[House Hearing, 108 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
H.R. 3970, GREEN CHEMISTRY
RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT ACT OF 2004
=======================================================================
HEARING
BEFORE THE
COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED EIGHTH CONGRESS
SECOND SESSION
__________
MARCH 17, 2004
__________
Serial No. 108-47
__________
Printed for the use of the Committee on Science
Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.house.gov/science
U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
92-512 WASHINGTON : DC
____________________________________________________________________________
For Sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office
Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512-1800; (202) 512�091800
Fax: (202) 512�092250 Mail: Stop SSOP, Washington, DC 20402�090001
______
COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE
HON. SHERWOOD L. BOEHLERT, New York, Chairman
RALPH M. HALL, Texas BART GORDON, Tennessee
LAMAR S. SMITH, Texas JERRY F. COSTELLO, Illinois
CURT WELDON, Pennsylvania EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON, Texas
DANA ROHRABACHER, California LYNN C. WOOLSEY, California
KEN CALVERT, California NICK LAMPSON, Texas
NICK SMITH, Michigan JOHN B. LARSON, Connecticut
ROSCOE G. BARTLETT, Maryland MARK UDALL, Colorado
VERNON J. EHLERS, Michigan DAVID WU, Oregon
GIL GUTKNECHT, Minnesota MICHAEL M. HONDA, California
GEORGE R. NETHERCUTT, JR., BRAD MILLER, North Carolina
Washington LINCOLN DAVIS, Tennessee
FRANK D. LUCAS, Oklahoma SHEILA JACKSON LEE, Texas
JUDY BIGGERT, Illinois ZOE LOFGREN, California
WAYNE T. GILCHREST, Maryland BRAD SHERMAN, California
W. TODD AKIN, Missouri BRIAN BAIRD, Washington
TIMOTHY V. JOHNSON, Illinois DENNIS MOORE, Kansas
MELISSA A. HART, Pennsylvania ANTHONY D. WEINER, New York
J. RANDY FORBES, Virginia JIM MATHESON, Utah
PHIL GINGREY, Georgia DENNIS A. CARDOZA, California
ROB BISHOP, Utah VACANCY
MICHAEL C. BURGESS, Texas VACANCY
JO BONNER, Alabama VACANCY
TOM FEENEY, Florida
RANDY NEUGEBAUER, Texas
VACANCY
C O N T E N T S
March 17, 2004
Page
Witness List..................................................... 2
Hearing Charter.................................................. 3
Opening Statements
Statement by Representative Sherwood L. Boehlert, Chairman,
Committee on Science, U.S. House of Representatives............ 13
Written Statement............................................ 14
Statement by Representative Phil Gingrey, Member, Committee on
Science, U.S. House of Representatives......................... 14
Written Statement............................................ 15
Statement by Representative Bart Gordon, Ranking Minority Member,
Committee on Science, U.S. House of Representatives............ 16
Statement by Representative Eddie Bernice Johnson, Member,
Committee on Science, U.S. House of Representatives............ 16
Written Statement............................................ 17
Prepared Statement by Representative Nick Smith, Member,
Committee on Science, U.S. House of Representatives............ 18
Prepared Statement by Representative Jerry F. Costello, Member,
Committee on Science, U.S. House of Representatives............ 18
Prepared Statement by Representative Sheila Jackson Lee, Member,
Committee on Science, U.S. House of Representatives............ 19
Witnesses:
Dr. Arden L. Bement, Jr., Acting Director, National Science
Foundation
Oral Statement............................................... 20
Written Statement............................................ 22
Biography.................................................... 23
Dr. Paul Gilman, Assistant Administrator for Research and
Development, Environmental Protection Agency
Oral Statement............................................... 24
Written Statement............................................ 26
Biography.................................................... 43
Dr. Berkeley W. Cue, Jr., Vice President of Pharmaceutical
Sciences, Pfizer Global Research and Development
Oral Statement............................................... 43
Written Statement............................................ 46
Biography.................................................... 57
Financial Disclosure......................................... 58
Mr. Steven Bradfield, Vice President of Environmental
Development, Shaw Industries, Inc.
