
schools, the janitors who use chemicals to clean those
buildings daily, or the teachers who work in the same
potentially hazardous classrooms for years.
I have a set of questions that I wanted to ask Ms.
Hutchinson and I will start off with the first one. Do you
believe that safe and healthy schools should be a part of our
infrastructure work this Congress?
Ms. Hutchinson. Absolutely.
Ms. Blunt Rochester. And should we ensure that school
infrastructure improvements address occupational risks to
teachers and other school workers?
Ms. Hutchinson. Yes.
Ms. Blunt Rochester. And what would you say are the most
important occupational hazards to address as we work to improve
our school infrastructure?
Ms. Hutchinson. Well, I definitely think asbestos is at the
top of the list and also the water. So we bottle water in for
drinking but we still wash our hands, and I don't have research
to support this but we still wash our hands and every once in a
while you might forget and wash a utensil that you use to eat
with. I don't know what happens in the cafeteria. Again, we
don't cook much food. So I am not sure how that is problematic.
But then there are other things that may seem very trite
like the temperature in schools. The infrastructure of the
school that I work in the windows blow out. It is cold. It is
hot, depending on what the weather is.
And then the other thing that is not very pleasant to think
about is the infestation of rodents--mice, roaches, rats. You
know, this building is extremely old and while it houses about
850 students and maybe 75 educators and maybe 25 additional
workers, that is a lot of people to keep everything spotlessly
clean.
But if we had a new updated modern building, students would
act different, faculty would act different, and we would, you
know, have a nice space to learn in.
Ms. Blunt Rochester. Thank you.
Dr. Finkel, in the last series of questions to Mr. Duvall,
I was curious to hear your take on what you believe the roles
of the EPA and DOL, specifically OSHA, are or should be.
Dr. Finkel. Well, again, I have been in both places. There
is, I agree, untransparent but frequent communication. I am in
favor of more of that.
The problem really is that at long last Congress said in
this law that unreasonable risk, which has always in EPA's
purview been more aggressive than at OSHA's--again, one in a
million towards that level versus one in a thousand.
EPA now has a new responsibility to look around and see if
there are unreasonable risks to workers and I will say again--
this is my expertise--every risk to workers that OSHA has dealt
with and every one they have not dealt with leaves behind
unreasonable risk.
So EPA has a job to do, at least a job to consider. And so
the idea that this is going to be solved by deferring to an
agency that has reached the limits of its ability is crazy
talk. I am sorry.
Ms. Blunt Rochester. And one other question I had, I know
historically there was an MOU between Department of Labor and
EPA. Can you give any insight on MOUs?
Dr. Finkel. Well, there were--there were many in my time in
the late '90s, early 2000s, obviously, about farm workers,
field sanitation. I actually crafted one with EPA in North
Carolina about the maximum achievable control technology
standards for the air program, that we would get more of a
chance to look at those and make sure that in fact some of the
controls that EPA was ready to propose for stack emissions were
not actually pushing the material back into the workplace and
hurting workers.
So we have a history of doing that. I have no idea how that
is going now, you know, without a head of OSHA right now.
Ms. Blunt Rochester. Thank you. And I know I only have
one--no seconds--but MOU, memorandum of understanding--just I
don't like to speak in jargon.
So thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I turn it back over.
Mr. Tonko. The gentlelady yields back.
The Chair now recognizes the gentleman from Georgia,
Representative Carter, for five minutes.
Mr. Carter. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank all of you
for being here. This is extremely important.
I have to admit to you that I get somewhat frustrated by
some of the answers. I see--I get confused as to whether it is
EPA or OSHA or who is responsible and particularly when it
comes to these chemicals.
And, look, everyone up here wants a safe community.
Everyone up here wants a safe working place. And I know all of
you do as well, and whoever's responsibility it is we need to
make sure they are doing it.
So I am a little bit frustrated by some of the responses I
am getting. Not that it is your fault, and I am not frustrated
with you. I am frustrated that it is not clear and that is
just--I am just a little bit frustrated by that.
Mr. Duvall, it appears to me that really this hearing has
been really focused on how EPA has not--has not responded or
acted upon some of the regulatory actions from the past
administration and I am just interested about the jurisdiction.
