[House Hearing, 117 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]








  TSCA AND PUBLIC HEALTH: FULFILLING THE PROMISE OF THE LAUTENBERG ACT

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

                             HYBRID HEARING

                               BEFORE THE

             SUBCOMMITTEE ON ENVIRONMENT AND CLIMATE CHANGE

                                 OF THE

                    COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND COMMERCE
                        HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                    ONE HUNDRED SEVENTEENTH CONGRESS

                             FIRST SESSION

                               __________

                            OCTOBER 27, 2021

                               __________

                           Serial No. 117-56






    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]









     Published for the use of the Committee on Energy and Commerce

                   govinfo.gov/committee/house-energy
                        energycommerce.house.gov 
                                   _______
                                   
                 U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE 
                 
56-830 PDF                   WASHINGTON : 2024 
                        
                        
                        
                        
                        
                        
                        
                        
                        
                        
                        
                        
                        
                        
                        
                        
                        
                        
                        
                        
                        
                        
                        
                        
                        
                        
                        
                        
                        
                        
                        
                        
                        
                        
                        
                        
                        
                        
                        
                        

                    COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND COMMERCE

                     FRANK PALLONE, Jr., New Jersey
                                 Chairman
BOBBY L. RUSH, Illinois              CATHY McMORRIS RODGERS, Washington
ANNA G. ESHOO, California              Ranking Member
DIANA DeGETTE, Colorado              FRED UPTON, Michigan
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          BRETT GUTHRIE, Kentucky
KATHY CASTOR, Florida                DAVID B. McKINLEY, West Virginia
JOHN P. SARBANES, Maryland           ADAM KINZINGER, Illinois
JERRY McNERNEY, California           H. MORGAN GRIFFITH, Virginia
PETER WELCH, Vermont                 GUS M. BILIRAKIS, Florida
PAUL TONKO, New York                 BILL JOHNSON, Ohio
YVETTE D. CLARKE, New York           BILLY LONG, Missouri
KURT SCHRADER, Oregon                LARRY BUCSHON, Indiana
TONY CARDENAS, California            MARKWAYNE MULLIN, Oklahoma
RAUL RUIZ, California                RICHARD HUDSON, North Carolina
SCOTT H. PETERS, California          TIM WALBERG, Michigan
DEBBIE DINGELL, Michigan             EARL L. ``BUDDY'' CARTER, Georgia
MARC A. VEASEY, Texas                JEFF DUNCAN, South Carolina
ANN M. KUSTER, New Hampshire         GARY J. PALMER, Alabama
ROBIN L. KELLY, Illinois, Vice       NEAL P. DUNN, Florida
    Chair                            JOHN R. CURTIS, Utah
NANETTE DIAZ BARRAGAN, California    DEBBBIE LESKO, Arizona
A. DONALD McEACHIN, Virginia         GREG PENCE, Indiana
LISA BLUNT ROCHESTER, Delaware       DAN CRENSHAW, Texas
DARREN SOTO, Florida                 JOHN JOYCE, Pennsylvania
TOM O'HALLERAN, Arizona              KELLY ARMSTRONG, North Dakota
KATHLEEN M. RICE, New York
ANGIE CRAIG, Minnesota
KIM SCHRIER, Washington
LORI TRAHAN, Massachusetts
LIZZIE FLETCHER, Texas
                                 ------                                

                           Professional Staff

                   JEFFERY C. CARROLL, Staff Director
                TIFFANY GUARASCIO, Deputy Staff Director
                  NATE HODSON, Minority Staff Director
             Subcommittee on Environment and Climate Change

                          PAUL TONKO, New York
                                 Chairman
DIANA DeGETTE, Colorado              DAVID B. McKINLEY, West Virginia
JAN SCHAKOWSKY, Illinois               Ranking Member
JOHN P. SARBANES, Maryland           BILL JOHNSON, Ohio
YVETTE D. CLARKE, New York           MARKWAYNE MULLIN, Oklahoma
RAUL RUIZ, California, Vice Chair    RICHARD HUDSON, North Carolina
SCOTT H. PETERS, California          EARL L. ``BUDDY'' CARTER, Georgia
DEBBIE DINGELL, Michigan             JEFF DUNCAN, South Carolina
NANETTE DIAZ BARRAGAN, California    GARY J. PALMER, Alabama
A. DONALD McEACHIN, Virginia         JOHN R. CURTIS, Utah
LISA BLUNT ROCHESTER, Delaware       DAN CRENSHAW, Texas
DARREN SOTO, Florida                 CATHY McMORRIS RODGERS, Washington 
TOM O'HALLERAN, Arizona                  (ex officio)
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...........................................     4
Hon. David B. McKinley, a Representative in Congress from the 
  State of West Virginia, opening statement......................     6
    Prepared statement...........................................     8
Hon. Frank Pallone, Jr., a Representative in Congress from the 
  State of New Jersey, opening statement.........................    11
    Prepared statement...........................................    13
Hon. Cathy McMorris Rodgers, a Representative in Congress from 
  the State of Washington, opening statement.....................    15
    Prepared statement...........................................    17

                               Witnesses

Michal Ilana Freedhoff, Ph.D., Assistant Administrator, Office of 
  Chemical Safety and Pollution Prevention, U.S. Environmental 
  Protection Agency..............................................    20
    Prepared statement...........................................    23
Answers to submitted questions \1\
Appendix A and B responses.......................................    91

                           Submitted Material

Letter of August 17, 2021, from Mr. Pallone, Ms. DeGette, and Mr. 
  Tonko to Michael S. Regan, EPA Administrator, submitted by Ms. 
  DeGette........................................................    69
Letter of September 26, 2021, plus six enclosures, from Michal 
  Freedhoff Ph.D., Assistant Administrator, EPA, to Mr. Pallone, 
  et al., submitted by Mr, Tonko.................................    73
Letter of October 27, 2021, from Kevin Serafino, Vice President, 
  Government Relations and Public Policy, Household and 
  Commercial Products Association, to Mr. Tonko and Mr. McKinley, 
  submitted by Mr. Tonko.........................................    88
Article of October 20, 2021, `` EPA's Chemicals Head Tells Staff 
  to Consider Work-Life Balance,'' by Stephen Lee, Reporter, 
  Bloomberg Law, submitted by Mr. Tonko..........................    89

----------
\1\ The information has been retained in committee files and also 
  is available at https://docs.house.gov/meetings/IF/IF18/
  20211027/114176/HHRG-117-IF18-Wstate-FreedhoffPhDM-20211027-
  SD001.pdf

 
  TSCA AND PUBLIC HEALTH: FULFILLING THE PROMISE OF THE LAUTENBERG ACT

                              ----------                              


                      WEDNESDAY, OCTOBER 27, 2021

                  House of Representatives,
    Subcommittee on Environment and Climate Change,
                          Committee on Energy and Commerce,
                                                    Washington, DC.
    The subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 10:33 a.m., in 
the John D. Dingell Room 2123, Rayburn House Office Building, 
and remotely via Cisco Webex online video conferencing, Hon. 
Paul Tonko (chairman of the subcommittee), presiding.
    Present: Representatives Tonko, DeGette, Schakowsky, 
Sarbanes, Clarke, Ruiz, Peters, Dingell, Barragan, McEachin, 
Blunt Rochester, Soto, Pallone (ex-officio); McKinley 
(subcommittee ranking member), Johnson, Mullin, Hudson, Carter, 
Duncan, Palmer, Curtis, Crenshaw, and Rodgers (ex-officio).
    Staff Present: Jacqueline Cohen, Chief Environment Counsel; 
Waverly Gordon, Deputy Staff Director and General Counsel; 
Tiffany Guarascio, Staff Director; Anthony Gutierrez, 
Professional Staff Member; Perry Hamilton, Clerk; Zach Kahan, 
Deputy Director Outreach and Member Service; Rick Kessler, 
Senior Advisor and Staff Director, Energy and Environment; 
Mackenzie Kuhl, Press Assistant; Brendan Larkin, Policy 
Coordinator; Kaitlyn Peel, Digital Director; Caroline Rinker, 
Press Assistant; Nikki Roy, Policy Coordinator; Andrew Souvall, 
Director of Communications, Outreach, and Member Services; 
Rebecca Tomilchik, Policy Analyst; Sarah Burke, Minority Deputy 
Staff Director; Michael Cameron, Minority Policy Analyst, 
Consumer Protection and Commerce, Energy, Environment; Jerry 
Couri, Minority Deputy Chief Counsel for Environment; Nate 
Hodson, Minority Staff Director; Peter Kielty, Minority General 
Counsel; Emily King, Minority Member Services Director; Mary 
Martin, Minority Chief Counsel, Energy and Environment; Peter 
Spencer, Minority Senior Professional Staff Member, Energy; and 
Michael Taggart, Minority Policy Director.
    Mr. Tonko. The Subcommittee on Environment and Climate 
Change will now come to order.

   OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. PAUL TONKO, A REPRESENTATIVE IN 
              CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF NEW YORK

    Today the subcommittee is holding a hearing entitled, 
``TSCA and Public Health: Fulfilling the Promise of the 
Lautenberg Act.''
    Due to the COVID-19 public health emergency, members can 
participate in today's hearing either in person or remotely, 
via online video conferencing.
    Members, staff, and members of the press present in the 
hearing room must wear a mask, in accordance with the updated 
guidance issued by the attending physician.
    For members participating remotely, your microphones will 
be set on mute for the purpose of eliminating inadvertent 
background noise.
    Members participating remotely will need to unmute your 
microphone each time you choose to speak. Please note that, 
once you unmute your microphone, anything that is said in Webex 
will be heard over the loudspeakers in the committee room, and 
subject to be heard by the livestream and C-SPAN.
    So, since members are participating from different 
locations at today's hearing, all recognition of members, such 
as for questions, will be in the order of subcommittee 
seniority.
    Documents for the record can be sent to Rebecca Tomilchik 
at the email address we have provided to staff. All documents 
will be entered into the record at the conclusion of today's 
hearing.
    The Chair now recognizes himself for 5 minutes for an 
opening statement.
    Five years ago, the Frank R. Lautenberg Chemical Safety for 
the 21st Century Act was signed into law to reform the Toxic 
Substances Control Act, which regulates chemical substances in 
commerce. That legislation was the result of a multiyear, 
bipartisan effort. Members of this committee, including 
Chairman Pallone, then-Chairman Upton, and John Shimkus played 
pivotal roles in the development and the negotiations of the 
bill.
    This is our first oversight hearing of the Lautenberg Act 
since its enactment, and I am happy to welcome Dr. Michal 
Freedhoff back to the Energy and Commerce Committee.
    Welcome.
    Before her confirmation, Assistant Administrator Freedhoff 
was a long-tenured public servant in the House and Senate, and 
she was integral to the enactment of TSCA reform. Dr. 
Freedhoff's knowledge of the law and scientific training makes 
her well-equipped to lead this office and, in my opinion, get 
the program back on track.
    This is a big job. Tackling PFAS, asbestos, methylene 
chloride, ethylene oxide, and other dangerous chemicals that 
have sadly become household names must be a top environmental 
and public health priority for this Administration.
    Many people are aware that I had concerns with the 
Lautenberg Act when it was enacted. I fully acknowledge that 
the Toxic Substance Control Act of 1976 was broken, and the 
2016 amendments would make numerous improvements over the 
status quo, including explicit consideration of vulnerable 
groups, and an expedited risk management process for certain 
PBT chemicals. But I was worried that states would be more 
limited in their ability to address chemical risks, especially 
if the Federal program once again failed to work as promised.
    Sadly, there have been numerous examples over the past five 
years, during the early implementation of the law, of the 
program being titled--tilted by political appointees strongly 
in favor of an industry at the expense of science-based 
protections for public health. Several of the first ten risk 
evaluations have needed to be revisited, often for failing to 
adequately consider potential exposure pathways, conditions of 
use, and risks to vulnerable groups, including workers.
    There have also been concerns raised about the scientific 
integrity of the program. This is an office that does very 
technical, science-based regulatory work. Ensuring scientific 
integrity is paramount, so that EPA's experts can do the work 
required by the law, free from political interference.
    And while I am worried about reports of scientific 
integrity violations in recent years, I am heartened by the 
announced steps to create new safeguards within the office, 
including establishing a science policy adviser position, and a 
new science and policy counsel. I hope these efforts will work 
seamlessly within the existing EPA scientific integrity 
infrastructure, and employees will be able to report freely to 
the agency's top scientific integrity official.
    Finally, TSCA will play a critical role in EPA's recently-
announced PFAS strategic roadmap. The TSCA office will be 
responsible for implementing a national PFAS testing strategy, 
ensuring new PFAS are properly reviewed, and re-reviewing 
previous PFAS decisions.
    In the past I have raised concerns about the number of new 
PFAS entering commerce through low-volume exemptions. I support 
EPA's April decision to likely deny future LVE requests, and I 
hope EPA will take additional steps to appropriately restrict 
new PFAS in the future. I look forward to hearing more about 
the Agency's ongoing work to use its TSCA authorities to 
address PFAS risks.
    There is no doubt of TSCA's potential to improve chemical 
safety and protect public health, but it requires 
Administration leadership that is committed to assessing, 
evaluating, and managing chemical risks in a manner that 
respects science and the law. I believe that is the direction 
of the Biden Administration, and I look forward to today's 
hearing to provide additional clarity on EPA's efforts to get 
the TSCA program back on track.
    Dr. Freedhoff, I want to thank you again for joining us 
this morning. I look forward to your testimony, and to working 
together to ensure that TSCA's authorities are used to the 
fullest, as envisioned by the many members and stakeholders 
that supported the historic reform effort.
    [The prepared statement of Mr. Tonko follows:]

                 Prepared Statement of Hon. Paul Tonko

    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

    Mr. Tonko. And that--with that, I yield back.
    The Chair now recognizes Mr. McKinley, ranking member of 
the Subcommittee on Environment and Climate Change, for 5 
minutes for his opening statement.
    Representative McKinley?

 OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. DAVID B. McKINLEY, A REPRESENTATIVE 
          IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF WEST VIRGINIA

    Mr. McKinley. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you, Ms. 
Freedhoff, for coming here today.
    From--ever since former chairman of this subcommittee, John 
Shimkus, and his staff worked tirelessly to get the Lautenberg 
Act passed in 2016, the first amendment--this--and this was the 
first amendment in over 40 years, as I recall, in talking to 
John about that. But now it is five years later, and this 
committee, I think, apparently now, we are looking to see how 
it has been implemented.
    But with its passage, the Lautenberg Act provided for much-
needed changes, so that the United States could unlock the 
potential of its chemical industry. The EPA administers the 
statute. But unfortunately, instead of promoting innovation and 
supporting the chemical industry, as the Act intended, it seems 
like EPA is stifling innovation and creating barriers to 
commerce for new and existing materials.
    The chemical industry is--clearly, we all understand, it is 
key to the components of our U.S. supply chain. We all can see 
that getting products from overseas is not working very well. 
The ports are backing up. Deliveries are missing deadlines. And 
now, EPA wants to regulate more than just chemicals, like an 
imported article that may--and that is the emphasis, that is 
the operative--may contain a regulated chemical, thereby 
challenging and disrupting that critical supply chain.
    And look at this new chemical program, known as the gateway 
to innovation. There is a significant backlog of new chemicals 
at EPA. We are hearing that from suppliers, vendors, people 
that have worked with the EPA. You may not think there is a 
backlog; they think there is a backlog, and that is what is 
important. So they are awaiting approval for their chemicals.
    The recent changes, the policy changes at the EPA, will 
only slow things down. Mr. Chairman, I would like to enter into 
the record an article from Bloomberg about the memo that the 
administrator produced, if you could, please, Mr. Chairman.
    This is about a memo that just--it was last week that, 
apparently, you told your staff in a memo, one, take more time 
off, and then take an hour every day for lunch, not to be at 
meetings on Friday, limit public engagement, improve meetings 
by streamlining topics, requesting agendas, and keeping 
conversations crisp, and not to take their home--their work 
home with them, mentally. Seriously? And at the same time, you 
are--typically, you are asking for more money, but you want to 
work less.
    So it is no wonder the EPA's chemical backlog is expanding. 
How does this statement encourage a more streamlined chemical 
review process?
    There are other issues, too. And this committee will 
discuss them today. But Mr. Chairman, Section 902 of the Clean 
Future Act places a 3-year moratorium on permits, air permits 
for plastic facilities, thereby preventing them from being 
constructed over the next three years. Am I missing something 
in all this?
    The United States has been striving for robust chemical 
industry. And how is that possible, if we have, one, a backlog 
of bureaucratic delays in the chemical program; the email, or 
memo, telling our staff to do less; and then a ban on 
constructing plastic facilities, further restricting America's 
access to U.S.-made PPE, gloves, shields, masks, gowns? These 
are--all are necessary for our strategic national stockpile.
    I don't understand what is happening under this 
Administration. I thought John Shimkus's efforts with the TSCA 
was to stimulate the potential of the U.S. chemical industry. 
But it appears to me the policies that have been put forth in 
the last ten months are doing diametrically opposite.
    [The prepared statement of Mr. McKinley follows:]

              Prepared Statement of Hon. David B. McKinley

    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

    Mr. McKinley. So with that, Mr. Chairman, I yield back the 
balance of my time.
    Mr. Tonko. The gentleman yields back. Before I recognize 
the chairman of the full committee, Mr. Pallone, I would ask 
that the entire subcommittee join me in wishing him a very 
happy birthday.
    [Applause.]
    Mr. Tonko. I know that this additional digit that he has 
added came with a lot of hard work on behalf of the people of 
this country, as chairman of this full committee.
    And Frank, thank you for the work on behalf of Build Back 
Better, infrastructure, all of the Energy and Commerce agenda. 
And with that, we recognize you for 5 minutes for your 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. I am sure you are 
aware, having been at the caucus this morning, that I am 
surprised by people even mentioning my birthday, and 
particularly the 70. But that is OK. Thank you so much.
    I wanted to start out by just saying that we are, 
obviously, continuing our work to ensure the legacy of my 
Senator and mentor, Frank Lautenberg, who was the--you know, 
who the TSCA bill is named after. And I, of course, want to 
make sure that we live up to Senator Lautenberg's commitment to 
protecting Americans from chemical exposure, particularly 
children, but also pregnant women, workers, environmental 
justice communities.
    And this committee worked in a strong bipartisan fashion. I 
know mention was made of Congressman Shimkus, who was so much 
involved to finally get this landmark legislation signed into 
law in 2016 by then-President Obama. And it updated and 
modernized the Toxic Substances Control Act, otherwise known as 
TSCA, for the first time in 40 years.
    And of course, let me mention your outstanding work, 
Congressman Tonko, in trying to get this over the line. You 
really were taking the lead on it.
    Unfortunately, the Trump Administration's implementation of 
this law was tainted by secrecy and undue political influence. 
The Trump Administration's actions undermined our efforts of 
creating a strong Federal chemical regulatory system.
    One of the key goals of the Lautenberg Act was to finally 
give the EPA the tools it needed to address the threats of 
harmful chemicals like asbestos, tools that the agency did not 
have under the original TSCA law. Thirty-two years ago, EPA 
finalized a rule banning asbestos, but the rule was struck down 
in court two years later. The original TSCA simply did not give 
EPA the tools it needed to address the risk, even though we had 
known the dangers of asbestos for decades.
    And as a result, asbestos is still being used in automotive 
parts, and chemical manufacturing, and construction materials 
all across the country, and the continued use of asbestos poses 
a continuing threat to human health and the environment.
    So, while the Lautenberg Act finally gave EPA the tools it 
needed to address asbestos and other harmful chemicals, it 
quickly became clear that the Trump EPA would not take the 
needed actions. In fact, the Trump EPA's asbestos risk 
evaluation was panned by the Science Advisory Committee on 
Chemicals, and challenged in court.
    But fortunately, with the new Biden Administration, the EPA 
is under new leadership. The agency recently reached a 
settlement to resolve the deficiencies in its asbestos work, 
and is now on a path to properly address legacy exposures. I am 
pleased to say that EPA appears to be moving to address risks 
from many dangerous chemicals. The strong, credible Federal 
regulatory regime we hoped for with the Lautenberg Act seems to 
be in sight.
    The EPA's TSCA office also played a critical role in 
solving the rampant PFAS contamination problem affecting the 
nation. I was relieved to see the comprehensive testing and 
reporting requirements included in the Biden Administration's 
PFAS roadmap issued by the Agency earlier this month, and the 
roadmap includes critical pieces of the PFAS action plan that 
has passed the House twice on a bipartisan basis, thanks to the 
tireless work of Representative Dingell, and the steadfast 
support of Representative Upton.
    Thankfully, the Biden EPA, under the Administrator Regan, 
Michael Regan, has committed the Agency to scientific integrity 
and its critical mission to protect the public health and the 
environment. The Agency is conducting a second look at the 
flawed risk evaluations of the Trump Administration, 
implementing TSCA as intended, and addressing the 
disproportionate risk for environmental justice communities. 
And I am very hopeful that, under the Biden Administration, the 
TSCA office can operate free of political interference, and 
make decisions based on science that will benefit public 
health.
    So this is an important oversight hearing, Mr. Chairman. I 
thank you for this TSCA program, and the bipartisan law that so 
many of us on this committee worked to get across the finish 
line. As a friend of the late Senator Lautenberg and his 
family, it is important to me that his environmental legacy be 
honored in the implementation of the critical reforms that are 
made in his name.
    So I want to thank the assistant administrator for 
testifying today, and look forward to the hearing on how the 
EPA is working to get TSCA back on track.
    [The prepared statement of Frank Pallone follows:]

             Prepared Statement of Hon. Frank Pallone, Jr.

    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

    Mr. Pallone. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I yield back.
    Mr. Tonko. Chairman Pallone yields back. The Chair now 
recognizes Mrs. Rodgers, ranking member of the full committee, 
for 5 minutes for her opening statement, please.

      OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. CATHY McMORRIS RODGERS, A 
    REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF WASHINGTON

    Mrs. Rodgers. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Happy birthday, Mr. 
Chairman. Good morning, everyone. Welcome.
    This hearing is about the operations of the Office of 
Chemical Safety and Pollution Prevention at the Environmental 
Protection Agency, EPA, and especially this office's 
implementation of Title 1 of the Toxic Substances Control Act, 
or TSCA.
    TSCA is unlike any other statute. It gives EPA broad 
authority to regulate the entire chain of commerce, if EPA 
finds it necessary to control an unreasonable risk presented by 
a chemical substance under its conditions of use. With 
authority this sweeping, it is fundamental that we, the 
lawmakers, the policy-makers, oversee this office and these 
programs.
    This oversight today is even more critical, because of the 
questions raised by the new expanded and precautionary 
implementation direction being applied to the TSCA 2016 
amendments. It is a direction that can wreak havoc on supply 
chains, hurt our ability to lower U.S. greenhouse gas emissions 
through free-market solutions and innovation, make inflation 
worse, and hurt America's competitive edge against China.
    Five years ago there was a consensus that parts of TSCA 
were not performing well enough, and that it was hurting 
consumer confidence. Attempts to create a mirror opposite of 
TSCA were rejected by Congress. Instead, the 2016 TSCA 
amendments were intended to reset more restrictive court 
interpretations of TSCA, permit EPA to obtain more easily 
information to support its TSCA work, enforce high-quality 
science standards on TSCA activity, and make EPA's decisions 
more transparent.
    It was not the intent to replace risk-based decision-making 
with assessment and regulation predicated only on hazard. 
Precaution is not risk.
    It was not intended to remove one unreasonable risk to 
create another, more unreasonable risk for a society.
    It also was not intended to shift EPA's focus from 
reviewing and regulating certain types of chemicals to, 
instead, regulating for other Federal agencies in EPA offices 
and areas where Congress did not give them explicit authority.
    Most importantly, Republicans on Energy and Commerce, when 
we were in the majority in 2016, did not intend regulation 
under TSCA. OK. When we were in the majority--I am going to cry 
about it now--we did not intend regulation to stifle innovation 
or interstate commerce. We did not intend for TSCA regulations 
to go from the least to the most burdensome.
    We are in the midst of a domestic supply chain crisis. We 
cannot afford letting an inefficient, unreasonable TSCA 
implementation further devastate innovation and America's 
competitiveness.
    These current choices hurt American leadership, and the 
ability for people to raise their standard of living. For 
example, TSCA Section 5 has long been considered the gateway 
for American innovation. Multiple past EPA career managers of 
the new chemicals program testified to this committee that new 
chemicals tended to be greener and safer than the chemicals 
they are replacing.
    Yet, since 2016, EPA is only receiving one-third of the new 
chemical applications it gets, and two-thirds of the year are 
already past. EPA has only made 27 determinations on the 203 
pre-manufacture notices it has received this year. Notably, 
these decisions are required within no more than 180 days.
    In addition, delays on EPA regulations of significant new 
uses of existing chemicals average 1.3 years, allowing 
competitors to commercialize some of these substances, and 
defeating the purposes of issuing use conditions.
    Failing to provide industry the confidence they and 
downstream customers need regarding options to improve their 
products and compete globally in a timely matter manner is a 
significant shortcoming.
    This is not a question of science or risk. This is a matter 
of management, and that falls to the Agency and its leaders, 
including the witness today.
    Making OSHA and CPSC items also subject to TSCA 
jurisdiction does not increase compliance, only enforcement and 
penalty opportunities.
    I look forward to this hearing today, and asking further 
questions, and with that I yield back. Thank you.
    [The prepared statement of Mrs. Rodgers follows:]

           Prepared Statement of Hon. Cathy McMorris Rodgers

    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

    Mr. Tonko. The gentlelady yields back.
    The Chair reminds Members that, pursuant to committee 
rules, all Members' written opening statements shall be made 
part of the record.
    And now we will introduce the witness for today's hearing. 
We welcome the Honorable Michal Freedhoff, Assistant 
Administrator of the Office of Chemical Safety and Pollution 
Prevention at the United States Environmental Protection 
Agency.
    At this time the Chair will recognize the witness for 5 
minutes to provide her opening statement.
    Before we begin, I would like to explain the lighting 
system. In front of our witness is a series of lights. The 
light will initially be green. The light will turn yellow when 
you have one minute remaining. Please begin to wrap up your 
testimony at that point. The light will turn red when your time 
has expired.
    I recognize Assistant Administrator Freedhoff for 5 minutes 
to provide an opening statement.
    And again, welcome.