Oral Statement............................................... 59
Written Statement............................................ 62
Biography.................................................... 65
Financial Disclosure......................................... 66
Dr. Edward J. Woodhouse, Associate Professor of Political
Science, Department of Science & Technology Studies, Rensselaer
Polytechnic Institute
Oral Statement............................................... 67
Written Statement............................................ 69
Financial Disclosure......................................... 93
Discussion....................................................... 94
Appendix: Additional Material for the Record
H.R. 3970, Green Chemistry Research and Development Act of 2004.. 104
Statement by Arden Bement on the National Institute of Standards
and Technology's Green Chemistry Activities.................... 111
Additional testimony submitted by Dr. J. Michael Fitzpatrick,
President and Chief Operating Officer, Rohm and Hass Company... 113
Statement in support of H.R. 3970 by Dr. J. Michael Fitzpatrick,
President and Chief Operating Officer, Rohm and Haas Company... 120
Statement in support of H.R. 3970 by Genencor International, Inc. 121
Statement in support of H.R. 3970 by the American Chemical
Society........................................................ 122
Statement by the American Chemistry Council...................... 124
H.R. 3970, GREEN CHEMISTRY RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT ACT OF 2004
----------
WEDNESDAY, MARCH 17, 2004
House of Representatives,
Committee on Science,
Washington, DC.
The Committee met, pursuant to call, at 10:00 a.m., in Room
2318 of the Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Sherwood L.
Boehlert [Chairman of the Committee] presiding.
hearing charter
COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE
U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
H.R. 3970, Green Chemistry
Research and Development Act of 2004
wednesday, march 17, 2004
10:00 a.m.-12:00 p.m.
2318 rayburn house office building
1. Purpose
On Wednesday, March 17, 2004 the House Science Committee will hold
a hearing to examine federal and industry green chemistry research and
development (R&D) activities, and to receive testimony on H.R. 3970,
the Green Chemistry Research and Development Act of 2004. This bill
would authorize a federal green chemistry R&D program.
2. Witnesses
Dr. Arden Bement is the Acting Director of the National Science
Foundation (NSF) while continuing in his position as the Director of
the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST).
Dr. Paul Gilman is the Assistant Administrator for Research and
Development at the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). He also
serves as the Agency's Science Advisor.
Dr. Berkeley Cue is Vice President of Pharmaceutical Sciences at Pfizer
Global Research and Development. Pfizer, Inc. has established green
chemistry teams at its facilities throughout the world, and won a 2002
Presidential Green Chemistry Challenge Award for the redesign of the
sertraline manufacture process. Sertraline is the active ingredient in
Zoloft, which is used widely in the U.S. to treat depression. The new
process improves worker and environmental safety, reduces energy and
water use, and doubles overall product yield.
Mr. Steven Bradfield is Vice President of Environmental Development at
Shaw Industries. Shaw Industries won a 2003 Presidential Green
Chemistry Challenge Award for the development of EcoWorxTM carpet tile.
EcoWorxTM carpet tiles are made from low toxicity feedstocks and are
recyclable.
Dr. Edward Woodhouse is Associate Professor of Political Science in the
Department of Science & Technology Studies at Rensselaer Polytechnic
Institute. Dr. Woodhouse studies the social aspects of technological
decision-making.
3. Overarching Questions
How has--and how can--effective application of green
chemistry products and processes contributed to environmental
protection and sustainability? What are the costs associated
with using green chemistry products and processes?
How has private industry benefited from, and
contributed to, green chemistry breakthroughs? To what extent
has private industry used green chemistry products and
processes? What are the primary barriers to increased
development and adoption of green chemistry products and
processes, and how can these barriers be removed?
What is the current status of the Federal
Government's efforts in green chemistry R&D? Are expanded
federal efforts and increased federal coordination in green
chemistry warranted?
Does H.R. 3970 establish a program that will result
in greater R&D breakthroughs and increased adoption of green
chemistry? How can the legislation be improved?
4. Brief Overview
Green chemistry is the design of chemical products
and processes that reduce or eliminate the use or generation of
hazardous substances. Green chemistry is a form of pollution
prevention--preventing pollution rather than treating
emissions.
A number of success stories have generated a great
deal of excitement about the significant potential of green
chemistry for environmental and economic benefit.
Implementation of green chemistry at a Dow Chemical plant aimed
at increasing efficiency and instituting more recycling is
showing a 174 percent annual return on a one-time investment.