Does the EPA and OSHA--do they overlap and have similar
responsibilities under various laws when it comes to some of
these chemicals?
Mr. Duvall. There is--they both have responsibility for
worker safety. OSHA's only responsibility is worker safety.
Worker safety is one of several priorities for EPA.
They have different tools in their tool boxes. They have
different statutes. OSHA's statute is well designed for setting
permissible exposure limits and both chemical-specific
restrictions on how chemicals can be safely used in the
workplace and the kinds of backstop provisions, which are
important to protect workers.
EPA's statute is different. Section 6 was amended in 2016.
It had not been function for a full 25 years and we are only
now learning how EPA will implement Section 6 and I think we
need to give it some time. It is learning as it goes.
But I can tell you that EPA is working extremely hard on
worker protection and other aspects of its existing chemicals
program under Section 6. Under Section 5, EPA has
responsibility for reviewing individual chemicals that are
developed through R&D and are proposed to be commercialized.
Mr. Carter. OK. Let me ask you this. Can we make it any
clearer? Do we need to make certain distinctions between the
responsibilities of the two--of the two bodies here?
Mr. Duvall. I think the responsibilities are clear in the
statutes already.
Mr. Carter. So, first of all, Dr. Finkel, do you want to
respond to that?
Dr. Finkel. Well, I like what he just said. I think the
responsibilities are clear. OSHA sets permissible exposure
limits. I don't think they have done a great job. It is partly
my responsibility that I didn't fulfil.
But EPA is now tasked with looking at uses and making hard
decisions about whether certain uses are so unnecessary because
of better substitutes or they are so dangerous that some uses
should be banned not only for workers but for the people who
breathe what the workers let out the door at night.
So I don't see any lack of clarity or duplication there.
OSHA has done the best it can with, for example, methylene
chloride and it is EPA's job to ask the question, ``should we
do more?'' If they decide to do more, Congress has now given
them the ability to do that.
Mr. Carter. OK. I have got just about a minute left. Help
me out here. Dumb it down for me. I don't know the difference
in 5 and 6, Mr. Duvall. I am sorry. I probably should but I
just don't.
So what can we do? What can we do better? That is our
responsibility is set direction to these agencies. Tell me what
we can do to OSHA and EPA to make sure that we got the safest
working environment that we can have for our community.
Mr. Duvall. I would say that one of the most important
things that could be done is to fully fund both agencies. OSHA,
in particular, is underfunded and needs----
Mr. Carter. OK. Aside from funding. I saw that coming.
[Laughter.]
Mr. Carter. Seriously. Thirty seconds left. Anyone.
Mr. Duvall. My sense is that EPA should work more closely
with OSHA to get the best worker protection measures that are
appropriate under their respective----
Mr. Carter. Everybody agree with that?
Mr. Morrison?
Mr. Morrison. Yes. I think what we are finding right now
is, like, on the fire department--there are fire departments in
your area that are governed by recommended practices--NFPA.
We would like OSHA to work with EPA to make these
rulemaking process that the firefighters are protected on that
and that relationship--I don't see why it could not work and it
should work--EPA and OSHA working together to protect the
workers on the--you know, out there.
Mr. Carter. Dr. Finkel?
Dr. Finkel. Yes, I have got a suggestion. Before I retire,
I would love to see the beginning of a conversation that OSHA
does a great job with worker safety but not as great with
worker health. There should be one national agency dealing with
chemicals that go out of the workplace into the environment.
Whether it is at EPA or OSHA, I don't care. But the separation
is the problem.
Mr. Carter. Great. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for your
indulgence. I yield back.
Mr. Tonko. The gentleman yields back.
The Chair now recognizes the gentlelady from Illinois,
Representative Schakowsky, for five minutes.
Ms. Schakowsky. I want to thank you, Mr. Chairman, for
calling this hearing.
Oversight of the Lautenberg Act is long overdue. I am very
concerned about--that implementation of the act has veered from
congressional intent, putting vulnerable populations at work.