STATEMENT OF THE HON. MICHAL ILANA FREEDHOFF, Ph.D., ASSISTANT 
    ADMINISTRATOR, OFFICE OF CHEMICAL SAFETY AND POLLUTION 
    PREVENTION (OCSPP), U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

    Dr. Freedhoff. Good morning, Chairman, Ranking Members, and 
other members of the committee. I very much appreciate the 
opportunity to speak with you today.
    I have spent the majority of my career here, on Capitol 
Hill, including time spent on this committee's staff, and it 
really is a pleasure to be back.
    One of the most professionally rewarding and challenging 
opportunities I had during my time on the Hill was to work on 
the much-needed reforms to the Toxic Substances Control Act, or 
TSCA, a law that for nearly 40 years had largely failed to 
serve its purpose.
    Mr. Tonko. Excuse me. Yes, OK, we are just wondering if the 
mike is on, or perhaps you need to be a little closer.
    Dr. Freedhoff. It is on.
    Mr. Tonko. OK.
    Dr. Freedhoff. I can move it a little closer. Is that 
better?
    Mr. Tonko. Yes, I think that is better.
    Dr. Freedhoff. OK.
    Mr. Tonko. Thank you.
    Dr. Freedhoff. OK.
    Mr. Tonko. Sorry.
    Dr. Freedhoff. No worries. There was widespread 
acknowledgment across the political spectrum that TSCA was 
broken, and that the public deserved better protections against 
dangerous chemicals.
    Now at EPA, I am fortunate to be able to work on the 
implementation side. More than half a decade has passed since 
the reforms became law, but there is still much more work to be 
done in order to get TSCA implementation efforts back on track. 
And I would like to emphasize just a few of the critical 
building blocks that I believe are needed for a sustainable 
TSCA program.
    First, I would like to talk about resources. I was actually 
shocked to learn that the previous Administration never asked 
Congress for any meaningful new funding to reflect the new 
responsibilities in the 2016 law. And although Congress told 
EPA that it could offset up to 25 percent of some of its TSCA 
costs through fees from chemical companies, we have only 
recouped about 13 percent of those costs from fees, not 25 
percent.
    And these shortfalls have implications that are important 
to all stakeholders. For example, we estimate that we have less 
than 50 percent of the resources that we need to review and 
approve new chemicals in the way Congress intended us to do. 
The funding boost in the President's 2022 budget request would 
be a significant downpayment, and we hope to work with you to 
build on this in future years.
    The second element of a sustainable program is strong 
science and scientific integrity, which are essential for 
earning and maintaining the public's confidence. When EPA says 
that a chemical found in products that are used in homes, 
schools, and workplaces is safe, it is in everyone's interests 
for the public to be able to believe us.
    Third, a sustainable TSCA program must have policies and 
processes that will lead to legally and scientifically 
defensible and protective chemical safety actions. The last 
Administration finalized ten existing chemical risk 
evaluations, and a great deal of work by EPA's fantastic career 
scientists went into them. So, while some of our policy changes 
may require some supplemental analysis for some of the first 
ten risk evaluations, our goal is to do that extra work only 
when a failure to do so would lead to a less protective 
outcome, once we get to the rulemaking stage. The faster we can 
move into risk management, the faster we can begin to provide 
the chemical safety protections the law promised.
    We are already implementing a number of key policy changes 
for many of the first ten risk evaluations. We have reversed 
the previous Administration's assumption that all workers 
always properly use protective person--protective equipment. 
And we have reversed the previous Administration's decision to 
exclude exposures to chemicals from air, drinking water, and 
disposal from risk evaluations, because this likely left some 
exposures to the general population unaccounted for, including 
exposures to fenceline communities located near industrial 
facilities who may be disproportionately exposed.
    But our goal is to move to rulemaking as soon as we 
possibly can. As so many of you know, the litigation that 
overturned EPA's 1989 ban on asbestos became an emblem for why 
TSCA needed to be reformed in the first place. And I expect 
that our proposed rule for asbestos would be the very first of 
the first ten chemicals assessed under TSCA that we send to OMB 
later this year.
    I also wanted to highlight some of the work we have been 
doing to improve implementation of the new chemicals program. 
Earlier this year we announced policy changes with respect to 
protecting workers and ensuring that the scope of new chemical 
reviews aligns with Congress's expectations.
    In addition, we have revised the process for review and 
finalization of human health risk assessments, and established 
a new internal advisory body to review and consider scientific 
and science policy issues related to new chemical submissions.
    But I want to be very clear: I don't believe that ensuring 
new chemicals can be used safely and ensuring that the Agency 
does these safety reviews quickly are mutually exclusive. We 
can do both, and the law says we should.
    Lastly, I wanted to touch on Administrator Regan's recent 
announcement on PFAS, and the urgent health and environmental 
threat they pose. I am just going to briefly describe one of my 
office's contributions to the PFAS road map.
    One of the biggest challenges we face is that most of the 
thousands of PFAS that have been made or used have limited or 
no toxicity data, which means we can't write a drinking water 
standard or set a cleanup level, because we can't characterize 
the health effects of the substances. And if we keep working on 
this one PFAS at a time, we will never be able to fully solve 
this problem.
    Last week the agency announced a national PFAS testing 
strategy that groups PFAS into categories for testing. The 
first TSCA test orders to PFAS manufacturers, for about 20 
different parts in 20 different categories, will go out in a 
matter of months, and will provide the Agency with critical 
health risk information that can be extrapolated to more than 
2,000 other PFAS in similar categories.
    In conclusion, I am fully committed to getting our TSCA 
implementation efforts back on track, and to using those 
authorities to ensure protections against dangerous chemicals 
for the American people.
    Thank you very much for inviting me today, and I look 
forward to your questions.
    [The prepared statement of Dr. Freedhoff follows:]