However, even this highly touted example has not been repeated
and adoption of green chemistry products and processes by
industry has been limited. Barriers to greater adoption include
a workforce unfamiliar with green chemistry, a lack of existing
and demonstrated alternatives, the sometimes high capital costs
of changing processes, a lack of regulatory drivers, and
inertia.
Federal support for green chemistry R&D has also been
limited. The most notable effort is the joint-NSF/EPA
Technology for a Sustainable Environment (TSE) program. The
program, which includes, but is not limited to, green chemistry
activities, awarded $11 million in R&D grants in fiscal years
2002-03. Other agencies such as the Department of Energy (DOE)
and NIST also provide support for green chemistry.
EPA also administers the Presidential Green Chemistry
Challenge Awards Program to recognize advances in and to
promote green chemistry. Since 1996, this program has made 40
awards to businesses and academics that develop technologies
that incorporate the principles of green chemistry and that
have or can be used by industry. Both Pfizer, Inc. and Shaw
Industries have recently won this award.
On March 16, 2004 Representative Phil Gingrey
introduced H.R. 3970, the Green Chemistry Research and
Development Act of 2004. This legislation would establish an
Interagency Working Group to coordinate federal green chemistry
R&D activities and facilitate adoption of green chemistry by
the private sector. The bill would authorize funding for these
activities (from within existing authorizations) at NSF, EPA,
NIST, and DOE through fiscal year 2007.
5. Background
What is green chemistry?
Green chemistry is most commonly defined as chemistry and chemical
engineering that involves the design of chemical products and processes
that reduce or eliminate the use or generation of hazardous substances.
It is sometimes characterized as ``benign by design'' to emphasize that
it is green intentionally. Also known as sustainable chemistry, benign
chemistry, or source reduction, green chemistry seeks to prevent the
creation of hazards, instead of focusing on limiting the spread of
pollutants or cleaning up waste. Its practices are encapsulated in
twelve generally accepted guiding principles (Appendix I) that can be
used by chemists to develop processes and assess how green a process
is.
Examples of green chemistry include the development of pesticide
alternatives that are effective at killing target organisms, but are
benign to non-target organisms and do not persist in the environment.
Another example is the use of the benign solvent supercritical carbon
dioxide in dry cleaning processes instead of toxic perchloroethylene.
Pfizer and Shaw Industries provide good examples of the potential
of green chemistry. Pfizer won a 2002 Presidential Green Chemistry
Challenge Award for the redesign of the sertraline manufacture process.
Sertraline is the active ingredient in Zoloft, which is used widely in
the U.S. to treat depression. By applying green chemistry principles,
Pfizer was able to eliminate 140 metric tons per year of titanium
tetrachloride, 100 metric tons per year of sodium hydroxide, 150 metric
tons per year of hydrochloric acid, and 440 metric tons per year of
solid titanium oxide. These changes improve worker and environmental
safety, reduce energy and water use, and double overall product yield.
Shaw Industries won a 2003 Presidential Green Chemistry Challenge Award
for the development of EcoWorxTM carpet tile. Historically, carpet tile
backings have been manufactured using polyvinyl chloride (PVC). PVC is
made from toxic feedstocks and its combustion results in toxic
byproducts such as dioxin and hydrochloric acid. EcoWorxTM carpet tiles
are made from low toxicity feedstocks and are recyclable.
What are the benefits of green chemistry?
Besides the inherent advantages to human health and the
environment, green chemistry can offer economic advantages and
improvements to worker safety, public safety, and national security.
Many in the private sector have recognized the potential savings
that green chemistry offers. For example, by using benign chemical
processes, businesses can avoid the costs associated with treating or
cleaning up pollutants. Other savings can come from simply making more
efficient use of raw materials (sometimes referred to as ``atom
economy'') and energy. Dow Chemical Company's Midland, Michigan
facility is an example of the level of savings a company can achieve.