Certainly, we have heard about firefighters. But you also
mentioned about students, particularly, low-income, students of
color, places that are low-income with asbestos and lead in the
water, which is also true, by the way, in Illinois where we
have seen that in Chicago.
I am particularly concerned about implementation of the
changes to the new chemical program which were intended to
ensure that, moving forward, all new chemicals had a finding
that they were--that they were safe.
Ensuring that new chemicals are safe is essential to
addressing regrettable replacements where one toxic chemical is
being phased out just to replace it by another analogous and
equally toxic chemical.
Importantly, the Lautenberg Act blocked EPA from finding a
chemical safe if it poses an unreasonable risk for a vulnerable
subpopulation such as workers.
Mr. Duvall noted several new chemicals that EPA allowed on
the market despite finding serious risks based on an assumption
that persons are--that personal protective equipment would be
used.
So, Mr. Finkel, is this assumption reasonable? I think you
mentioned that, that it is going--or someone did about going
along with the personal protection is not reasonable.
Dr. Finkel. It is certainly not reasonable in the early
stages, the way EPA has sort of waved their hands and made it
go away. They are supposed to look for unreasonable risk under
reasonably foreseeable conditions and, to me, as a former
enforcement official, the non-use of respirators and PPE or the
non-requirement that it be is the most foreseeable thing
possible.
Now, after they find that there is unreasonable risk if you
don't use all this equipment properly, if they want to do
something more to see that that actually happens, that is one
thing.
But at the get-go to say ``all is well'' because there is
some guidance document somewhere that tells the workers to put
on this mask that does or doesn't work is abdication.
Ms. Schakowsky. Are the workers required to know about this
as well or is it just the person that is in charge implementing
the rule?
Dr. Finkel. No, the OSHA Hazard Communication Standard does
require the employer to make available all these data sheets
for the workers. So they are supposed to be informed.
But it doesn't do them any good if the mask that they are
wearing is not appropriate, if it is not fit properly. They can
complain and there is a whole history of how that goes.
Ms. Schakowsky. All right. It seems to me that if EPA is
relying on personal protective equipment to address the risk to
workers, it should impose requirements for the use of such
equipment.
But my understanding and from what you have said it ought--
it may not--may or may not be. So is this an enforcement issue?
Dr. Finkel. Yes, but I do want to say I am not trying to
suggest that I think EPA should get into the personal
protective equipment business. OSHA has always said, with good
reason, that PPE is the last line of defense.
So EPA should be in the engineering control and the use-ban
business, which it is if it was doing what it is supposed to
do. EPA should not be in the business of saying, ``we are going
to protect workers by respirators and gloves.'' They should be
assessing what the degree of protection is.
Ms. Schakowsky. So is this, again, the problem of the dual
agencies and conflicting or at least misunderstood
jurisdiction?
Dr. Finkel. Again, I don't think so. I think Congress
intentionally gave EPA some new tools that OSHA simply doesn't
have, and that EPA should use them.
Ms. Schakowsky. OK.
So, Mr. Duvall, you cited some statistics in your testimony
regarding the new chemicals program but they seem to gloss over
the major change EPA made in July 2018 to speed up the new
chemicals program.
So, Mr. Duvall, does the statistic you give for the number
of new chemicals allowed onto the market based on a, quote,
``non-likely to present an unreasonable risk,'' unquote,
finding distinguish between the period before July 2018 and the
period after?
Mr. Duvall. The number of not likely to present
determinations is only after June 2016.
Ms. Schakowsky. You are shaking your head, Dr. Finkel.
Mr. Duvall. But prior to June 2016 EPA did not make a
determination that a chemical was not likely to present. It
simply made it--decided that it could not make a finding that a
chemical may present an unreasonable risk and having decided
not to make that finding the chemical was allowed onto the
market.
Ms. Schakowsky. Unfortunately, my time--oh, no--yes, my
time is up. Sorry.
Dr. Finkel. You said 2018 and he said 2016. That is why the
answers are different 52 of the last 65 since 2018 have been
``no significant risk.'' There was a change very much as you
suggested.
Mr. Tonko. The gentlelady yields back.
The Chair now recognizes the gentleman from California,
Representative McNerney, for five minutes.