    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
    
    Mr. Tonko. Administrator Freedhoff, thank you for your 
testimony.
    We will now move to member questions, and I will start by 
recognizing myself for 5 minutes.
    You have partners here in Congress that are ready to work 
with you to make certain that TSCA is protecting Americans from 
dangerous chemicals, as intended by the 2016 reforms that you 
worked hard to enact. But there is much to do to get this 
program back on track. And I believe it must start by ensuring 
greater transparency of EPA's processes, and the use of 
scientific data in its decision-making.
    Sadly, this lack of transparency was a hallmark of the 
previous Administration. In 2019 Chairman Pallone and I raised 
concerns about EPA's decision to classify Pigment Violet 29 
health and safety studies as confidential business information. 
Section 14(b)(2) of TSCA is explicit that health and safety 
studies are not prohibited from disclosure.
    So, Administrator Freedhoff, do you intend to make all 
health and safety studies public for all chemicals under 
review?
    Dr. Freedhoff. Sorry. Thanks very much for that question, 
Mr. Chairman, and I agree that increased transparency was one 
of the fundamental reforms that was included in the 2016 TSCA 
amendments, and I--you know, it was also, as you know, one of 
the more complicated sections to negotiate.
    I do agree that the law requires health and safety studies 
to be made public, and we are going to implement the law.
    Mr. Tonko. And what other steps, if any, are you taking to 
ensure greater transparency in the program?
    Dr. Freedhoff. We have taken a number of steps fairly 
recently. We moved the identities of almost 400 chemicals from 
the confidential to the public part of the TSCA inventory, as a 
result of a review that we did following a rule mandated by the 
new law. And we are going to continue to be making information 
like that public, as we are able to.
    And we are also working especially hard at providing more 
information about new chemicals, and making that information 
more public as quickly as we can.
    Of course, we do take very seriously our obligations to 
protect confidential business information, and that is why 
sometimes our reviews seem like they are taking longer than 
they should, because we are really, you know, checking every 
box to make sure we don't inadvertently release something that 
we shouldn't.
    Mr. Tonko. Thank you. Regarding PV 29, the draft risk 
evaluation failed to consider worker exposures. This will be a 
theme today, ensuring proper consideration of potentially 
exposed or susceptible sub-populations, as required by the law.
    So what steps are you taking to ensure vulnerable 
populations, such as workers, are considered from the beginning 
of the chemical review process?
    Dr. Freedhoff. Thanks very much for that, for that 
question, Mr. Chairman, because you are absolutely right, the 
law requires us to consider exposures to potentially exposed 
and susceptible sub-populations. That doesn't just include 
workers. It also includes, you know, communities who live near 
industrial facilities, who might be disproportionately exposed 
to those chemicals.
    So one thing we are doing, we--you know, we did announce 
the reversal of the failure to consider all of the risks that 
workers might pose, as part of our risk evaluations, and we 
will be carrying that policy reversal forward, not just for the 
first ten chemicals, but for the next 20, as well.
    But what we are--another thing that we are doing is 
creating a fenceline screening methodology that is intended to 
make sure that we haven't inadvertently left communities out of 
those risk evaluations. And we will be releasing that fenceline 
screening methodology later this fall, both for public comment 
and peer review, and expect to build on those efforts going 
forward, as well.
    Mr. Tonko. Thank you. Administrative Freedhoff, as a 
scientist, I know you appreciate that concepts like best-
available science are highly influenced by the methods and 
processes for selecting and evaluating which studies are being 
considered. In order to determine how to apply the best-
available science, EPA uses a systematic review method to 
inform chemical risk evaluations.
    But in 2018 EPA published a final systematic method 
document that was criticized by the scientific and 
environmental communities. The National Academies Peer Review 
Report, published in February of 2021, was also critical of the 
2018 method.
    I recognize and support EPA's decision to develop a new 
method, subject to public comment and peer review. But at this 
stage, EPA has yet to release a draft method, and it is unclear 
what method is being used to develop current risk evaluations 
underway. So when will the revised systematic review method be 
publicly released?
    Dr. Freedhoff. Thanks very much for that question. I just 
want to make clear, first of all, that EPA hasn't been using 
that older method in some time. And the career scientists in 
OCSPP have been working with their colleagues in the Office of 
Research and Development to make sure, even in advance of the 
Critical National Academy report that you referenced, that our 
systematic review process was made more robust.
    I expect that we will be releasing the methodology, the new 
methodology, for both public comment and peer review later this 
year.
    Mr. Tonko. OK. With that I will now recognize 
Representative McKinley for 5 minutes to ask questions, please.
    Mr. McKinley. Thank you again, Mr. Chairman, and thank you 
again for this hearing. This is--speaking for John Shimkus on 
this, this is something that was very important to him.
    So, if I could, back--there was an overwhelming consensus 
in the--in late winter and in the spring of 2020, that, one, 
there was a shortage of personal protective equipment needed in 
America, we--and secondly, we needed to manufacture more in the 
United States. And those that were involved in the Strategic 
National Stockpile also concurred that there was an 
insufficient supply of PPE available, and it led to a critical 
shortage.
    Now, Assistant Administrator, Section 902--just in your 
opinion, I know that you haven't crafted the bill, but it is 
out there before us--Section 902 of the Clean Future Act 
restricts the building or expansion of American plastic 
manufacturing industries--facilities.
    So my question, how--in your opinion, how will this policy 
promote the additional availability of PPP [sic] in the United 
States, if we are not manufacturing more?
    Dr. Freedhoff. Thanks very much for that question, and I 
believe that section of the Clean Future Act relates to the 
Clean Air Act, and I think I need to take that specific 
question back to our air office.
    But if you don't mind, I just wanted to note that, in the 
pesticides office, which is in my part of the EPA, we have 
actually worked really, really closely with a lot of 
manufacturers to make sure that those supply chain stresses are 
not felt.
    Mr. McKinley. If I could recover my--that--we are not 
hearing the same. They are not--the people that I am talking to 
throughout West Virginia and places are not concurring with 
that, that there are delays in--and they are very concerned 
about the potential. It is the lack of clarity, the uncertainty 
that is swirling because this legislation could go into effect.
    Now, so if I could, we know the supply chains or--for 
articles are, one, focused on material declarations; and two, 
they are complex and multi-layered. I would concur with you on 
that. So it will be virtually impossible to identify each and 
every chemical in each and every imported article. The 
Lautenberg Act was not intended to regulate items, where the 
likelihood of exposure to a chemical is just highly unlikely. 
So by trying to assess every chemical in every product, it 
could take years to figure out what chemicals are in 
production.
    So, Administrator, so if Congress bans the construction of 
plastic facilities, and the EPA pursues these bureaucratic 
delays in importing goods under TSCA because they might contain 
a chemical, how does the U.S.--how do we in America avoid 
additional future supply chain shortages?
    Dr. Freedhoff. So first of all, I think I would say that 
the Agency is equally concerned about supply chain shortages. 
And I think, you know, I think it is important to note that the 
rule that regulated articles that is causing these supply chain 
concerns was actually finalized by the Trump Administration. 
And I actually believe that the Trump Administration made every 
effort to reach out to industry and explain what their plans 
were for that rule and seek feedback.
    But it wasn't until I had been at the Agency for just a few 
days, where industry started to realize, after this rule was 
already finalized, what the implications would be on their 
supply chains. So we actually took immediate action under the 
Biden Administration to extend the compliance date for that 
rule, which, again, wasn't finalized by us. And we are still 
working to address and understand those concerns in a 
reasonable and practical way, and----
    Mr. McKinley. Thank you.
    Dr. Freedhoff [continue]. I commit that I will continue to 
do that.
    Mr. McKinley. If I could, Administrator, and as to your 
email, the memo, we have heard from the chemical industry in 
West Virginia, and they have already previously had problems 
accessing guidance from the EPA. It is just the bureaucratic 
delays that are out there. They were already seeing this.
    And now, by virtue of this memo of reduced--no meetings on 
Friday, you are reducing their access to you by 20 percent. And 
I don't understand that. I don't agree with that. I think what 
you are doing by your memo is you are only going to make it 
worse across--in trying to consolidate and move things down the 
food--the pipeline. I am concerned about that. I am afraid it 
is just going to make it worse.
    So I hope you do revisit your constriction of time and 
access and availability. You have got great staff. Let's get 
them involved with the industry. They are crying out. They need 
more help. They don't need less access to you.
    So with that, Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my 
time.
    Mr. Tonko. The gentleman yields back. The Chair now 
recognizes Representative Pallone, full committee chair, for 5 
minutes to ask questions, please.
    Mr. Pallone. Thank you, Chairman Tonko. In my opening 
statement I mentioned that giving EPA the tools to finally 
address this asbestos risk was an important goal of our TSCA 
reform work. And, of course, our witness today was a part of 
that work, and I think she knows the importance of addressing 
asbestos as well as anyone.
    So let me start by asking Dr. Freedhoff, what is your 
office doing now to address the risk of asbestos, and what is 
the timeline for EPA action on it?
    Dr. Freedhoff. Thanks very much for that question, and 
also, happy birthday.
    Mr. Pallone. Thank you.
    Dr. Freedhoff. You know, I don't even remember being in a 
room with you, talking about TSCA, where the symbolic nature of 
asbestos and EPA's previous failure to regulate it wasn't 
brought up. And I don't think that symbolism is lost on anyone 
at the Agency, either at the career level or the political 
level, as we move forward with proposing our very first rule 
under the--of the first ten risk evaluations under TSCA.
    I expect that that proposed rule will go to OMB for 
interagency review before the end of this calendar year. And 
then I also expect that our scope for the next part of the 
asbestos risk evaluation that addresses the uses and fiber 
types that the previous Administration excluded will go--also 
be ready, I think, roughly by the end of this year, and that we 
expect to finish that risk evaluation by the end of 2024.
    Mr. Pallone. All right. Thanks so much.
    Now, obviously, a lot of work done on asbestos under the 
previous Administration was criticized and challenged in court. 
So how do you work to overcome the deficiencies in the EPA's 
asbestos work to date? How do you overcome that?
    Dr. Freedhoff. I think getting the program on track 
generally is going to be a work in progress.
    As I mentioned, you know, it was in--five years since the 
law passed. The first time that Congress was ever asked for 
additional funding to reflect the additional workload was in 
this President's first budget request.
    And, you know, the fees rule that allowed EPA to collect up 
to 25 percent of some of its costs and fees, that wasn't even 
finalized before the end of--or until the end of 2018, I 
believe. And all of the costs of the first ten risk evaluations 
weren't even subject to the fees.
    So it is sort of a series of compounding resource errors 
that also prevent us from hiring the types of scientific 
experts we need. And everyone has been sort of working on a 
shoestring for a long time now, and I think that is going to 
take a lot of time to get back on track.
    I will say that the staff are creative, smart, and 
incredibly resilient, and I am very lucky to be working with 
them. But they are a staff under stress, not just in my part of 
EPA, but in--I think across the whole Agency.
    Mr. Pallone. OK. And my last question is, how will the 
work--I mean, obviously, since asbestos has always been an 
example for other chemicals, as you mentioned, under TSCA. But 
how will the work you are doing to course-correct on asbestos 
inform your work on other chemical substances?
    Dr. Freedhoff. I think, as we look at the legacy exposures 
of asbestos, and work with our counterparts in the office that 
handles RCRA and the Superfund law, I think we are going to 
learn a lot from that engagement.
    And we are working much more closely across the Agency 
with, you know, the water office, the air office, and the 
Superfund office, as we go through both the risk evaluation 
stage and the risk management phase. So I think we are--I think 
we will learn a lot about asbestos, and I think we will also 
learn a lot about how to handle impurities in chemicals that we 
study, as well.
    Mr. Pallone. Well, thank you. And, I mean, obviously, 
ensuring the scientific credibility of risk assessment and risk 
management under TSCA is essential to protecting public health 
and earning the public's confidence. So I just wanted--I 
appreciate you coming back to the committee to testify today, 
and the work you are doing to implement the reforms that we 
worked so hard to put in place.
    And hopefully, we will soon see long-overdue action from 
EPA on asbestos and other dangerous chemicals, and I look 
forward to working with you and others at the EPA to ensure 
that the TSCA offices is fulfilling its mission and providing 
the resources. So thank you again.
    And thank you, Mr. Chairman, for all your work on this.
    Mr. Tonko. The gentleman yields back. The Chair now 
recognizes Mrs. Rodgers, the full committee ranking member, for 
5 minutes to ask questions, please.
    Mrs. Rodgers. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. As I stated in my 
opener, TSCA is an important law, with unique and expansive 
authorities. This authority should be used, but with care, 
prudence, and predictability. Without these features, we risk 
losing the enormous innovative benefits we realize from 
chemical manufacturing.
    I am also very concerned that, if we do not get it right, 
we will hurt innovation in this country, and discourage 
investment. This could lead to fewer products that are cleaner 
and greener.
    This Administration must be serious about making decisions 
within the statutory deadlines for new chemicals. These 
chemicals are the next generation of American innovation for 
products that directly improve the standard of living for our 
families, and contribute to our global competitiveness to beat 
China.
    The 90-day review period for new chemical submissions was 
unaltered by Congress in the Lautenberg amendments. However, 
EPA's new chemical division has only been able to complete its 
review on a small portion of the pre-manufacturing notices 
submitted since January 2020, within the 90-day review. 
According to EPA's Office of Congressional and 
Intergovernmental Affairs, 153 pre-manufacturing notices have 
been pending a decision at EPA for more than six months.
    In addition, according to EPA's new chemical website, it 
appears that only eight submissions were finalized within the 
90-day review.
    Assistant Administrator Freedhoff, how does EPA track the 
progress of new chemical reviews, and who is in charge of that 
progress?
    And who is in charge of ensuring EPA completes its reviews 
within the statutory deadlines?
    Dr. Freedhoff. Thanks very much for that question, 
Congresswoman. And I just want to say personally to you that I 
don't actually think that innovation and safety are in conflict 
with each other. I think we can do both of those things, and I 
think we can do better, and I hope that we will.
    I would like to talk a little bit about the backlog of new 
chemical submissions. In August of 2017, the Trump 
Administration issued a press release that described the end of 
the new chemicals backlog. And what they said in that press 
release was that the agency had worked its way down to just 
having 308 cases under review in front of the Agency, and said 
that that represented a typical active workload.
    As of a couple of weeks ago, I think October 12th, we had 
319 cases pending before the Agency, and 58 of them were 
actually waiting for industry action, not EPA action. So I 
actually think we are also operating under a typical active 
workload, as has been historically the case for the past few 
years.
    But I do want to go back to the--to what I--the point I 
made a little earlier, which is that we are operating with less 
than 50 percent of the resources that we think we need to 
operate the new chemicals division in the way that Congress 
expects us to. And I really hope to work with you to address 
those problems and challenges going forward.
    Mrs. Rodgers. OK. I know that Congressman Shimkus, when he 
was subcommittee lead for the Republicans, also pushed the 
importance of the 90-day review.
    Dr. Freedhoff. Yes.
    Mrs. Rodgers. It is important to that certainty. TSCA's 
Section 2(b)(3) specifically states, ``It is the policy of the 
United States that TSCA should not be exercised in such a 
manner as not to impede unduly or create unnecessary economic 
barriers to technological innovation, while fulfilling the 
primary purpose of this Act.'' It seems pretty clear that 
Congress does not want EPA implementation to create backlogs 
that impede innovation and, particularly--and especially 
potentially make us less competitive, globally.
    So I would also like to ask, when will the backlog of 
chemicals without decisions within 90 days be resolved?
    And will you commit to me that your office will meet its 
statutory deadlines for Section 5?
    Dr. Freedhoff. I want to make clear to you that, when we go 
longer than 90 days, it is generally because the company has 
asked us to extend the deadline for review. Sometimes that is 
because they have new information that they are giving to us 
late in the process, and sometimes, especially in the past few 
years, it is because they disagree with the conclusions of our 
risk assessments, and want to convince us to change our minds.
    So, in some cases, we have been waiting years to get 
information that we have asked for for companies.
    Mrs. Rodgers. OK.
