The Environmental-Oversight Issue That Could Be a Rare Bipartisan Win

Chemical-safety concerns could lead to congressional pressure on the EPA from both parties.

Rep. John Shimkus
AP Photo/Andrew Harnik
Jan. 23, 2019, 8 p.m.

A rare push for bipartisan oversight of environmental policy is emerging on Capitol Hill.

Lawmakers on both sides of the aisle are signaling serious concerns with the Environmental Protection Agency’s implementation of a groundbreaking law to regulate chemicals in the U.S. market.

That oversight prospect is noteworthy amid a fraught, near-dysfunctional political climate, and even more so for its association with broader environmental regulation—one of the most perennially contentious policy areas.

President Obama signed the Frank R. Lautenberg Chemical Safety for the 21st Century Act, an update to the 1976 Toxic Substances Control Act, in 2016 after the legislation passed with overwhelming bipartisan support in both chambers. The bill requires risk evaluation for existing and new chemicals.

But since President Trump took the reins, Democrats have hammered the EPA for, in their view, slow-walking the evaluation process for notorious chemicals like asbestos. Environmental and public health advocacy groups are also locked in a series of court battles over EPA action—and lack thereof.

And Republicans, too, are hoping to level some pressure on the EPA.

“I’m all in to having oversight hearings on TSCA. There’s some good and some bad,” Rep. John Shimkus, a Republican architect of the law, told National Journal. “Chemicals can do great things and solve great problems, but they also can create problems if they’re not safe.”

The EPA hasn’t yet conducted risk assessments on the vast majority of the 80,000 known chemicals in the U.S. Those chemicals are used in a huge swath of consumer and commercial products from dry cleaning to construction materials, and safety advocates say insufficient or nonexistent hazard assessments have caused untold numbers of illnesses and deaths.

Approval processes for pesticides and medications are far more rigorous, those advocates say, pointing to separate statutes and regulatory processes for chemical approvals in those products.

The oversight interest from Shimkus, now the ranking member on the Energy and Commerce subpanel on the environment, is critical for the kind of bipartisan effort that is traditionally necessary for pressuring the executive branch to change course on policy.

Rep. Paul Tonko is now leading the subpanel after taking the gavel from Shimkus. The two have worked closely together in the past.

“We’re going to look at TSCA implementation. … That hard [legislative] work can’t go down the drain,” Tonko said. “There’s no secret that there’s been an all-out attack on clean-air and clean-water provisions, and so TSCA, falling into that realm of thinking, could be victimized—the improvements might be victimized—by that same attitude.”

Tonko spokesman Matt Sonneborn indicated TSCA policy will be on the committee's agenda this Congress. “It’s our impression that there is bipartisan interest in oversight and hope it will be among the top priorities for the subcommittee,” he said.

Some Republicans, like Rep. David McKinley and Sen. Shelley Moore Capito, both of West Virginia, also said they’d like to conduct TSCA oversight this Congress.

In the waning days of the Obama administration, then-EPA Administrator Gina McCarthy published a rule to prioritize 10 existing chemicals for risk evaluation—among them asbestos, dioxin, and methylene chloride. Exposure to the latter chemical can cause asphyxiation and has killed dozens in the U.S.

Sen. Tom Carper, the top Democrat on the Environment and Public Works Committee, urged action on methylene chloride during the nomination hearing for Acting EPA Administrator Andrew Wheeler to formally take over the agency after the departure of former Administrator Scott Pruitt.

“I want you to impart a sense of urgency in getting a rule done on that,” Carper said. “It’s actually something that Scott Pruitt did that we thought was right, and here it is two years later and we still haven’t followed through. Let’s get it done.”

The Obama administration proposed a ban on consumer uses and most commercial uses of the paint-stripper methylene chloride. Pruitt, who left the agency amid a wave of ethics scandals, vowed to finalize a ban weeks before his exit.

A new proposal, which advocates fear will be far more limited, is now undergoing interagency review. But the partial government shutdown has stalled the rulemaking process, Wheeler told senators.

“That is something I’ve taken seriously. It’s something that we spend a lot of time [on],” he said. “I’ve spent a lot of personal time on that issue. And I hope we can get that out as quickly as possible.”