Mr. McNerney. I thank the Chair and the ranking member for
working together on this issue. I appreciate that. I thank the
panellists, too, especially Mr. Morrison. I appreciate the
firefighters taking initiative on some research efforts. We
should be doing that and we are not, so you are stepping up. I
appreciate that.
And Mr. Kashkooli, your story about the farm workers hits
home. I have an Agricultural district in the Central Valley. We
don't do cabbage. That wasn't my district. But we do have farm
workers and they put their lives on the line to feed us and it
is something that we need to appreciate more and give them more
protections. So I appreciate your participation today.
There are over 84,000 chemicals on TSCA inventory that
should be assessed and regulated under the existing chemical
program. Now, while working on the TSCA reform we heard
extensive testimony about the problems with the existing
chemical program.
Unfortunately, it seems that many of the problems remain
more than two years after the passage of the Lautenberg Act.
Mr. Finkel, how many chemicals has the EPA required to be
tested under Section 4 since we passed TSCA reform here?
Dr. Finkel. Hoping to defer to somebody else on that one. I
don't know that answer.
Mr. McNerney. The answer really is there are none. The
answer is that there are none.
Dr. Finkel. None. OK. That is why I didn't know.
Mr. McNerney. So I think that is a problem. We haven't made
progress in the last two years.
So I get to start my five minutes over?
We also heard testimony about and claims about confidential
business information. Mr. Finkel, is that a problem that has
been solved?
Dr. Finkel. No. My understanding is there are a couple of
new EPA assessments where they talk about health studies--you
know, case reports on EPI studies inside of workplaces--being
CBI and I think that is a problem.
I gather they just released something that says that may
have been a mistake and now they are saying it was because it
was a foreign workplace. But no, this stuff should not be--it
could be redacted but the health information is essential.
Mr. McNerney. OK. So that is not very encouraging either.
Dr. Finkel. No.
Mr. McNerney. One of the central flaws with TSCA that we
determined was that the chemicals were based--evaluated on a
risk standard, which was cost benefit, basically, and so that
was changed with the Lautenberg Act.
The statute is now crystal clear that the EPA cannot use
cost benefit analysis and has to use risk only analysis and I
think that is an important advancement.
But under this regime, cost considerations are supposed to
be reserved until after the risk evaluation is complete. But at
this stage, an EPA has not even reached any of the first 10
chemicals going through the existing chemical program.
So we are telling them not to use cost benefit. Use only
health risk but of the 10 chemicals not a single one has been
evaluated.
Mr. Finkel, do you think the EPA has implemented this
statutory requirement, or do you see non-risk factors coming
into the consideration?
Dr. Finkel. Well, they are certainly not on track to finish
what they need to finish by the end of this calendar year. You
know, they will probably ask for an extension but I don't think
they are going to make that either.
I don't see cost coming in necessarily but I think the--
what we have been talking about, the reliance on compliance
with guidance documents is basically they are not doing their
job to think about reasonably foreseeable exposure, which is
the basis of where the risk comes from.
So you are right that we haven't seen them try to use cost
yet, but they are trying not to even have to get there by
saying that there are no unreasonable risks when there,
clearly, are.
Mr. McNerney. Thank you. Do you think the EPA is
implementing the existing chemical program as required by the
Lautenberg Act?
Dr. Finkel. Well, it is not promising so far. They had, in
my view, a perfectly reasonable and long-overdue proposal on
methylene chloride and now it is being split in half and sent
back to the drawing board.
They had a proposal to put 1-bromopropane on the HAPs list
and it is sitting in limbo. So no.
Mr. McNerney. Have you heard of the term chemical trespass?
Dr. Finkel. Yes.
Mr. McNerney. Would you explain it?
Dr. Finkel. I am going to have a hard time with that
because I have heard it in different ways and I don't want to
get into a pejorative--if you could just maybe rephrase it for
me a little.
Mr. McNerney. OK. Well, basically, I am wondering is the
EPA making any progress to reduce the threat of chemical
trespass and has the passage of the Lautenberg Act helped at
all?