    Dr. Freedhoff. And that is why----
    Mrs. Rodgers. OK.
    Dr. Freedhoff [continue]. We can't move forward with a 
decision----
    Mrs. Rodgers. So, bottom line, we want to make sure that we 
are fulfilling the statutory deadline. That needs to be the 
goal, no matter who is in the White House.
    Dr. Freedhoff. I share the goal. I do.
    Mrs. Rodgers. And then, finally, I just would like to ask 
you to address if you take into consideration the impact of 
these assessments on national security interests, climate 
priorities, and infrastructure development.
    Dr. Freedhoff. TSCA requires us to consider that. And as 
we--especially as we move into the existing chemical risk 
management phase, we are required to think about national 
security, critical economic needs, and costs. It is a risk-
based law, and I support the risk-based approach to chemicals 
regulation.
    Mrs. Rodgers. OK, thank you.
    I yield back.
    Mr. Tonko. The gentlelady yields back. The Chair now 
recognizes Representative DeGette, who also serves as chair of 
the Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations.
    Representative DeGette, you are recognized for 5 minutes.
    Ms. DeGette. Thank you so much, Mr. Chairman.
    Dr. Freedhoff, it is really good to see that this critical 
EPA program is being led by somebody who has a deep commitment 
to protecting public health. And I want to thank you.
    In 2016, as has been mentioned, colleagues on both sides of 
the aisle, led by our former colleague, Mr. Shimkus, worked to 
enact the Lautenberg TSCA reform bill, and we had hopes that it 
would fix some of the longstanding problems with the program.
    And so, obviously, I was frustrated and disappointed how 
the previous Administration abused its responsibilities under 
the law. But I was even more alarmed to hear allegations by 
career scientists about a disregard for science and 
transparency, not just from the political appointees of the 
previous Administration, but from some of the career managers, 
which alleged that these actions continued even into this 
Administration.
    And I know you were also disturbed by this allegation, so I 
really appreciate you responding to the letter that I sent 
with--along with Chairmen Pallone and Tonko on this matter.
    And Mr. Chairman, I would ask unanimous consent to put a 
copy of my letter and the response into the--or our letter and 
the response into the record.
    Mr. Tonko. We will do those at the end of the----
    Ms. DeGette. Thank you.
    Mr. Tonko. All right.
    Ms. DeGette. Now, Dr. Freedhoff, I want to ask you--and I 
will give you the time--what have you done to address these 
concerns since coming to the Agency?
    Dr. Freedhoff. Thanks very much for giving me the 
opportunity to talk about something that I think is vitally 
important to restoring the credibility of the Agency.
    And for years, just like you, before I started at EPA, I 
was hearing about the intense pressure that the previous 
political leadership placed on both managers and scientists in 
the new chemicals division, and how they pushed them to review 
and approve new chemicals as quickly as they could.
    So when I first arrived at the Agency--shortly afterwards, 
in mid-March--I was actually approached by a career scientist 
who conveyed some of their concerns about human health 
assessments in the new chemicals division. And I took those 
concerns right to the Agency scientific integrity official.
    I then started to talk to people, including former 
employees of the new chemicals division, some of whom actually 
told me that they left their jobs because of the concern that 
they felt with the approaches that were taken.
    So one of the steps we took--and this is something that we 
haven't shared publicly to date--is that we started in April, 
when the scientific integrity official and I found a way to 
initiate a review of a small number of human health hazard 
assessment cases that concerns had been raised about. And I 
have shared relevant information about that review with the 
inspector general, in case our review efforts helped theirs. 
And this is just generally a summary of what I have learned in 
the past months, from all of these different efforts.
    So first, there are sometimes really serious questions 
about just how hazardous a new chemical is found to be, in the 
end, even though--even if there is general agreement that a 
hazard exists. And that presents some implications, or the 
potential for implications for our regulatory efforts.
    I have also really consistently heard that there are--that 
the scientific basis for changes to the assessments is not 
always well explained or understandable.
    And I also think that there are some legitimately difficult 
questions about the processes and the science associated with 
reviewing new chemicals.
    And I can't underscore enough how seriously I have taken 
these concerns since I started at the--since I first heard 
about them at the Agency. And these are some of the steps that 
we have taken so far to address them.
    So I have personally let the inspector general know that we 
will cooperate fully with their investigation.
    We have launched an entire series of scientific integrity 
training for the office.
    We have put into place new ways that scientists who feel 
like there is a disagreement can elevate those--their concerns, 
and get a review.
    We have hired someone to come in and talk to the division, 
and get--and make recommendations for us for how to improve, 
and we have changed the way our recordkeeping practices are 
done.
    And it is going to take some time, but I am committed to 
it.
    Ms. DeGette. Thank you so much. And I gave you the time to 
really answer it, because we need to understand that it is 
going to take some time, and it is going to take some effort.
    And in the coming months, I know Chairman Tonko and Mr. 
Pallone and our friends on the other side of the aisle, we are 
all going to be watching and working with you to make sure that 
you put the safeguards in place, and that you get back to the 
scientific integrity.
    Thanks, and I yield back, Mr. Chairman.
    Mr. Tonko. The gentlelady yields back. The Chair now 
recognizes the gentleman from Ohio.
    Representative Johnson, you are recognized for 5 minutes, 
please.
    Mr. Johnson. Well, thank you, Mr. Chairman. You know, some 
of us in this subcommittee were here--I was one of them--when 
we passed this legislation over five years ago. It was a good 
example of the kind of bipartisan work this committee is 
capable of. It was an effort to modernize TSCA and improve 
chemical safety, while making sure that we can still foster 
American innovation in the 21st century.
    And while we are conducting the necessary oversight here 
today, I want to be clear, Dr. Freedhoff, we want your office 
to be functional and effective for the American people. We all 
want to protect workers and consumers. But to do that, the 
Office of Chemical Safety and Pollution Prevention has to be 
running smoothly, and keep its focus on the task at hand.
    Dr. Freedhoff, you have outlined some big plans for your 
time in the Biden Administration, but I do have some concerns 
that, while we are hearing about delays, lack of certain 
technical expertise, and other issues in your office, you want 
to expand into some areas where, frankly, your office has never 
gone before.
    So Dr. Freedhoff, in 2019 the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 
9th Circuit underscored TSCA's role as a gap-filling statute, 
and that TSCA was never meant to regulate discharges, 
emissions, ambient air, or consumer products. Yet, a few months 
ago, the EPA announced it would potentially expand the scope of 
the risk evaluations to address potential concerns with 
chemicals that are traditionally regulated under other 
statutes, such as the Clean Water Act or the Clean Air Act.
    The problem with TSCA in the past has been that courts have 
rejected the EPA's interpretation of the law. So does the EPA 
disagree with the 9th Circuit, and instead believe TSCA 
supersedes these other statutes, or that it should regulate 
discharges into air and water, where they are already regulated 
by those other laws?
    That is a that is a yes-or-no question: Do you guys 
disagree with the 9th Circuit?
    Dr. Freedhoff. I don't disagree with the 9th----
    Mr. Johnson. You don't disagree with them? OK, good.
    Does the EPA's chemicals office coordinate with other 
departments and programs within the Agency to make sure you are 
in compliance with what the 9th court's rulings were?
    Dr. Freedhoff. Yes, regularly.
    Mr. Johnson. OK. In some cases the EPA is undertaking 
multiple assessments of the same chemical. For example, a 
chemical can be assessed under TSCA and under IRIS.
    Can you discuss how EPA ensures that there aren't 
duplicative efforts going on for chemical assessments, and 
whether TSCA's scientific quality requirement criteria are 
applied to assessments from these other programs?
    Dr. Freedhoff. Yes, thanks very much for that question. 
TSCA requires us to use the best available science. So if there 
is an IRIS assessment on a chemical that we are evaluating, we 
would be obligated to use that science. And we have a very good 
and strong working relationship with the Office of Research and 
Development.
    But because TSCA also requires us to consider exposures, 
conditions of use, the potential for environmental damage, you 
know, and industry information about what the chemicals are 
needed for, we wouldn't be relying exclusively on an IRIS study 
for our work. We really do take the best available science 
directive very seriously, and are prepared to look at all 
information as we make our decisions and do our work.
    Mr. Johnson. OK. Well, it almost sounds like you are 
backtracking on the 9th Circuit position, because if IRIS and 
FIFRA and--if they are already doing those things, why do you 
feel that your office has to do them, too?
    Dr. Freedhoff. IRIS's----
    Mr. Johnson. It sounds like duplication to me, and that is 
costly.
    Dr. Freedhoff. I don't think an IRIS study and a risk 
evaluation are the same. And IRIS is a non-regulatory document. 
It is just the science that we use to inform our regulations. 
It is not the regulations themselves.
    Mr. Johnson. OK.
    Dr. Freedhoff. And we are committed to--I want to do my 
job, not the air office's job, or not the water office's job, 
either.
    So I believe that Section 9 of TSCA gave the Agency clear 
direction for when TSCA should be the regulating law and when 
the Agency should refer exposures or risks that it might find 
to other parts of the Agency. And we will be following that 
part of the law.
    Mr. Johnson. OK, all right. I have another question, but I 
will make that for the record.
    [The question submitted by Mr. Johnson for the record 
follows:]
    [The information appears at the conclusion of the hearing.]
    Mr. Johnson. Mr. Chairman, I yield back.
    Mr. Tonko. The gentleman yields back. The Chair now 
recognizes Representative Schakowsky, who also serves as chair 
of the Subcommittee on Consumer Protection and Commerce, and we 
welcome the gentlelady from Illinois.
    Ms. Schakowsky. Thank you so much. So I want to talk about 
phthalates. They have been banned by the U.S. Consumer Product 
Safety Commission because of the endocrine disruption substance 
that they are, and especially worrisome for pregnant women and 
children.
    Do you know, back in 2008, when I was helping to pass the 
Consumer Product Safety Improvement Act, we banned phthalates 
for children's toys?
    So right now, the EPA completed its scoping of several 
high-priority phthalates in September of 2020. The next step in 
the process in a risk evaluation follow-up. It is still 
happening.
    I guess what I am really confused about is, if we have 
already made a determination that phthalates are a problem, why 
is it that the EPA is still considering risk evaluation on 
them?
    Dr. Freedhoff. I think I appreciate that question, and I 
remember working closely with your staff in 2008 on those 
provisions, so I am glad to be reminded of that, as well.
    I think the CPOC, when it looked at those phthalates, was 
really only looking at them as they relate to children's 
products. They weren't looking at them as they relate to other 
things that those phthalates are used for. And TSCA risk 
evaluations ask us to look at all the conditions of use, and 
propose regulations to address risk across all of the uses, not 
just the children's products.
    So I can assure you we will be looking at what the CPOC 
did, and we are--you know, we would consider that to be, you 
know, some of the best available science that we are required 
to consider, as well. But I do think that what we are looking 
at is potentially broader than what the CPOC did in the past.
    Ms. Schakowsky. So we are thinking that maybe phthalates 
aren't a problem?
    Dr. Freedhoff. No, no----
    Ms. Schakowsky. In some other ways?
    Dr. Freedhoff. Not that. I am saying that we are going to 
be looking at more than just children's products, and more 
than--you know, which I think is what the CPOC looked at in its 
review, years back. I am not opining--I am not suggesting that 
the CPOC did anything wrong.
    Ms. Schakowsky. OK. I also wanted to talk about testing on 
animals. And I have a bill, the Safety--Safe Cosmetics and 
Personal Care Products. And the bill that I had would ban all--
almost all--animal testing.
    And since the publication of the document--let me see what 
document I am referring to--so I was encouraged to see that--
the publication of the strategic plan to promote the 
development and implementation of alternative test methods for 
animal testing in the TSCA proposal. So where are we with that?
    I would like to see--as much as possible, get rid of 
dangerous animal testing.
    Dr. Freedhoff. Absolutely. I--actually, some of the 
briefings that I have had on the science associated with 
developing different ways to test, other than using animals, 
have been among the most interesting and exciting briefings I 
have had since coming to the Agency. And it is an area where 
our scientists are collaborating really well with the Office of 
Research and Development.
    And in some cases, the techniques that we are developing 
that don't use animals are actually better and more predictive 
than the--than actually testing on animals, because, you know, 
the way an animal breathe isn't necessarily the same as the way 
a person breathes. And the techniques that we are developing 
reflect those differences.
    So I think there is an Agency-wide commitment to continue 
to pursue that science, and continue to incorporate those 
methods as soon as they are available.
    Ms. Schakowsky. OK. Well, I have just a--I have a little 
time left. Let me just go back to phthalates for a minute.
    I hope that this decision will be made soon, because I 
think there is so much evidence now already that phthalates are 
a problem. The endocrine problems, the--for children and for 
pregnant women--that I don't know what else you are looking 
for, exactly.
    Dr. Freedhoff. I appreciate that, and I think what TSCA was 
designed to do is tell the Agency to look at every single use 
of a chemical, and----
    Ms. Schakowsky. So what would that be?
    Dr. Freedhoff [continue]. All possible uses----
    Ms. Schakowsky [continue]. That would affect human beings 
that you don't already--have seen the dangers?
    Dr. Freedhoff. I am not saying that the Agency doesn't have 
science available to it. I am saying that the point of TSCA was 
to write it all down in one place, and assess the potential for 
exposures across a range of uses, and then recommend risk 
management rule-makings to----
    Ms. Schakowsky. So let----
    Dr. Freedhoff [continue]. Protect people against the risks.
    Ms. Schakowsky. Give me an example of a range of use that 
might expand the phthalate removal.
    Dr. Freedhoff. I think there is more phthalate--I think 
there are phthalates in more than just children's products, and 
I don't believe there are regulations that address phthalates 
in products that aren't children's products.
    So doing the TSCA risk evaluation, if we find risks that 
people might be getting exposed from different things, would 
also allow us to write regulations to address those risks that 
don't currently exist.
    So I think we could end up with a more protective outcome, 
not a not a less protective or duplicative one.
    Ms. Schakowsky. OK, thank you, and I yield back.
    Mr. Tonko. The gentlelady yields back. The Chair will now 
recognize, virtually, I believe--logged in is the 
representative from North Carolina. I recognize Representative 
Hudson for 5 minutes, please.
    Mr. Hudson. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And thank you to Dr. 
Freedhoff for being here with us today. It is great to see you 
back in Rayburn. Congratulations on your new position. I can 
think of no one who is more qualified.
    I would like to start first by applauding the Administrator 
Regan for releasing the PFAS Action Plan last week. We fought 
hard to address PFAS pollution in our community since the 
Chemical GenX has impacted the Cape Fear River Region. I had 
the opportunity to speak with the administrator ahead of the 
announcement, and was encouraged by the seriousness with which 
he is addressing this issue, and the ambitious goals set forth 
in the plan.
    Specifically, the action plan states, ``The EPA expects to 
exercise its TSCA authority to require PFAS manufacturers to 
conduct and fund the studies,'' and plans to ``issue the first 
round of test orders on selected PFAS by the end of the year.''
    Dr. Freedhoff, can you clarify? Is the goal to issue an 
order on these testing requirements within the year, or that 
the testing on selected PFAS will be completed, and at EPA 
within one year?
    Dr. Freedhoff. Thanks very much, and I apologize, it was a 
little bit difficult to hear you. And I think what you were 
asking is when we will be issuing test orders for PFAS under 
our national testing strategy.
    Mr. Hudson. Well, according to what the EPA said, you are 
going to require PFAS manufacturers to conduct and fund these 
studies, and issue the first round of test orders by the end of 
the year. So----
    Dr. Freedhoff. Yes, yes. So we will be issuing the first 
round of test orders by the end of this year, and we expect the 
data that we get from that to be extrapolated to fill health 
information gaps associated with about 2,000 different PFAS. 
But those are just the first test orders in the PFAS testing 
strategy. We do expect to continue to fill those information 
gaps using our authority in the months and years to come.
    Mr. Hudson. How quickly do you think we can--will see 
results from that first round of test orders?
    Dr. Freedhoff. I think we are in the process right now of 
writing up those test orders, and TSCA allows us to tell the 
industries that we are asking for information from what 
experiments they need to conduct, and what data they need to 
provide us with. And we are not done writing that up yet.
    When we do issue the orders, it will be public. And I think 
the timeline for industry getting the information back to us 
will depend a little bit on what we ask them to do.
    Mr. Hudson. Do you think, average, a year, six months, 
multiple years?
    Dr. Freedhoff. I would say months to a year or two would be 
my guess, but it, honestly, is just a guess at this point.