In 1996 Dow partnered with the Natural Resources Defense Council to
conduct a thorough review of the facility's processes to identify ways
to implement more recycling and substitute benign materials for
hazardous ones. By April 1999, after a one-time investment of $3.1
million, the facility had reduced emissions of targeted substances by
43 percent and the amount of targeted wastes by 37 percent primarily
through green chemistry innovations. The improvements are saving Dow
$5.4 million per year, a 174 percent annual return on investment.\1\
However, even though these benefits are clear, this process has not
been repeated widely by industry and not even by Dow itself. There are
many barriers to adoption of green chemistry that are discussed later.
In this case, one barrier was that even though the return on investment
was good, Dow had other investment opportunities that offered even
greater returns.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Amato, Ivan, Fortune, New York: July 24, 2000, Vol. 142, Issue
3, pg. 270U.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Many other inherent advantages come from green chemistry in the
areas of worker safety, public safety, and national security. For
example, many chemical processes are conducted at extreme temperature
and/or pressure, two conditions that present a potential hazard for
workers. Also, many processes involve toxic substances. Green chemistry
seeks to design processes that can be conducted at or near room
temperature and pressure, and that use benign substances. Both of these
steps can improve working conditions for employees, and reduce the
costs of liability protections for employers.
Chemical factories also pose a potential threat to public safety
because of the possibility of an accidental release of toxic materials
into the surrounding communities. Green chemistry seeks to replace
these toxic substances with benign ones, which would not pose a threat
to the public if accidentally released. Reducing the number of toxic
chemical plants and the transport of toxic chemicals also improves
national security by reducing the number of potential terrorist
targets.
What barriers exist to greater adoption of green chemistry?
Despite the numerous potential advantages of green chemistry for
the chemical manufacturing industry, adoption of green chemistry
technologies has been limited. Significant impediments exist that
discourage businesses from pursuing such alternatives. These include:
A workforce unfamiliar with green chemistry--The
existing chemical manufacturing workforce is mainly composed of
chemists and chemical engineers that have little or no training
in green chemistry techniques. Even today, most graduate
chemistry curricula give little attention to green chemistry.
Without appropriate personnel trained in green chemistry, a
company may not know, or be able, to search for and implement
green chemistry alternatives to their chemical processes.
Lack of existing green chemistry alternatives--Green
chemistry alternatives have not yet been designed for most of
the chemical processes in use today. Developing a green
chemistry alternative might be prohibitively expensive and time
consuming, especially for companies that do not have extensive
R&D programs and when time to market is critical.
Lack of demonstrated green chemistry alternatives--
Even for the green chemistry alternatives that do exist, many
of them have not been proven in an industrial setting. Few
companies are willing to take the risk of being the first to
implement a new and unproven technology.
Costs of up-front capital investment--U.S. companies
have invested heavily in existing infrastructure. Switching to
green chemistry processes might require this infrastructure to
be extensively retooled, which could make adopting green
chemistry technologies initially very expensive. Even though
the process may be economical when costs are computed over the
full life cycle, many companies may be unwilling to pay the
high up-front costs. This is one reason why there is more green
chemistry adoption in manufacturing sectors that turn over
their processes more frequently.
Lack of regulatory drivers--Few governmental
incentives exist for adoption of green chemistry. Most
environmental regulations sanction polluters, while few reward
pollution prevention. The government could make adoption of
green chemistry more attractive by extending the patent life of
green products or accelerating the approval of products that
pose minimal hazard.
Inertia--Perhaps the most important impediment to
adopting green chemistry technologies is inertia within
industry. For a company that already complies with all existing
environmental regulations, there is little impetus to seek out
and implement alternative processes. Additionally, few
companies offer incentives to employees that improve
environmental performance. This lack of motivation often means
that only those companies that have made environmental
sustainability a priority use green chemistry processes.
H.R. 3970 is designed to overcome some of these impediments. The
bill would support undergraduate and graduate education in green
chemistry. This should help create a new generation of chemists and
engineers who are familiar with green chemistry and its advantages, and
can bring those skills to bear in the workplace.
The coordinated R&D program would support R&D and demonstration
projects at universities, industry and federal labs, and make the
results of these activities readily available through a green chemistry
database of accomplishments and best practices. This R&D would develop
and demonstrate more green chemistry alternatives that will be
available for implementation by industry.
What is the Federal Government currently doing?