Dr. Finkel. I may have to defer. If you are talking about
incursions into chemical plants where there is a security and
safety----
Mr. McNerney. No, I am talking about just general exposure
to chemicals in the general environment. I mean, we are all
exposed to chemicals that weren't here in the environment a
hundred years ago.
Dr. Finkel. No, he set me straight about biomonitoring and,
you know, that's a tough issue with privacy and autonomy
issues. But yes, we need more data on the body burdens of
chemicals in the environment that are getting into both workers
and non-workers, and for some good reasons but for some delay
and obfuscation, we are not--EPA is not moving fast enough on
this.
Mr. McNerney. Thank you, and I am going to yield back and I
will look forward to additional oversight on those issues, Mr.
Chairman.
Mr. Tonko. The gentleman yields back.
The Chair now recognizes the gentlelady from Colorado for--
Representative DeGette, for five minutes.
Ms. DeGette. Thank you so much, Mr. Chairman. I want to
thank you for having this hearing. The chairman and I were both
part of the team that helped work on the much-anticipated and
long-delayed reauthorization of TSCA.
But when we did that, we thought that the EPA would
actually act to enforce the law. So that is why it is good--I
know Mr. Shimkus thought they would, too--and so that is why I
think it is really good that we are having this hearing today.
I want to ask about just a couple specific issues, since I
know many other members have asked questions. When EPA
administrator--then Administrator Scott Pruitt appeared before
this committee in December 2017 I asked him when we could
expect to see a final ban of methylene chloride.
He had no answer for me then. But last year after meeting
with some of the families of people who were killed by this
potent toxic chemical, the secretary committed of finalizing
the ban.
So now, fast forward two years later, it is 2019. The ban
still has not been finalized. It was reported yesterday that we
might see a final rule from EPA on methylene chloride this
week.
But from what we can tell, commercial uses will not be
banned. So I got to say I think this is an extraordinary
disservice to dozens of workers who have been killed by
commercial uses of this chemical.
Dr. Finkel, how dangerous is methylene chloride?
Dr. Finkel. It runs the gamut. As you say, it is acutely
toxic. It can asphyxiate people in bathtubs and in other
settings. We did a case where somebody poured a small container
on a squash court, if you know how big that is. Closed the door
and was overcome by fumes in a gigantic cubical area from one
can. It is also a carcinogen and is also a neurotoxin.
So we did the best we could. I did the best I could 20
years ago and we are waiting for the next step.
Ms. DeGette. Right. In your view, should the next step
include banning commercial uses of methylene chloride?
Dr. Finkel. Not necessarily all but certainly the ones that
were proposed three years ago, yes. Paint stripping, coating
removal--that is where the substitutes exist and the dangers
are apocalyptically high.
Ms. DeGette. Do you think that OSHA regulations are
sufficient to protect workers from this substance?
Dr. Finkel. The number of acute fatalities has gone down
slightly. But, again, we can't cover independent contractors,
public sector employees, and we did the best we could for the
carcinogenicity. But the 25 ppm limit is way, way too high.
Ms. DeGette. And do you think that if the current
commercial uses of methylene chloride continue that customers
will be protected?
Dr. Finkel. I have to see how they come up with this
splitting of the rule. The original rule said at least
consumers would be protected because it would no longer be sold
in quantities--in containers less than 55 gallons.
If they go back on that in order to make it easier for
commercials users then, essentially, consumers are just where
they were except that, thank goodness, Lowe's and Home Depot
have done the right thing and said, you can't buy it from us.
Ms. DeGette. They did it on their own. Yes.
Dr. Finkel. Yes. On their own. Of course.
Ms. DeGette. OK. I want to ask you now about 1-BP,
bromopropane. I am just going to call it BP. How dangerous is
this substance for workers and the general public, Dr. Finkel?
Dr. Finkel. Sorry to say, more dangerous than methylene
chloride. It is a carcinogen. It is a neurotoxin at lower
levels than methylene chloride; we knew about 1-BP just barely
in 1997 when we finished that rule, but we had no idea that it
would be as aggressively touted as a substitute that it has
been ever since.
Ms. DeGette. And do you think the EPA is meeting its
obligations under the Clean Air Act and the Lautenberg Act with
respect to this chemical?