    The staff is hard at work writing, you know, writing the 
test orders, and figuring out what reasonable deadlines are for 
getting the information back to us, because we also want to 
make sure it is the right data, and it is robust enough, and 
that industry has had time to develop it.
    Mr. Hudson. I think that is going to be kind of a--the 
delicate balance, as--where our communities are desperate for 
this information. But we do want to be reasonable, and give 
them a reasonable amount of time. But--so I guess that is going 
to be one of the issues we really need to work through.
    One of my questions, though, is do you believe there is 
enough domestic laboratory capacity for companies to conduct 
this testing to a level that meets TSCA science quality 
requirements?
    Dr. Freedhoff. I don't have a reason to believe that there 
isn't. But that is something we would consider if, you know, if 
we were provided with evidence that there was a lab capacity 
issue.
    I think that one of the advantages of the PFAS testing 
strategy is that, instead of testing one chemical at a time 
until we have gone through, you know, the thousands that have 
historically been made or used in this country, we are instead 
just targeting our testing to focus on one PFAS from each of 
the categories, so that we can be the--as efficient and smart 
about getting this information to the Agency as quickly as 
possible.
    I do know that the Agency doesn't have the resources to 
study every single PFAS and fill all of those information gaps 
on its own.
    Mr. Hudson. I think that is right, and that is another real 
challenge. And one of my concerns throughout this whole 
process, you know, I worked very closely with my colleagues 
across the aisle on this committee to push for this 
information. I was thrilled that the administrator--once he 
took office.
    But if we are not smart about how we target, you know, it 
is sort of the old adage, you know, if everything is dangerous, 
nothing is dangerous. And, you know, we know that there are 
certain of these chemicals that are dangerous. I think we need 
to focus on those, because we don't have the capacity to test--
right away within a timely manner.
    So I think it is wise that you are--I would just encourage 
you, let's target the PFAS that we know are dangerous, that we 
know are impacting our communities now, like GenX. I think that 
will be important.
    Then finally----
    [Audio malfunction.]
    Mr. Hudson [continue]. GenX was released on Monday--
substantially on animal studies. This assessment we have been 
waiting for for a long time. We think it will really help 
policymakers and local communities to take action--public 
health.
    [Audio malfunction.]
    Mr. Hudson [continue]. Is going to be communicated to 
constituents and citizens living in the Cape Fear Region who 
have been impacted by--I am sure--as I am sure you know, the 
final--reference doses are substantially lower than previous 
assessments.
    Can you tell us how the EPA intends to communicate this 
risk to North Carolina citizens?
    Dr. Freedhoff. I am very sorry, I couldn't--I think the 
technology was freezing up a little bit. I--and I didn't 
understand what you were asking. I am wondering if any of the 
members----
    Mr. Hudson. I will try it again. So I was very happy with 
the final toxicology assessments finally released--a long time 
waiting for them. But they were substantially lower than what 
had been previously assessed.
    And I guess the crux of my question is, how is the EPA 
going to communicate the toxicology level, the threat as we now 
understand, to people in North Carolina?
    Dr. Freedhoff. I agree completely with you, that 
communicating risk to the people who have been affected by 
exposure to PFAS and other chemicals is extremely important and 
extremely challenging, and I have personally met with a number 
of community organizations from North Carolina more than once, 
and I hear the frustration and the anger and the fear every 
time I talk to them.
    And I know there is communities like that all across the 
country, and I--it is very important for me, I know for the 
administrator, as well, who comes from North Carolina, and 
everyone else in the Agency that we really do a better job at 
talking to people, and hearing what they have to say, and 
explaining the risks that they might have faced in the past.
    Mr. Hudson. Thank you----
    Mr. Tonko. Thank you. The----
    Mr. Hudson [continue]. Mr. Chairman, for your indulgence.
    Mr. Tonko. OK, you are welcome. The gentleman yields back. 
The Chair now addresses our next colleague, who is logged in 
virtually, and that would be the gentlelady from Michigan.
    Representative Dingell, you are recognized for 5 minutes, 
please.
    Mrs. Dingell. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you for 
holding this important oversight hearing on TSCA.
    As we are examining these issues, I am going to follow my 
Republican colleague and focus on how we address--and thank him 
for his efforts and his concern on these issues--on how we 
address the harm--contaminants, PFAS chemicals, under this law.
    The American people need an EPA that takes the health risk 
of PFAS seriously, and acts accordingly. And for years, quite 
frankly, the Agency has dragged its feet. That is why the House 
passed H.R. 2467, the PFAS Action Act, bipartisan legislation 
that I co-authored with Mr. Upton--and Mr. Hudson has been a 
great colleague on this, as well as many of my other 
colleagues--which needs to take that comprehensive approach to 
protecting public health.
    You have--the Biden Administration has committed to acting 
on the PFAS crisis, including releasing a supportive statement 
of Administration policy for the PFAS Action Act, and I still 
believe that this legislation is critically necessary to enact. 
I also support and want to--EPA for not waiting for the Senate, 
which is always a mistake these days----
    [Audio malfunction.]
    Mrs. Dingell [continue]. Your PFAS strategic roadmap, which 
includes concrete actions with timelines across EPA offices to 
regulate PFAS. The PFAS Action Act, much like EPA's strategic 
roadmap, is based on robust testing regime to build scientific 
evidence and define categories of PFAS.
    So Administrator Freedhoff, in Michigan we have had an 
aggressive testing regime in place for several years now. What 
is your plan to implement a national PFAS testing strategy, and 
how do you intend to use TSCA's test order authorities?
    I know you just said it was going to take a little time, 
but you know what? It has been years. So--and how many test 
orders--I hope we will see--can we expect to see before the end 
of the year?
    Dr. Freedhoff. Thanks very much for that question, 
Congresswoman, and I just want to say that we very much 
appreciate the bipartisan leadership that you and others have 
engaged in on putting together your vision of a comprehensive 
solution to the PFAS problem. And we really do welcome the 
opportunity to work with you, going forward.
    We expect to issue the first 20 test orders to companies 
who make 20 different PFAS that are in 20 different categories 
before the end of this year, as part of our first step in our 
PFAS testing strategy. Those test orders are going to focus on 
categories about--of PFAS about which we have missing health 
risk information, because we think the health risks are the 
most important gaps to fill first.
    But we want to continue to fill those gaps, and I--and 
refine the strategy as we move forward, and as we get more 
experience and a deeper understanding of the diversity of 
health effects that the classes of chemicals pose.
    Mrs. Dingell. Thank you. While the PFAS strategy lays out a 
comprehensive approach, this wasn't the first step your office 
has taken on PFAS this year. In April EPA announced it would 
expect to deny low-volume exemptions under TSCA for PFAS, 
moving forward.
    Section 5(h)(4) of TSCA allows EPA to exempt chemicals from 
pre-manufacture notice review, only if substances will not 
present an unreasonable risk of injury to health or the 
environment. But given that the best science available 
demonstrates that PFAS is very likely, or does present very 
likely serious health risks, I don't believe any exemption 
should be available to any new PFAS.
    Administrator, while I applaud EPA's decision on low-volume 
exemptions, does EPA plan to continue allowing PFAS to receive 
other types of pre-manufacture notice exemptions?
    Dr. Freedhoff. So we--as you said, Congresswoman, we 
announced in April that we generally expected to deny low-
volume exemption requests for new PFAS because low-volume 
exemption requests don't provide for the same robust safety 
review that the 2016 Lautenberg amendments required us to 
undertake for other new chemical submissions. I believe there 
are other exemptions in Section 5 for--that exist, but I don't 
believe those have ever been used for new PFAS. And that was 
why our announcement focused very much on the low-volume 
exemptions.
    I think it is important to note that hundreds of PFAS were 
allowed into commerce, in some cases decades ago, before the 
Agency really understood what it understands today about PFAS, 
and also before the 2016 Lautenberg amendments required EPA to 
undertake a robust safety review and impose regulations before 
something can enter commerce safely.
    And the other thing we are using our TSCA authority for 
that we have talked about in the roadmap is we are taking a 
backwards look at some of those older decisions that might not 
have been as protective as they ought to have been, and doing 
everything we can to shore those up for the future.
    Mrs. Dingell. Thank you.
    I know, Mr. Chairman, I am out of time. I am going to 
submit some questions for the record.
    [The questions submitted for the record by Mrs. Dingell 
follow:]
    [The information appears at the conclusion of the hearing.]
    Mrs. Dingell. But I would like to ask if we could commit to 
working with this--if she, the administrator, would commit to 
working with us on the Committee on refining the PFAS Action 
Act so ensure it accounts for and aligns with steps being taken 
by EPA as part of the PFAS strategic roadmap.
    I hope she will say yes to that, and then I will yield 
back.
    Mr. Tonko. OK, the gentlelady yields back. The Chair now 
recognizes Representative Carter. The gentleman from Georgia is 
recognized for 5 minutes, please.
    Mr. Carter. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you, Dr. 
Freedhoff, for being here. We appreciate your participation 
here.
    It is my understanding that the 2016 changes to the Toxic 
Substances Control Act state that EPA must make a determination 
whether the chemical substance presents an unreasonable risk of 
injury to health or the environment under the conditions of 
use.
    It is also my understanding that the law was not intended 
to be hazard-based or zero-risk, and that chemicals would be 
evaluated using both hazard and exposure. And that has been 
mentioned in former Representative John Shimkus's law that he 
was the House sponsor of.
    But we have heard that there have been these long delays in 
evaluating these chemicals, and that it is detrimental to 
industry. And it brings about potentially beneficial new 
chemicals to commerce--it stops them, and prohibits them from 
getting--and certainly, we want to make sure everyone is safe. 
But at the same time, we want to remove as many obstacles as we 
possibly can. And certainly, with these long delays that we are 
hearing about, we are very concerned about that.
    How is it that your office is ensuring that chemicals are 
evaluated using risk-based criteria, and not going back to a 
precautionary hazard-based approach?
    Dr. Freedhoff. Thanks very much for that question. I 
entirely agree with you, that the law requires a risk-based 
approach, and that is--that includes a consideration of both 
the hazard and the exposure associated with the conditions of 
use. And I do believe that that is what our office undertakes.
    Mr. Carter. Well, unreasonable risk, when you say 
unreasonable risk, does that mean no risk whatsoever, or very 
little risk?
    Dr. Freedhoff. It means the--we do a risk assessment, we 
describe what we found, and we take steps to address that risk.
    I don't think--I think ``unreasonable'' is an adjective, 
but it is not synonymous with ``no,'' and it is not synonymous 
with ``any.'' It is really--it is what the Agency judges to be 
a reasonable----
    Mr. Carter. You are sounding like a politician now.
    Dr. Freedhoff. I did spend 25 years up here.
    Mr. Carter. But--well, let me ask you this, then. Will EPA 
allow the use of chemicals given an ``unreasonable'' risk 
determination in limited conditions of use?
    In other words, if there is just a limited condition where 
they could use it, and there is a--there is very little risk, 
would EPA consider allowing that?
    Dr. Freedhoff. I think we would expect to tailor our risk 
management decisions to address the uses that showed the risk. 
So if some uses didn't show risks, we would generally expect 
that those uses wouldn't be the ones that we would impose the 
restrictions on.
    Mr. Carter. Well, how do you balance the fact that--so many 
of these chemicals--and previously you were asked, just before, 
with Representative Dingell, about PFAS, and those, and we have 
had a lot of discussion on this committee, on this 
subcommittee, in particular, about that class of chemicals. And 
as you know, it is over 9,000 it includes.
    How do you risk--how do you balance that? Does the risk 
outweigh the benefit? Because a lot of them have a tremendous 
benefit in our society.
    Dr. Freedhoff. I honestly don't believe that we have to 
choose between safety and industry. I don't think--I think it 
is the same--you know, I think we can do both things.
    I think it is possible to use chemicals in a way that 
doesn't result in their release to our drinking water or to the 
air. And that is the approach that we would be likely to take, 
is recognizing the benefits that many chemicals present to all 
sectors of society, while also protecting the people from 
exposures to those chemicals if they are improperly released.
    Mr. Carter. But if there is a total ban, and you can't use 
them, then we are not going to get any benefit.
    Dr. Freedhoff. I don't think anyone is suggesting that we 
are going to ban every single chemical that we evaluate. I 
think there will be some that we might propose bans on, there 
will be others that we propose fairly minimal occupational 
safety measures.
    Mr. Carter. Well, you were here for 25 years on this 
committee, and in Congress, and you know what--the prevailing 
winds, if you will, right now are leading toward a total ban on 
PFAS, at least from Congress--from some Members of Congress, I 
should say. And that is very concerning, because we have 
pointed out during this debate that there are some very 
important beneficial uses of these chemicals. Any----
    Dr. Freedhoff. I think we are committed to evaluating PFAS, 
and addressing the risks that we identify, and that is our 
responsibility under the law. It is what the law requires of 
us. And we would certainly welcome the opportunity to work with 
Congress, as your legislative efforts move through the 
legislative process.
    Mr. Carter. OK, well, I certainly hope so, because I think 
a total ban on a class of chemicals that includes over 9,000 
chemicals that have some very beneficial uses--in fact, 
essential uses--in our society is somewhat shortsighted.
    So thank you, and I yield back.
    Mr. Tonko. The gentleman yields back. The Chair now 
recognizes our colleague, virtually, who is the gentlelady from 
New York--or should I say Brooklyn?
    Representative Clarke, you are recognized for 5 minutes, 
please.
    Ms. Clarke. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. Chairman 
Tonko, Ranking Member McKinley, thank you for convening this 
important hearing on the steps EPA is taking to protect 
consumers, workers from toxic chemicals.
    And let me also thank our witness, Dr. Freedhoff, for your 
testimony.
    One dangerous chemical that I would like to focus on today 
is methylene chloride, which is a volatile chemical solvent 
that can be found in a wide range of commercial and consumer 
products, such as paint and coating removal, metal cleaning, 
chemical processing, and more. Health impacts from limited 
exposure can include confusion, headaches, chest pain, whereas 
chronic exposure causes significant damage to the central 
nervous system. Acute exposure at high concentrations can even 
lead to respiratory failure and death.
    From the years 2000 to 2011, a total of 13 Americans died 
from acute exposure to methylene chloride while refinishing 
bathtubs. The Toxic Substances Control Act requires that EPA 
take action to effectively mitigate these risks.
    So, Dr. Freedhoff, what is EPA doing to protect Americans 
from methylene chloride exposure?
    Dr. Freedhoff. Thanks very much for that question, 
Congresswoman.
    And you know, in my past job I remember meeting with the 
families of people whose sons had died from exposure to 
methylene chloride, even though they were wearing all the 
proper protective equipment, and were fully trained. And you 
know, that--the memory of meeting with those families has 
really stayed with me.
    EPA in the last Administration completed the risk 
evaluation for methylene chloride, and finalized a ban only on 
the retail uses of that substance. We are now considering the 
rest of the uses of methylene chloride, and are working to 
ensure that the rule we are considering won't leave communities 
and--or fenceline communities with additional exposures that we 
might need to address.
    And once we have completed our check on that, I would 
expect that we will send the proposed rule for the rest of the 
uses of methylene chloride for interagency review some time 
next year.
    Ms. Clarke. Well, I am so glad to hear that you are on the 
case, and that EPA continues to regulate this very dangerous 
chemical.
    In 2017 the Trump EPA proposed banning the use of methylene 
chloride as a paint stripper, yet ended up only banning its 
consumer uses. This left workers who come into frequent contact 
with this chemical exposed, despite the known risk to their 
health.
    Dr. Freedhoff, is methylene chloride any less harmful in 
commercial applications as it is in consumer uses?
    Dr. Freedhoff. Yes, our proposed rule that will also 
address the commercial uses is the effort that I was referring 
to earlier, and we do expect to send that proposed rule for 
interagency review some time next year.
    Ms. Clarke. And how is EPA going to ensure that workers are 
just as protected from methylene chloride exposure as non-
commercial consumers are?
    Dr. Freedhoff. We have actually reversed the previous 
Administration's policy decision to assume that workers are 
always properly protected and have protective gear. And as I 
mentioned, with methylene chloride, the workers who had the 
protective gear still were poisoned, and died from exposure to 
those chemicals.
    So I think the worker--the occupational risks associated 
with methylene chloride exposure are very much front of mind 
for us, and we will be ensuring that those risks are understood 
and addressed in the rule that we propose.
    Ms. Clarke. Well, it is critical that the chemical 
regulatory process does not exclude vulnerable populations, 
including workers who frequently handle this very dangerous 
chemical.
