Environment Hearing: Assessing the Legacy and Impact of the Chemical Safety for the 21st Century Act

2025-01-22

Loading video...

Summary

The subcommittee convened to discuss the implementation and impact of the Frank Lautenberg Chemical Safety for the 21st Century Act, which significantly reformed the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA). The hearing explored challenges and opportunities for improving the Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA) regulation of chemicals, aiming to balance innovation with public health and environmental protection.

Themes

Lautenberg Act Implementation and Challenges

The meeting commenced with an acknowledgment of the Frank Lautenberg Chemical Safety for the 21st Century Act's significance, marking the first subcommittee hearing for the 119th Congress's Energy and Commerce Committee. Chairman Griffith highlighted the bipartisan effort behind the 2016 Lautenberg Act, which reformed the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA), aiming to modernize environmental laws and enable predictable, common-sense regulation. However, he noted that nearly ten years post-passage, both Democratic and Republican administrations have faced challenges in implementing the Act. A Government Accountability Office (GAO) report from 2023 indicated that the EPA completed only 10% of pre-manufactured chemical reviews within the Lautenberg Act's specified time limits.

Ranking Member Tonko concurred that the Lautenberg Act significantly improved TSCA, which was previously "fundamentally broken" for its first 40 years. He attributed many implementation challenges to under-resourcing during the first Trump administration but praised the Biden administration's achievements in finalizing risk management rules for hazardous chemicals like asbestos, methylene chloride, and trichloroethylene. Ranking Member Pallone reiterated that the Lautenberg Act, named after New Jersey's late Senator Lautenberg, transformed TSCA by requiring affirmative safety determinations for new chemicals and mandating reviews for existing ones.[ 00:21:13 ]

He stated that the Biden EPA restored scientific integrity, banning dangerous substances and addressing PFAS contamination, in contrast to the Trump EPA, which he claimed underestimated risks and exerted political influence.

Dr. Maria Doa of the Environmental Defense Fund emphasized that the Lautenberg Act was crucial for shifting TSCA from an ineffective law to one with a clear directive to protect human health and the environment. She underscored its role in preventing new toxic chemicals from entering the market and enabling action on long-known harmful substances like asbestos. Conversely, Mr. John of the American Chemistry Council and Mr. Moody of the American Fuel and Petrochemical Manufacturers clarified that their organizations are not seeking to undo or roll back the Lautenberg Act but rather to implement common-sense, science-based regulations through targeted changes.[ 01:50:21 ]

EPA's New Chemicals Program and Review Delays

The EPA's new chemicals program was identified as significantly flawed, with Mr. John reporting that 93% of new chemical submissions are past the statutory 90-day deadline, and 63% have been under review for over a year. Dr. Richard Engler, a former EPA chemist, added that pre-manufacturing notifications (PMNs) have declined by over two-thirds annually, indicating innovation is being stifled and sustainable chemistries are driven out of the U.S. Industry representatives lamented that delays create uncertainty, discourage research and development, and compel manufacturers to move production overseas, with 70% of American Chemistry Council members reporting this trend. Mr. Moody specifically cited advanced recycling technologies, electric vehicle batteries, and solar panel components as examples of innovations hampered by these delays.

Dr. Doa contended that many delays stem from companies failing to provide sufficient information upfront, necessitating multiple rounds of data requests and risk re-assessments by the EPA. However, Mr. John countered that the EPA often requests additional information at the last minute and struggles with clear communication, asserting that over 75% of delayed applications are waiting on EPA action, not industry input. The discussion highlighted a need for greater accountability for the 90-day deadline and the potential for a "shot clock" system for temporary approvals to prevent indefinite limbo for new chemicals.

Risk-based vs. Hazard-based Approach in Regulation

A central point of contention revolved around the EPA's regulatory approach, with industry and some members arguing for a return to a "risk-based" framework, as intended by TSCA, rather than a "hazard-based" one. Dr. Engler used analogies like sharks in the ocean and common household vinegar to illustrate how EPA's current interpretation of "may present unreasonable risk" leads to restrictions even when exposure is minimal or the hazard is familiar and manageable. He stated that the EPA applies restrictions to 85-90% of PMNs, regardless of actual risk, due to any uncertainty.

Mr. Moody emphasized that risk combines hazard and exposure, arguing that closed-loop industrial systems, where exposure is absent, should entail lower risk assessments, and EPA should not disregard other agencies' regulations like OSHA.[ 01:06:07 ]

He contended that EPA's modeling often uses unrealistic assumptions, such as assuming workers do not use personal protective equipment (PPE), which miscalculates risk. Dr. Doa, however, clarified that EPA's intent with corrosive chemicals like acetic acid is to restrict consumer use at higher concentrations, not to ban the substance itself, and affirmed EPA's role in protecting workers, emphasizing that OSHA's PELs are often outdated and insufficient. She also highlighted the importance of a "whole chemical approach," considering all exposure pathways for a chemical, especially for vulnerable populations like children, who are exposed through various means.

Impact on Innovation and U.S. Competitiveness

Several members and witnesses expressed concern that regulatory unpredictability and delays jeopardize American innovation and global competitiveness. Mr. John noted that the U.S. chemical industry, a critical part of the manufacturing supply chain, faces a growing disadvantage as foreign competitors approve new chemistries much faster, leading to a significant portion of new chemical development shifting overseas. Dr. Engler reiterated that this situation directly impacts access to chemicals vital for medical technology, food production, and energy generation, leading to billions of dollars in lost economic activity.[ 01:24:41 ]

He also highlighted that the decline in PMNs suggests manufacturers are hesitant to invest in R&D due to the unpredictable regulatory environment.

Witnesses pointed out that overly cautious regulations, such as those related to formaldehyde impacting inhaler production or TCE impacting battery separators, create unnecessary hurdles for essential products and industries. While Dr. Doa stressed that innovation should not compromise health and safety, citing the high costs of addressing past toxic chemicals like PCBs and PFAS, industry representatives argued for regulations that support both. The need for clear guidance from Congress on acceptable levels of uncertainty and a more objective metric for determining "unreasonable risk" was proposed to streamline processes and foster innovation.

Funding and Resources for EPA

A consistent theme was the EPA's need for adequate resources and staffing to effectively administer TSCA. Ranking Member Pallone noted that the TSCA office has been underfunded despite a significant increase in workload under the Lautenberg Act. Dr. Doa explained that budget cuts would severely impact the expertise and experience of EPA staff, leading to slower, less protective, and potentially less integrity-filled assessments.

The upcoming reauthorization of TSCA's fee authority, set to expire in June next year, was highlighted as a critical opportunity for congressional oversight and potential reform. Concerns were raised about the dramatic increase in pre-manufactured notice (PMN) fees, from $2,500 to $37,000, representing a 1,380% increase, which Mr. John, Dr. Engler, and Mr. Moody largely deemed unreasonable given the lack of efficient service. Dr. Doa, however, considered the fee increase reasonable to support the EPA's expanded responsibilities.[ 02:53:32 ]

Tone of the Meeting

The meeting was characterized by a generally respectful but sharply divided tone regarding the EPA's current implementation of the Lautenberg Act. While there was broad bipartisan consensus on the importance of the Lautenberg Act and the need for effective chemical regulation, industry representatives and Republican members expressed significant frustration with perceived over-regulation, delays, and a shift away from risk-based approaches. Democratic members and Dr. Doa strongly advocated for robust public health protections, particularly for vulnerable communities, and supported the EPA's comprehensive approach as vital for fulfilling the Act's intent. The discussion highlighted fundamental policy disagreements over balancing innovation and safety, particularly as the reauthorization of TSCA's fee authority approaches.