Dr. Finkel. Absolutely not, and it goes back beyond the
last three years as well.
Ms. DeGette. OK. Do you think that Nancy Beck, who is
currently the deputy assistant administrator with
responsibility for the Lautenberg Act should recuse herself
from decisions regarding 1-BP?
Dr. Finkel. Well, I called for that in written comments to
the agency on this docket.
Ms. DeGette. Right.
Dr. Finkel. I have read her testimony before she came to
EPA and it is one erroneous sentence after another trying to
exculpate this chemical from what we already know about it. It
is inappropriate.
Ms. DeGette. Thank you.
Thank you, and I also want to thank all of our
representatives of working people for coming here today and
talking to us about what his happening in the workplace.
You know, folks, it is like Ms. McGinnis said. People are
just trying to put food on the table for their families.
Several other of our witnesses said that and sometimes they
can't affect what chemicals they are dealing with in the
workplace and so that is why we have the EPA because they are
supposed to enforce the laws on a science-based effort for
everybody and we are going to make sure that happens.
So thanks. I yield back.
Mr. Tonko. The gentlelady yields back.
The Chair now recognizes the very patient gentleman from
Florida, Representative Soto, for five minutes.
Mr. Soto. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
On January 3rd of this year, Tampa Bay Times' headline
read, ``Florida Officials Delayed Telling Residents About
Tainted Water, Emails Showed.''
Linda Lawson thought little of drinking the water from the
decades-old well in her back yard less than a half a mile down
the road from the Florida State Fire College in Ocala. That
changed when her daughter-in-law answered to State workers
knocking on her door one morning, or one afternoon. They came
to test the water, a worker said.
In August, our local DEP in Florida confirmed that flame
retardants containing PFAS and PFOA had been used by the fire
college in the past. In early September, the college was told
only to drink bottled water.
It took four months for State officials to notify the
community and, recently, six former employees of the fire
college have joined a class action suit.
Obviously, we want to be proactive on this issue.
Mr. Morrison, is the EPA actively pursuing PFOA and PFAS
risks to firefighters in the community at large?
Mr. Morrison. No, I do not think that they have really
stepped up to the plate to do that. And just in full--you know,
just to add, my brother was a firefighter. He was at that
academy. He actually taught at that academy. He actually has
kidney cancer. But he actually was suffering from that, and
what we have right now----
Mr. Soto. I am sorry to hear that, sir.
Mr. Morrison. Thank you for addressing this. But I think
what EPA has not done is they have not looked at the
seriousness of what it has cost not only for the workers there
but for the drinking water in there.
Mr. Soto. Recently, we had an op-ed in our local paper
discussing an attack on science that is a threat to our water
and the--a Ph.D., Deepthi K. Weerasinghe, said, ``A systematic
pattern of undermining science is occurring at the Federal
level at the EPA and that vulnerable communities face
disproportionate burdens of health and environmental justice.''
Dr. Finkel, would you agree that there is a systematic
pattern of undermining science at the EPA currently and that it
does disproportionately affect vulnerable communities?
Dr. Finkel. Yes. Unfortunately, I have to say I agree with
that. Obviously, it doesn't permeate all the way through to the
career levels and affect all programs. But what we are seeing
in terms of the climate change program and what we have been
talking about today, I don't have time to talk about it but in
my written testimony there are some--there are some profoundly
unscientific things being said about these chemicals by career
and by political officials at EPA.
Mr. Soto. Give us a little flavor of what you mean by
profoundly unscientific.
Dr. Finkel. Well, I am going to single out Bill Wehrum, who
is the new head of the Air Office. About a month before he was
confirmed in that role--this hits me hard in terms of being a
former OSHA official--he was at an attorney advocating against
the OSHA silica standard, which was upheld in the DC Circuit,
and he said, among other things, quote, ``People live in dusty
environments all the time and it doesn't kill them.''
So a fundamental misunderstanding of what risk is and a
fundamental disdain for the people who work in this country. I
was just--it is hard to shock me these days but that really
shocked me.
Mr. Soto. Thank you, Dr. Finkel.