    Let me thank you for your time and attention to this 
matter.
    And Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
    [Pause.]
    Ms. Clarke. Mr. Chairman?
    [No response.]
    Ms. Clarke. I yield back, Mr. Chairman.
    Mr. Soto [presiding]. Thank you so much. The Chair now 
recognizes Representative Palmer for 5 minutes.
    Mr. Palmer. I thank the chairman. I thank the witnesses for 
being here. I want to follow up on an issue raised by 
Representative Schakowsky about animal testing.
    In 2018 EPA published its strategic plan to promote 
development and implementation of alternative test methods 
within the TSCA program, including an initial list of 
alternative test methods and strategies for new approach 
methodologies. And I think all of us have heard a good bit 
lately about the testing being done involving the beagle 
puppies. We have this picture that, I think, has gone around 
nationally.
    [Slide]
    Mr. Palmer. While I understand that there is different 
agency protocols here, whether it is National Institute for 
Health or others, EPA--can we be assured that the EPA would not 
allow barbaric experiments on animals, such as we see with 
these beagle puppies, where they were literally eaten alive by 
sandflies?
    Dr. Freedhoff. I hadn't previously seen those images. I am 
thinking of my own dog and cat right now, and--you know, I 
think----
    Mr. Palmer. It is shocking, isn't it?
    Dr. Freedhoff. It really is.
    Mr. Palmer. It is heartbreaking. Well, that is--this is all 
in the news right now, what is going on there. I just want to 
be sure that the EPA, in these new approach methodologies, will 
ensure that we don't impose that type of suffering. Apparently, 
they slit the beagles' vocal cords, so they couldn't hear them 
barking.
    I do have some other questions more relevant to the EPA. In 
the lead-up to the hearing, I heard from many manufacturers and 
groups that feel that, once they submit a new chemical for 
review, it just disappears into a black hole. And what they 
want to know is do you currently have plans to make this 
process more transparent, and improve the communication between 
the Agency and industry?
    Dr. Freedhoff. Thanks very much for that question. I was 
actually surprised, when I first started at the Agency, at the 
frustration from all stakeholders, not just environmental 
organizations, but also from industry stakeholders that I have 
worked with for years, at the level of engagement on--as TSCA 
was implemented over the past few years. And I have tried 
really hard to improve that. I have met with industry 
frequently, I have met with environmental organizations 
frequently. I think that our work is only better when we get 
input from stakeholders and consider it.
    Mr. Palmer. If you have some plans for improving this 
process, would you submit them to the committee? I would like 
to see that.
    Dr. Freedhoff. Absolutely.
    Mr. Palmer. I think it would help us in communication--
communicating with outside groups.
    During the pandemic, the FDA released industry guidance 
that clearly--about types of testing data that they would want 
to see from any group trying to develop vaccines and 
therapeutics. This helped speed up the review process, as 
industry didn't waste time and effort collecting data that was 
not relevant.
    I am--we are also hearing that a lot of the folks in the 
industry feel like they are wasting time and effort collecting 
data that the EPA doesn't end up using in its new chemical 
reviews. And what, again, we are hearing is--do you have plans 
to publish a single document, so that manufacturers that you 
ask to get data from--give them clearly what you expect, in 
terms of the exact data you need, without wasting everybody's 
time and their money collecting data that doesn't get used?
    And I think you can understand the frustration that folks 
from the industry side feel in this regard, that there is a 
lack of transparency, and then a lack of seriousness about the 
use of the data that you have asked them to collect.
    Dr. Freedhoff. I agree that we could do a better job both 
at conveying our expectations to industry before they send us a 
new chemical submittal, so they know what we expect, and that 
will speed their approval process along. And so it is in their 
interests and our interests to get that information earlier.
    And I also think that we could be smarter about our data 
collection. So one rule that we are considering proposing is a 
way to add information requests when we need it, and take the 
information requests away when we don't need it. And that is 
something that we had a public meeting about, got industry and 
other stakeholder input to our ideas, and are now busy 
translating those ideas into a proposed rule.
    Mr. Palmer. Well, again, going back to what I asked you to 
provide the committee, I would appreciate it if you would do 
that.
    And also, I think, again, looking at this photo, it would 
be good if we got some assurances from the EPA in regard to 
animal testing, that we wouldn't allow anything like that.
    Mr. Chairman, I yield back.
    Mr. Soto. The gentleman's time has expired. The Chair now 
recognizes Representative Sarbanes for 5 minutes.
    Mr. Sarbanes. Thanks very much, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate 
the hearing.
    I want to thank you, Dr. Freedhoff, for joining us today. 
You have got a really critical task in administering TSCA, and 
guarding the health and safety of our citizens around the 
country.
    I am certainly a long supporter of upgrading and 
modernizing our chemical safety laws to provide these needed 
protections to Americans. And the Lautenberg Act, the upgraded 
version of TSCA, contained very positive reforms.
    I myself had some anxiety around the issue of pause 
preemption, which allows the Federal Government, frankly, to 
block states from regulating these harmful chemicals by simply 
proposing to study them. And the danger is that could lead to 
years in which a state is, essentially, stopped from regulating 
dangerous chemicals, if the EPA hasn't yet acted. There was 
some grandfathering. I wanted to talk to you a little bit about 
this issue.
    So the pause preemption did not apply for the first ten 
chemicals that EPA evaluated under the Lautenberg Act. Is that 
correct?
    Dr. Freedhoff. Yes, that is correct.
    Mr. Sarbanes. And then, nevertheless, for its subsequent 
chemicals, including those that were designated as, ``high 
priority,'' the pause preemption would apply. Is that right?
    Dr. Freedhoff. Yes, it is.
    Mr. Sarbanes. So that is a concern to me, particularly for 
chemicals like PFAS, which has gotten a lot of discussion 
today, because states have been active there, in trying to 
implement policies to protect public health when the Federal 
action has been lacking, and the pause preemption provision 
could leave communities unprotected, which could continue to 
expose Americans, obviously, including our most vulnerable.
    In your view, does the pause preemption provision help, 
hinder?
    How does it affect the goal of consistent and effective 
regulation to keep the public and our environment safe from 
these chemicals that pose a risk?
    Dr. Freedhoff. Thanks very much for that question. As you 
probably know, the preemption provisions of TSCA were among the 
very last provisions to be resolved in the negotiations.
    I guess I would, first of all, say that I think this 
Administration views its relationship with its state regulators 
differently than the previous Administration. We think of 
states who lead, not just on chemical safety, but also on 
things like vehicle emissions, as our partners and not our 
adversaries. So I do think that we want to be constructive 
partners with state regulators, rather than looking to block 
their efforts.
    I am not currently aware of a state whose efforts will be 
paused as part of our next 20 risk--chemicals that are 
undergoing risk evaluations, but that doesn't mean that those 
efforts don't exist. I am just not personally aware of them. 
And I do think the law provides some opportunity for states to 
ask EPA for waivers from preemption in cases where the actions 
that they have taken precede the Agency's designation of the 
substance as a high priority one for evaluation, and will 
certainly be considering any requests we get like that very 
seriously.
    Mr. Sarbanes. I appreciate that answer, it was very 
diplomatic. I certainly appreciate that it is on Congress to 
fix this problem of the pause preemption, and I certainly also 
appreciate that the Biden Administration is likely to be more 
aligned and in sync with states that are trying to be on the 
leading edge when it comes to regulating these toxic chemicals.
    So it may be that, in this instance, the potential for 
there to be dissonance there is less. However, my own view is 
that we need to make a change with respect to that pause 
preemption, and make sure that whoever is going to be on the 
leading edge of addressing these toxic chemicals has the 
flexibility to do that, to exercise that leadership that is 
coming from the state. The mere study of a chemical by the 
Federal Government should not operate to frustrate those state 
level efforts.
    So we will continue to focus on that. I very much 
appreciate your testimony, and thank you for your good work at 
the Agency.
    And with that I yield back.
    Mr. Soto. The gentleman's time has expired. Representative 
Curtis is recognized for 5 minutes.
    Mr. Curtis. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I find 
myself smiling because we may actually be--I might be following 
a Democrat arguing for preemption when I would be supporting 
the preemption. Excuse me, him arguing against, and me arguing 
for it. Kind of an unusual position for Republicans and 
Democrats.
    But I am--I put on a former mayor's hat, and generally 
don't like to see the Federal Government intervene in what we 
are doing in states and in cities. But I personally feel that 
one state, especially when using non-widely-accepted science, 
shouldn't use their market power and their legal system to 
force regulations on other governments, or place companies in a 
position of complying with that choice of complying or just 
leaving the state.
    I also put on a hat, Madam Administrator, as a former 
business owner, and would say I think what business owners fear 
worse than regulation is uncertainty, or slow decision-making. 
So my first question for you is, how do you plan to execute 
your decisions in a way that permits industry time to respond, 
in a way that meets the needs of their consumers, and, you 
could say, actually, their investors and shareholders, as well?
    Dr. Freedhoff. Thanks very much for that question, and I 
agree that predictable, transparent, and regular order is what 
TSCA implementation needs. And we are working to improve our 
communications, we are working to improve our engagement with 
stakeholders, we are working to answer industry questions when 
they have them, and improve our processes whenever we can. And 
I very much welcome suggestions for, you know, things you think 
we could be doing better if we miss the mark.
    Mr. Curtis. Yes, and I don't have specific suggestions, 
other than predictability, right?
    And I think businesses learn to adapt to almost any 
government regulation. But what is really hard on them is the 
unpredictable nature, sometimes, of government regulations.
    Coming back to this preemption issue, the perfect answer is 
to make states feel like they don't need their own regulations. 
Can you talk about your approach to making states comfortable, 
so they don't feel like they need to do any regulation on----
    Dr. Freedhoff. Thanks, Congressman. You have actually hit 
on the exact reason why Congress was able to land on a 
preemption compromise when we negotiated the reforms to TSCA. 
And the idea was, if you had a credible and strong Federal 
regulation, states wouldn't need or feel like they wanted to 
spend their own precious resources addressing something that 
the Federal Government had already addressed.
    And that is why it is so important that, when the Agency 
says that a chemical can be used safely, that everyone believes 
that we have made that judgment using the best available 
science, and written a rule that is as protective as it needs 
to be.
    Mr. Curtis. Thank you. Are you aware of any states 
currently considering action against a chemical that you would 
currently be evaluating in your office?
    Dr. Freedhoff. I am sorry, I didn't catch that question.
    Mr. Curtis. Yes, are you aware of any states out there that 
might be considering state action against a chemical that is 
currently under evaluation by your office?
    Dr. Freedhoff. I am not aware of pending state actions on 
the next 20 substances that we are doing risk evaluations on. 
But that doesn't mean there aren't any that are being planned; 
I just might not be aware of them.
    Mr. Curtis. And kind of the opposite question: is the EPA 
considering acting on any chemicals that would create national 
standards, and cause preemption from state--current state 
regulations?
    Dr. Freedhoff. I think that EPA would be--we would--we are 
moving forward to set Federal chemical safety regulations, and 
would certainly implement any authorities we have related to 
the preemption that flows from those decisions.
    Mr. Curtis. Yes, I--and that is good. Are there any 
specifics that come to mind right now that you would think 
would evoke preemption?
    Dr. Freedhoff. No, and that is because the first pause 
preemption didn't apply to the first ten chemicals that 
underwent risk evaluation, and we haven't yet written rules 
about those chemicals, which triggers different preemption 
provisions. So it is a--at this point, it is largely a 
hypothetical question about, you know, about what would happen, 
once a Federal regulation was in place for a substance.
    Mr. Curtis. Excellent. Thank you very much for your 
answers.
    Mr. Chairman, I am out of time, and I yield back.
    Mr. Soto. The gentleman yields back. The Chair now 
recognizes Representative Peters for 5 minutes.
    Mr. Peters. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I actually wanted to 
greet the administrator with the notation that I am a former 
EPA Office of Toxic Substances employee. I worked there in the 
1980s, when this was a difficult Act to administer, and was 
often frustrating, so I am happy for the Lautenberg Act and the 
clarifications.
    That bill included a direct path to risk management 
regulation for a small subset of chemical substances that have 
been identified as persistent, bio-accumulative, and toxic, 
PBT, and that was a significant step forward in the reform of 
TSCA.
    The previous Administration issued final rules that went 
into effect in February of this year. But in light of executive 
orders and guidance, EPA announced in March it was re-reviewing 
these rules, and considering revising all of the final rules 
completed out of the last Administration.
    So Dr. Freedhoff, what did the Agency find during the 
public comment period that led to reevaluating the final rules?
    Dr. Freedhoff. We are still in the process of looking at 
all of the comments that we received during that public comment 
period that--you know, there was one portion of one of those 
five rules that a large number of industry sectors came to us 
with serious supply chain disruption concerns about, very early 
in the Biden Administration. Of course, these rules were 
finalized in the previous Administration, and the industries 
had somehow failed to recognize or understand what EPA was 
proposing, and didn't communicate with the previous 
Administration at that time.
    We think, as part of our re-examination of a lot of the 
different policies that were put into place by the last 
Administration, that there may well be ways to strengthen each 
of those five rules. And we are looking at opportunities like 
that at the same time as we are looking at addressing the 
supply chain disruption challenges that industry stakeholders 
raised about one of those five chemicals.
    Mr. Peters. Great.
    Dr. Freedhoff. And I would expect that we will propose some 
changes for all--you know, for as many as all five of the 
chemicals some time in the coming one to two years.
    Mr. Peters. And maybe this gets to that, because your 
office moved to extend the compliance date for one of the PBT 
chemicals, PIP (3:1), until October 31st of 2024. But I know 
you have supply chain concerns, and there is downstream 
impacts.
    I do have concerns that giving extensions to processors and 
distributors who fail to engage on public rulemakings may not 
be consistent with the intent of the TSCA reform. Can you 
explain why PIP (3:1) was given an extension?
    Dr. Freedhoff. So I think what happened when the Trump 
Administration proposed that phase-out of PIP (3:1) is that, 
despite their efforts to reach out to companies, hold webinars, 
issue press releases, have--you know, have meetings with 
industry stakeholders, none of those industries came to the 
Agency with their concerns until after the rule was finalized. 
And by the time that happened, they were concerned that 
everything, from phone chargers to tractors to cars to all 
kinds of other electronic equipment, might have that substance 
in the supply chain. And then they--and they had not made the 
efforts that they should have made earlier to find out what 
those chemicals were being used for, and make specific 
arguments to the Agency about why an extension was necessary.
    Nevertheless, it seemed like such a wide portion of the 
economy might be impacted if we didn't take some interim 
measures to extend the compliance date for just that one part 
of the rule, that----
    Mr. Peters. Do you anticipate other extensions for PBTs in 
the TSCA----
    Dr. Freedhoff. I am sorry, I didn't hear that.
    Mr. Peters. Do you anticipate any other extensions for PBTs 
in the TSCA work plan?
    Dr. Freedhoff. I am sorry, you are--it is hard to 
understand----
    Mr. Peters. I am sorry.
    Dr. Freedhoff [continue]. Over--with this connection. Could 
you try one more time?
    Mr. Peters. Do you anticipate any other extensions for 
PBTs----
    Dr. Freedhoff. Oh, I see, I am sorry.
    We did just propose an additional extension. And what we 
have said to industry stakeholders--and I would welcome your 
help in conveying this message, as well--is that if we are 
going to propose any additional extensions, we need specific, 
scientifically and legally defensible reasons why they might 
need that.
    So an example of a need for----
    Mr. Peters. Well, I am about to run out of time, so I just 
want to say that I just--we don't want to set a precedent for 
extending compliance for industries that don't chime in at the 
right time, and fail to identify their chemicals, and notify 
the EPA during the comment period. So I hope you will do 
outreach that helps companies make sure that they are 
participating, so we don't get short-circuited again like this.
    And I appreciate--I yield back, Mr. Chair.
    Mr. Soto. The gentleman yields back. Representative 
Crenshaw is now recognized for 5 minutes.
    Mr. Crenshaw. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and thank you, Ms. 
Freedhoff, for being here today.
    So I want to get back to a question I think you have been 
asked before, which is defining unreasonable risk. You alluded 
to this with Representative Carter. You mentioned that 
``unreasonable'' is an adjective. But ``unreasonable risk'' is 
