Inhofe Questions Witness on Implementation of Amendments to Toxic Substance Control Act

Hearing

Yesterday, U.S. Sen. Jim Inhofe (R-Okla.), senior member of the Environment and Public Works Committee, questioned witnesses on the implementation of amendments to the Toxic Substance Control Act (TSCA), and how these new regulations will impact the chemical supply chain.

The witness is Dr. Michal Freedhoff, Assistant Administrator of the Office of Chemical Safety and Pollution Prevention of the Environmental Protection Agency.

Inhofe: First of all, it's nice to see you again. It's kind of funny because we've always gotten along famously, in spite of the fact that we've disagreed probably on more things than we've agreed on. On the other hand, it's worked very well.

It was called to our attention a few minutes ago by Senator Carper, that I chaired this committee back during the time that we were really busy on the Lautenberg Bill - another person that we are fond of and worked very closely with. In fact, when we'd have our meetings, Republicans would have their meetings once a week and they'd get around to me at that time - I think you were with Barbara Boxer at that time - and I commented to them from the committee that actually gets things done, that was us. And we did. In fact, you got along famously with Ryan Jackson, Alex Herrgott, Dimitri, and all these people. I mean they really felt a very close relationship with you.

Now, we have some problems. I have to say this, which will make it easier than repeating it all: I think that Sen. Capito came out and I agree with the comments that she made and the problems that we're having. I've talked also, as has the Chairman, to areas where we are having problems. I had a question I was going to ask you, and I will do it knowing full well what the answers will be. One was, Dr. Freedoff, do you agree that delays in the new chemical review process are hampering innovation and will contribute to supply chain constraints and inflationary pressures?

Freedhoff: I do agree that delays in the new chemical review process are delaying the introduction of new chemicals into commerce. But, I'm not sure I fully understand how a chemical that isn't yet in commerce could be causing supply chain problems.

That said, we want to do better, and I'm committed to doing what Congress expected us to do, which is, to review new chemicals, protectively and quickly, and I think we do have to do both of those things. Speed is important, and we want to do better.

Inhofe: In your opening statement, you commented your frustration with not - I think you only got one out of ten of the list of ten that were in there. So, do you believe that the system that we are using is the best system, or that there could be a frailty in that system, that could be causing some of the problems that you talk about that need heavier funding? A lot of us believe that the Environmental Protection Agency [EPA] has had kind of the hogs end of the funding for a long period of time, and I know that you didn't agree with the previous president and with what he was trying to accomplish.

On the other hand, there has to be an answer and, right now, I don't know how you can just go to the funding and say that that's where the problems going to be resolved. What things, other than just the funding, what could be done better and more efficiently, to crank out more stuff than we are cranking out right now?

Freedhoff: I appreciate you asking that question, because you're absolutely right, it is incumbent on the agency to try to find ways to do things faster and better, and we are doing that. One example in the new chemical space was our biofuels initiative, because we noticed we had several dozen biofuels applications in. Instead of treating them all as entirely new things, and giving them to different members of the team, we actually created a dedicated team and streamlined the review of those submittals, so that we could get them out more quickly.

We're looking at different sectors as well, where we have a lot of applications for the same types of chemistries coming in and seeing if there's ways we can streamline, write down the process, and then the next risk assessor that sees a chemical like that doesn't have to start from scratch. We're building up our training, we are investing in the IT, the actual infrastructure of the agency, because one thing that has hindered the new chemicals program for years is basically crumbling information technology that crashes, in some cases, for weeks at a time. And whenever that happens, the new chemical staff can't do any of their work. So, we're actually investing some money in making sure the systems are modernized.

We're also trying to standardize our training - write down more of our standard operating procedures in a way that is easy for a new risk assessor to understand, and we're working with the Office of Research and Development to modernize our scientific approach to reviewing these new chemicals.

Inhofe: I had a question that was written down here. It's a complicated question, so, I've chosen that to ask you so I can hear your complicated answer. How can you, then, justify regulations of chemical substances based solely on benefits to carbon dioxide and exhaust particulate matter emissions from the manufacturing of the substance, rather than exposures to the chemical substance itself?

Freedhoff: The law tells us to do risk evaluations to look at whether there is risk to human health or the environment from a chemical substance under the conditions of use. And the law doesn't say that it can only be some types of exposures or some types of uses. The law really wants - the law really pushed the agency to look comprehensively at the risk that a chemical substance posed.

Inhofe: … I do want to hear the questions and the comments that are gonna be made by Sen. Capito. Now, as you might know, I'm doing the defense authorization bill right now. So, that's what I'm holding up. But I just want to hear more about… knowing the successes that you and I and those of us here at this table have had in the … why we can't do a better job in terms of cranking out more stuff, and getting it done.

I am concerned what's gonna happen to a lot of this stuff. Is it gonna go overseas? Because there are a lot of unhealthy results and the problems that we're having right now. So, I thank you for that. So, Sen. Capito, I want to hear more of your comments too.

Source