My next questions are from Ms. McGinnis, Ms. Hutchinson,
and Mr. Kashkooli. The--my constituent goes on to say that the
EPA and the administration is stacking science advisory groups
and hollowing out agency positions and monitoring enforcement.
We will start with Ms. McGinnis and go down the line. Do
you believe this is happening and how does this affect workers?
Ms. McGinnis. I am not sure I understand the question.
Could you----
Mr. Soto. Do you believe that the administration and the
EPA is hollowing out agency positions in monitoring and
enforcement and how is this affecting workers?
Ms. McGinnis. I don't really know how to answer that. I
will pass.
Mr. Soto. OK. Ms. Hutchinson, would you say that there is a
hollowing out of agency positions in monitoring and enforcement
and, if so, how would that affect workers?
Ms. Hutchinson. I am not so sure how to answer that as
well. I just know that things that happen in schools are not
communicated. So I would guess to say no.
Mr. Soto. OK. Let us simplify the question. So if there
were less folks in monitoring and enforcement at the EPA, would
that affect workers in general, Ms. McGinnis, at UAW and other
facilities?
Ms. McGinnis. I think so, yes.
Mr. Soto. And how so?
Ms. McGinnis. Well, you have less hands in the fire so you
have less people making the decisions on what is acceptable and
what is not. I don't know if that answers it or not.
Mr. Soto. Sure. And under the more simplified version of
the question, Ms. Hutchinson, do you have anything to add on
behalf of our teachers?
Ms. Hutchinson. I would agree.
Mr. Soto. And, Mr. Kashkooli, do you believe that there is
a hollowing out of agency positions in monitoring and
enforcement, and even if you don't, should that actually be
true would that affect our farm workers?
Mr. Kashkooli. So yes, it will impact farm workers and I
can answer the question. EPA right now is not listening to the
scientists that they do have. Career scientists, both in 2014
and 2016, were very clear that chlorpyrifos is toxic and
reduces the IQ for children.
It is the same finding that scientists found for everybody
else back in 2000. It was prohibited use for everyone but
agriculture. And so in rural areas now for the last 19 years
scientists have now conclusively shown that it reduces IQ for
children.
And so EPA--the current EPA is not listening to the staff
that they do have on and----
Mr. Soto. My next question is for----
Mr. Kashkooli. Sorry. One other----
Mr. Soto. Sorry. My time is limited, sir.
Do we see a hollowing out of agency positions, career EPA
officials, and what effect does that have?
Dr. Finkel. I have read about it. I certainly have to look
at next year's budget to see how much worse it is going to get.
I can certainly say that is happening at OSHA which has no head
and which has reduced its enforcement.
So these are the overmatched people who are trying to get
to 8 million workplaces with 2,000 people and now they are down
to, I think, 1,650, something like that.
Mr. Soto. So it is safe to say that in EPA and OSHA were
not given sufficient staff and, therefore, enforcement at a
level that is appropriate is not happening right now?
Dr. Finkel. No, and it hasn't happened in a while--I was
not expecting to see so little progress in enforcing the
methylene chloride standard that I helped write, as I have
found.
Mr. Soto. My time has expired.
Mr. Tonko. The gentleman yields back. That, I believe,
concludes the list of colleagues looking to question the
witnesses.
We thank you again for participating in what is a very
important topic. I request unanimous consent to enter the
following into the record:
We have a letter from the Asbestos Disease Awareness
Organization, a statement from the Environmental Defense Fund,
a study published in ``Environmental Health Perspectives,'' a
report by the Government Accountability Office entitled
``Multiple Challenges Lengthen OSHA's Standard Setting.''
We have a letter from the International Union, UAW;
comments by the International Union, UAW; on EPA's proposed
changes to the risk management program. We have a letter from
the Chlorpyrifos Alliance to USDA; Secretary Perdue and EPA
Administrator Wheeler; a fact sheet on the use of chlorpyrifos
in agriculture; a letter from the Pesticide Registration
Improvement Act--PRIA--Coalition; a letter from the Safer
Chemicals Healthy Families Coalition; a letter from Alexandra
Dapolito Dunn, assistant EPA administrator; a letter from TSCA
New Chemicals Coalition, NCC; a letter from Riki Ott with the
Alert Project; and a report by the Government Accountability
Project entitled, ``Deadly Dispersants in the Gulf: Our Public
Health and Environmental Tragedies the New Norm for Oil Spill
Cleanups.''