a term that has been described by the courts in case law.
    So I am wondering if you can tell us again, for 
clarification, what--how you would define that at your Agency, 
because that is important, going forward.
    Dr. Freedhoff. I am not sure that there is any single 
definition of ``unreasonable risk,'' Congressman. And I think, 
speaking as someone who tried to come up with a definition when 
we negotiated the law, it was clear that others didn't believe 
that there was a precise definition, either.
    And what the law--what the reform law asked us to do was 
evaluate the chemical across all of the conditions of use that 
are reasonably foreseeable and known to the Administration, and 
come up with a risk evaluation that addresses that--that 
describes that risk.
    Then, when we think about what regulations we might need to 
put into place, we are required by law to consider things like 
costs to industry, and whether the chemical is used for a 
critical economic or military need. And we are certainly 
expecting to take that--to take those considerations into 
account when we move into the rulemaking phase.
    Mr. Crenshaw. And maybe that was a bad way to write the 
law, then. And--but I think we owe it to industry, I think we 
owe it to ourselves to have a much more clear definition of 
what ``unreasonable risk'' might be, if we are going to do risk 
evaluations that have to be compared against some kind of 
standard.
    You mentioned innovation, and it brings me to my next 
question. How do you plan on meeting statutory deadlines under 
TSCA, without deterring or slowing innovation? How can your 
office do that?
    Dr. Freedhoff. As I said earlier in my testimony, the 
Agency is currently operating with less than 50 percent of the 
resources that it thinks it needs to operate the new chemicals 
program in the way that Congress intended. And Congress 
intended for us to assess the chemicals, and to decide what to 
do about them in a quick time frame.
    I personally don't believe that innovation and safety are 
mutually exclusive, and I really want to work with Congress, 
and work with the excellent career staff at the Agency to 
improve in all areas of our implementation plans.
    Mr. Crenshaw. My next question is regarding greenhouse 
gases. The EPA has been giving--been given quite a few 
resources to explore standards for greenhouse gases across a 
half-dozen programs under the Clean Air Act. Do you think EPA 
can regulate greenhouse gases as a chemical substance under 
TSCA?
    Dr. Freedhoff. It is not a question that I have thought 
about. I think I would like to answer for the record, if that 
is OK with you. I would like to provide a more----
    Mr. Crenshaw. Sure. Well, Section 9 of TSCA prohibits TSCA 
from regulating that. The reason I ask is because groups are 
trying to get you to regulate that. And we would like your 
assurances that you will follow the law under Section 9 of TSCA 
that says that has to be regulated under the Clean Air Act.
    Dr. Freedhoff. We will definitely be following the law, and 
looking to Section 9 to guide our decision-making.
    Mr. Crenshaw. OK, I appreciate that, and I yield back.
    Mr. Soto. The gentleman yields back. The Chair now 
recognizes Representative Barragan for 5 minutes.
    Ms. Barragan. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    Dr. Freedhoff, when Congress updated the Toxic Substances 
Control Act in 2016, one new provision requires EPA to account 
for potentially exposed and susceptible sub-populations in its 
assessment of whether the use of a chemical substance presents 
an unreasonable risk to health or the environment.
    How will your office use this provision to protect 
environmental justice communities close to facilities that 
release toxic chemicals into the environment?
    Dr. Freedhoff. Thanks very much for that question, 
Congresswoman. You know, the previous Administration decided to 
exclude air, water, and disposal exposures from even being 
considered under the risk evaluations. And what that 
essentially meant is that they said that, for purposes of TSCA, 
it doesn't count if you drink it, and it doesn't count if you 
breathe it. And we don't think that was the right approach, and 
we do plan--and we have reversed that policy decision.
    One thing that we are doing in order to better understand 
whether those risk evaluations that were finished by the 
previous Administration exclude exposures like the ones you are 
talking about, is develop a fenceline screening methodology. 
And that methodology is intended to do a quick look at 
fenceline communities who might be disproportionately exposed 
to these chemicals, to be sure that the risk management actions 
that we are thinking about actually address the risks that 
these communities pose.
    And I expect that we will be releasing that methodology for 
both peer review and public comment later this year.
    Ms. Barragan. Great, thank you. The PFAS roadmap that EPA 
recently released includes a commitment to re-examine previous 
decisions to allow new PFAS into commerce. In July the New York 
Times reported that, in 2011, the EPA approved three chemicals 
for fracking, despite concerns by Agency scientists the 
chemicals have the potential to break down to PFAS, which 
threatens workers, human health, and our environment.
    Will the EPA revisit the chemicals it has approved for 
fracking as part of its review of previous decisions on past 
approvals?
    Dr. Freedhoff. Thanks very much for that question. And we 
actually have been taking a backwards look at all of our 
previous PFAS decisions, because it is--you know, there were a 
number that were approved in the 1980s, before the Agency 
really understands what it currently does about those 
chemicals. And we think all of them need to be looked at again.
    We are in the process of doing that, and I imagine that we 
will have some results to share in the coming months.
    Ms. Barragan. Well, thank you for that, because, you know, 
ten years ago the Agency scientists identified serious health 
risks to these chemicals, and yet they approved them, anyhow. I 
believe we must do better, and now is an opportunity to correct 
that mistake.
    Next, for many years we have recognized the need to address 
cumulative impacts of pollution on communities exposed to 
unsafe levels of air and water pollution from multiple sources. 
It is also critical EPA consider cumulative impacts when 
assessing cumulative chemical exposures, where a community 
could be impacted by more than one chemical or a mixture of 
chemicals. This can worsen the effects of exposure to the 
chemical being evaluated.
    Will your office use the Toxic Substances Control Act to 
advance the cumulative risk assessment of chemicals?
    Dr. Freedhoff. Thanks very much for that. It is, actually, 
a very, very difficult problem, scientifically. And the entire 
Agency is working together on ways that we can better 
understand the cumulative effects, and ultimately on ways that 
we might be able to include cumulative effect considerations in 
our risk management rules.
    I think the fenceline community methodology that I was 
describing to you earlier is just a first step of what we are 
looking at to try to understand and address the 
disproportionate exposures to pollution that some communities 
have faced, in some cases, for decades. And I look forward to 
keeping the committee informed of these efforts, as we move 
forward.
    Ms. Barragan. Well, thank you, Doctor, for your testimony. 
And I just want to continue to encourage you to look at these 
cumulative impacts, and I know it can be challenging, but when 
we are looking in a vacuum at approvals for one chemical in a 
vacuum, it doesn't really tell you in whole what it is doing to 
communities. And I do think that is important in the long term.
    So thank you for your service and your testimony today.
    With that, Mr. Chairman, I yield back.
    Mr. Soto. The gentlelady yields back. The Chair now 
recognizes Representative Blunt Rochester for 5 minutes.
    Ms. Blunt Rochester. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and Ranking 
Member McKinley, for calling this important hearing, and 
welcome back, Dr. Freedhoff, and thank you for being here to 
discuss the EPA's efforts to fully implement the 2016 
amendments to the Toxic Substance Control Act.
    These bipartisan amendments were an important step toward 
reforming the Federal Government's approach to chemical safety 
to better protect human health and the environment from the 
impacts of chemical pollution. It has been five years since the 
Lautenberg Act passed, and we need to ensure that what was 
passed is executed.
    As a Delawarean, I know the importance of chemical safety, 
from the health and safety of the workers at the chemical 
plants in my state and their neighboring communities, to the 
families that use everyday household items with chemicals. We 
need to work together to ensure that all Americans are safe 
from chemical harm, and that science, transparency, and equity 
are at the center of EPA's decisions.
    Dr. Freedhoff, as you know, Delaware is home to some of 
America's leading chemical companies. How will implementation 
of these TSCA amendments ultimately benefit them, as well as 
the general public?
    Dr. Freedhoff. I actually think that one of the reasons why 
many of those companies supported TSCA reform--didn't just 
support it, but encouraged it--was because they fundamentally 
knew that, if the public believed that when EPA said that a 
chemical was--can be safely used, it can be safely used. And I 
think the more credible a presence the Agency has in 
understanding and addressing the risks from chemicals, the more 
the public will also accept and trust the products that 
industry makes.
    Ms. Blunt Rochester. Thank you for that. I think you use 
the word ``confidence'' earlier in your testimony, that it 
gives people confidence.
    As a follow-up to Representative Barragan question, I am 
particularly concerned with the impacts of chemical exposure on 
environmental justice communities, who are already 
disproportionately impacted by legacy pollution.
    As you stated, under the last Administration the first ten 
chemical risk evaluations under TSCA neglected to address the 
impacts of exposure from air, water, or disposal to the general 
population, because it was falsely assumed that other statutes 
would address those exposures. This approach failed to protect 
our most vulnerable populations from dangerous chemicals, and I 
was encouraged to hear of your office's plan to re-examine some 
of these chemicals to assess whether the exclusion of exposures 
from air, water, and disposal disproportionately harm 
environmental justice communities.
    Dr. Freedhoff, why is it important for EPA to supplement 
its risk evaluations with an environmental justice lens?
    Dr. Freedhoff. I think what we all have realized, I mean, 
not just in the past few months, but over many years, is that 
there are some communities who have been disproportionately 
exposed to multiple chemicals for generations. And that is 
evidenced by the health of those communities. It is evidenced 
in so many ways, whether it is lead in paint, or exposures to 
ethylene oxide releases, or PFAS, or being located near 
landfills that were built decades ago, without appropriate 
protections. We are talking about generations of exposure.
    And I do think it is vitally important that TSCA do what 
Congress told--said the law should do, which is to protect 
potentially exposed and susceptible sub-populations from 
unreasonable risks and exposures to chemicals.
    Ms. Blunt Rochester. Thank you. And earlier this year EPA 
invited EJ stakeholders to participate in environmental justice 
consultation for the development of risk management plans for 
evaluated chemicals. How is EPA utilizing the information that 
these stakeholders are sharing?
    And how will you continue to incorporate environmental 
justice communities and other stakeholders into risk management 
plans?
    Dr. Freedhoff. Thanks very much for that. I have met with 
some environmental justice community organizations, and will 
continue to. And we do these consultations for all of our 
risk--our rulemakings under TSCA, and really do value the input 
that we get.
    We would also really welcome ideas from you or others about 
ways we can reach more communities, and talk directly with 
communities that are impacted, because I feel like, a lot of 
the time, we hear from--we hear more from national 
organizations, and I think it is really important that the 
Agency understand how their proposed rules might be impacting 
the actual people in these communities. So any suggestions you 
have for us would be very welcome.
    Ms. Blunt Rochester. Thank you, Doctor. We look forward to 
working with you, and it is good to see you in this position. 
Good luck in all the work that you are embarking on.
    And I yield back.
    Mr. Soto. The gentlelady yields back. The Chair now 
recognizes himself for 5 minutes.
    First, Dr. Freedhoff, thank you for what you do to help 
regulate chemicals that can, literally, kill our fellow 
Americans, if not kept in check. So we want you to take the 
time, as you are doing, to get these protections right, 
whatever time that takes that is supported by the science.
    In Florida, several years ago, we witnessed a cancer 
cluster affecting firefighters at the Florida State Fire 
College. Our heroes' lives were put in jeopardy because of 
unregulated PFAS fire extinguishing chemicals. As many as 27 of 
Florida's firefighter training facilities may have been 
affected by these toxic chemicals.
    As you know, legislation was passed by the House already to 
set a national drinking water standard for PFAS, and direct the 
EPA on developing discharge limits. We appreciate 
Representative Dingell's leadership, and hope the Senate will 
follow suit.
    And we also applaud you all at EPA for announcing a 
comprehensive strategic roadmap to confront PFAS contamination 
nationwide under your existing statutory authority, including 
the three guiding strategies of increasing investment research, 
leveraging authorities to take action to restrict PFAS 
chemicals from being released into the environment, and, of 
course, accelerating cleanup of PFAS contamination. This is 
important for Florida, for my constituents, and for others.
    Dr. Freedhoff, how do you see your office's work on testing 
and review for PFAS informing the efforts of your colleagues in 
other areas of the EPA?
    Dr. Freedhoff. Thanks very much for that question, because, 
of course, you know, we are proposing regulations on just a 
handful of the thousands of PFAS that have historically been 
made or used.
    And one of the reasons for that is because, if we can't 
understand the health effects that the chemicals might pose, we 
also can't know what the safe drinking water level would be, or 
how much of it you need to clean up.
    And so one of the things that we are really excited about 
for our testing strategy is that, instead of continuing this 
one-by-one-by-one approach, which would take the Agency decades 
to finish, we are instead working a little smarter, and sorting 
PFAS that have similar properties into subcategories, and 
testing representative PFAS from each of those categories.
    So our first 20 test orders that will go to 20 different 
PFAS manufacturers will actually give us information that we 
can extrapolate to 2,000 of those many thousands of chemicals 
that have historically been made. And I think that will give us 
a real jumpstart on a more comprehensive research, monitoring, 
and regulatory plan to address the rest of the substances.
    Mr. Soto. So you are categorizing these forever PFAS 
chemicals, and building a foundation for other parts of the EPA 
Agency, so we appreciate that.
    Dr. Freedhoff, how will you, your office, use the expanded 
TRI reporting data to further regulatory efforts?
    Dr. Freedhoff. So we have implemented the language that 
Congress wrote in the 2020 National Defense Authorization Act, 
and that language required the immediate addition of almost 200 
PFAS to toxic release inventory reporting requirements. And we 
are continuing to add PFAS to that list, in accordance with the 
direction that Congress provided us.
    We also are looking at ways to expand our--the data that we 
get from those releases, because we noticed in this first year 
of reporting that we got much less from--by way of data than we 
expected. And we are trying to understand and address the 
reasons for that.
    Mr. Soto. Of course. And can you talk a little bit more 
about the resources you estimate you will need to implement 
your responsibilities under the reformed TSCA?
    Dr. Freedhoff. Well, thanks very much for that question. 
I--it really does continue to shock me, that the previous 
Administration never asked for any additional funds, even 
though Congress clearly expected the Agency to have much more 
work to do.
    And so I think our--the President's fiscal year 2022 budget 
gives us the authority to hire about 90 additional full-time 
employees. I think that is an excellent downpayment on what it 
is that we need to do. But I think, in order to fully realize 
the promise of TSCA, which includes robust safety measures, but 
also rapid and predictable decision-making, and meeting 
statutory deadlines the industry expects us to meet, I think we 
will continue to need to work with Congress to build on those 
efforts.
    Mr. Soto. And so how is your office quantifying costs of 
implementing TSCA and envisioning service fees to address 
shortcomings?
    Dr. Freedhoff. I am sorry, I missed that.
    Mr. Soto. How is your office quantifying costs of 
implementing the new TSCA?
    And how do you envision your office amending the service 
fees to address any shortcomings?
    Dr. Freedhoff. I actually think we have a report due to 
Congress at the end of this year that asks us that very 
question. And, you know, part of what we have been doing since 
I arrived at the Agency is, first of all, understanding the 
costs, but also then recognizing that some of these policy 
reversals change the cost considerations, as well, as do the 
complexities associated with some of the work that we didn't 
previously anticipate.
    So I actually really look forward to giving Congress a very 
fulsome answer to that question later this year.
    Mr. Soto. Thank you. And my time has expired.
    I request unanimous consent to enter the following 
documents into the record: a letter from Chairman Pallone, 
Chair DeGette, Chair Tonko to EPA Administrator Regan; a 
response letter from Assistant Administrator Freedhoff to 
Chairman Pallone and Chair DeGette and Chairman Tonko, 
including six enclosures; a letter from the Household and 
Commercial Products Association; and an article from Bloomberg 
Law entitled, ``EPA's Chemicals Head Tells Staff to Consider 
Work-Life Balance.''
    Without objection, so ordered.
    I would like to thank our witness, Dr. Freedhoff, for your 
patience and candor, and joining us for today's hearing.
    I remind Members that, pursuant to committee rules, they 
have ten business days to submit additional questions for the 
record to be answered by our witness.
    I ask that our witness respond promptly to such questions 
that you may receive.
    At this time, the subcommittee is adjourned.
    [Whereupon, at 12:45 p.m., the subcommittee was adjourned.]


    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

    

                                 [all]