Last week, a public health organization called Safer Chemicals, Healthy Families, along with the Vermont Public Interest Research Group, sued the EPA, arguing agency's inaction to date is illegal.

“We filed suit basically to compel them to finalize the rule, since Pruitt himself committed to do that and had recognized that these products need to be banned,” said Bob Sussman, the attorney for Safer Chemicals, Healthy Families and a former EPA deputy administrator. “I can’t look at the different facets of TSCA implementation and feel good, really, about anything that EPA under the Trump administration has done.”

The chemicals industry, which put its full weight behind the TSCA update, maintains that the litigation writ large, including suits on framework rules for the new law, amounts to a “reflexive, negative reaction,” in the words of Mike Walls, vice president of regulatory and technical affairs at the American Chemistry Council.

“EPA is not making a decision solely on the basis of hazard. They are looking at the combination of hazard plus exposure,” Walls said. “Water poses a hazard. But because there’s the potential for people to drown in water, we don’t ban water. We try to restrict access to cases where that hazard might pose a particular exposure problem.”

If confirmed, Wheeler will be under a severe time constraint in publishing risk evaluations.

Proposed and final risk evaluations are due by the end of the year, but the EPA can prolong that deadline by six months, according to the new TSCA law. So far, the EPA has proposed and wrapped up the public-comment period on only one evaluation, for a chemical called Pigment Violet 29, which the agency concluded “does not present an unreasonable risk of injury to human health or the environment.”

Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer met with Wheeler last week. Schumer pushed Wheeler to act on methylene chloride, along with other environmental regulations, according to a senior Democratic aide.

Methylene chloride is far from alone among deadly chemicals. Asbestos is no longer produced in the U.S., but thousands of Americans are exposed to the set of minerals, which are used for insulation and other building materials. Asbestos is a carcinogen that leads to tens of thousands of deaths a year, according to some analyses.

What We're Following See More »
Trump Signs Border Deal
2 days ago

"President Trump signed a sweeping spending bill Friday afternoon, averting another partial government shutdown. The action came after Trump had declared a national emergency in a move designed to circumvent Congress and build additional barriers at the southern border, where he said the United States faces 'an invasion of our country.'"

Trump Declares National Emergency
3 days ago

"President Donald Trump on Friday declared a state of emergency on the southern border and immediately direct $8 billion to construct or repair as many as 234 miles of a border barrier. The move — which is sure to invite vigorous legal challenges from activists and government officials — comes after Trump failed to get the $5.7 billion he was seeking from lawmakers. Instead, Trump agreed to sign a deal that included just $1.375 for border security."

House Will Condemn Emergency Declaration
3 days ago

"House Democrats are gearing up to pass a joint resolution disapproving of President Trump’s emergency declaration to build his U.S.-Mexico border wall, a move that will force Senate Republicans to vote on a contentious issue that divides their party. House Judiciary Committee Chairman Jerrold Nadler (D-N.Y.) said Thursday evening in an interview with The Washington Post that the House would take up the resolution in the coming days or weeks. The measure is expected to easily clear the Democratic-led House, and because it would be privileged, Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) would be forced to put the resolution to a vote that he could lose."

Where Will the Emergency Money Come From?
3 days ago

"ABC News has learned the president plans to announce on Friday his intention to spend about $8 billion on the border wall with a mix of spending from Congressional appropriations approved Thursday night, executive action and an emergency declaration. A senior White House official familiar with the plan told ABC News that $1.375 billion would come from the spending bill Congress passed Thursday; $600 million would come from the Treasury Department's drug forfeiture fund; $2.5 billion would come from the Pentagon's drug interdiction program; and through an emergency declaration: $3.5 billion from the Pentagon's military construction budget."

House Passes Funding Deal
3 days ago

"The House passed a massive border and budget bill that would avert a shutdown and keep the government funded through the end of September. The Senate passed the measure earlier Thursday. The bill provides $1.375 billion for fences, far short of the $5.7 billion President Trump had demanded to fund steel walls. But the president says he will sign the legislation, and instead seek to fund his border wall by declaring a national emergency."


Welcome to National Journal!

You are currently accessing National Journal from IP access. Please login to access this feature. If you have any questions, please contact your Dedicated Advisor.