We have a public--a list of public comments submitted by
the Government Accountability Project on EPA's proposed rule to
Sub Part J of the National Oil and Hazardous Substances
Pollution Contingency Plan that governs the use of dispersants.
We have a photo documentation of dispersant contamination
and, finally, a testimony from Dr. Riki Ott on the Trans
Mountain Pipeline.
We ask unanimous consent that they be incorporated into the
record.
Mr. Shimkus. Mr. Chairman, reserving the right to object. I
think the committee staff are working to reconcile some of this
stuff. So I don't think, in the end, we will. But if I can
reserve that right and we can visit that in the near future I
would appreciate it.
Mr. Tonko. Right. The gentleman asked to reserve and that
request is granted.
With that----
Mr. Shimkus. Mr. Chairman?
Mr. Tonko. Yes.
Mr. Shimkus. May I just--I also want to thank you all for
being here. Just for the laymen, this is a very--just a very
challenging difficult process. So your expertise--I just--Dr.
Finkel, I didn't want to object or intervene in your answering.
But you skated closely to impugning the intent and the work of
Mr. Bill Wehrum. He is not here--he doesn't have the right to
defend himself at this time and I would caution you not to do
that.
Dr. Finkel. Well, I was asked a question and it is in the
public record that he said that.
Mr. Shimkus. You know, unless the chairman wants to give
you time--I am just making that statement as an observation.
Dr. Finkel. Fair enough.
Mr. Tonko. And I ask our Republican Leader again to review
two more submissions into the record. We have from the
Gainesville Sun an opinion via a letter that is entitled, ``A
Tax on Science: A Threat to our Water,'' and then, finally,
from The Buzz, ``Florida Officials Delay Telling Residents
About Tainted Water, Emails Show.''
Mr. Shimkus. Again, we will reserve and put it in the
package and my expectations will be--will all be good.
Mr. Tonko. Thank you. The request to reserve is granted.
I would like to thank again the witnesses for their
participation in today's important hearing. I remind Members
that pursuant to committee rules they have 10 business days by
which to submit additional questions for the record to be
answered by the witnesses who have appeared.
I ask each witness to respond promptly to any such
questions that you may receive, and at this time, the
subcommittee is adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 12:40 p.m., the committee was adjourned.]
[Material submitted for inclusion in the record follows:]
The Prepared Statement of Hon. Walden
Mr. Chairman, thank you for recognizing me and for calling
today's hearing to emphasize the importance of workplace
safety.
We may disagree, Mr. Chairman, on the ways to solve various
problems. We may disagree on the scope of certain problems. We
may even disagree on the costs of the problem. But I know we
all agree that all working Americans, whether unionized or not,
should not have to fear injury or illness every time they go to
work. I think we all agree that facilities, both private and
municipal, should be good neighbors and control their
pollution.
We should also agree that the Federal Government needs to
follow the rule of law in setting public health standards.
Our Federal Constitution gives us, Congress, the power to
write the laws and provides the Executive Branch the power to
interpret and enforce those law. Hopefully we write the law so
clearly that the implementingAgency doesn't have to "interpret"
it. If we aren't clear, our Constitution does not give another
branch the power to rewrite it or make it up. Instead, it
requires that Congress go cleanup the mess of the law that it
made.
Which is why I am intrigued by this hearing today. I am
looking forward to the compelling testimony we are about to
hear but I'm also interested to learn how occupational safety
is now the domain of the Environmental Protection Agency.
As I understand it, Congress, through the Occupational
Safety and Health Act has been quite clear that the
Occupational Safety and Health Administration at the Department
of Labor is primary responsibility for Federal rules for worker
safety and health.
While our environmental laws try to keep exposure to
pollution and hazards at bay regardless of whether the person
is working, our environmental laws have the Environmental
Protection Agency defer to OSHA and the National Institute of
Occupational Safety and Health for protections in the
workplace.
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
[all]