The Federal Government supports activities related to green
chemistry through agencies including NSF, EPA, DOE and NIST. In some
cases, as with EPA, these activities are focused directly on green
chemistry. In other cases, such as with DOE, these activities are
byproducts of efforts to achieve other goals, such as improving energy
efficiency. Because some green chemistry investments are direct and
some are indirect, and because green chemistry is not broken out in
agency budgets, it is difficult to determine the exact federal
investment in green chemistry.
However, it is clear that the investment in green chemistry and
chemical engineering is small as compared to the investment in
chemistry and chemical engineering as a whole. In 2000, the four
agencies mentioned above spent approximately $540 million on chemistry
and chemical engineering R&D; investment in green chemistry R&D was
probably close to $40 million. In addition, green chemistry activities
are not coordinated among the agencies.
Following is a table that indicates, in general, agency budgets for
green chemistry and chemical engineering activities. The table is
followed by descriptions of how this money is spent.
EPA conducts two general types of activities in green chemistry.
EPA conducts and supports R&D through the Office of Research and
Development; and EPA conducts outreach and promotion through the Office
of Pollution Prevention and Toxic Substances (OPPTS).
In FY04, EPA will spend approximately $5 million on direct green
chemistry and chemical engineering R&D. The money comes out of a larger
spending category, called Pollution Prevention. Approximately half of
this money is spent on internal R&D, conducted at EPA's lab in
Cincinnati. The lab focuses on developing cross-cutting tools for
industry such as benign solvent design software. The other half of this
money funds external R&D, through the Science to Achieve Results (STAR)
program. As part of this program, EPA and NSF have developed a
partnership, the Technologies for a Sustainable Environment (TSE)
program, which primarily funds green chemistry and chemical engineering
R&D.
The TSE program is the external R&D program most focused on green
chemistry in the Federal Government. The partnership between EPA and
NSF has been hailed as a model of cooperation. EPA and NSF put out a
joint request for proposals, and then award grants based on their own
mission. NSF funds more basic green chemistry R&D, while EPA funds more
applied R&D aimed at mission oriented problems. TSE was initiated in
1995 and has awarded 204 grants totaling just over $56 million since
then. In the FY05 budget, the Administration has proposed to cut EPA's
funding for this program entirely.
EPA conducts outreach and promotes green chemistry (funded at
approximately $2 million in FY04) through OPPTS. OPPTS administers the
Presidential Green Chemistry Challenge Award Program. This award, first
awarded in 1996 and given annually, recognizes achievements in green
chemistry. Appendix II includes a number of examples of green chemistry
achievements that have been recognized by this program. In FY05, the
Administration proposes to increase funding for pollution prevention in
OPPTS by $5 million. A portion of this funding will be used for green
chemistry activities, including expanding the focus of the awards
program to address existing and emerging chemical priorities.
Outside of the TSE collaboration with EPA, NSF does not put out
specific solicitations for green chemistry R&D, but funds a wide range
of investigator-driven green chemistry R&D. While NSF does not have a
specific line item in the budget for green chemistry activities, NSF
estimates that in FY04 it will spend approximately $10.8 million on
green chemistry activities in the chemistry division and $13 million on
green chemistry activities in the chemical transport systems division.
However, it is difficult to determine the exact level of investment
because much of this funding may be used for ``multi purpose''
fundamental research that has implications for green chemistry and
other research areas. It is not the intent of the Green Chemistry
Research and Development Act to decrease NSF's investment in green
chemistry R&D; instead the bill seeks to focus more NSF funding
specifically on R&D that is intended to advance green chemistry.
DOE does not track spending on green chemistry activities, and does
not conduct activities that it specifically identifies as green
chemistry. However, DOE conducts R&D that has many green chemistry
applications. DOE's fundamental research efforts in chemistry are
focused on attaining an atomic and molecular level understanding of
processes involved in the generation, storage, and use of energy.
NIST has R&D programs that are yielding green chemistry results.
NIST's mission is to develop and promote measurements, standards, and
technology to enhance productivity and improve the quality of life.
Much of the R&D conducted within this mission has green chemistry
applications. For example, the Chemical Science and Technology
Laboratory produces more accurate measurement methods and standards to
enable the development and implementation of green technologies and
assess its impact.
While the agencies above conduct a number of green chemistry-
related R&D, these efforts are small when compared to their overall
R&D, and even the chemistry and chemical engineering R&D budgets for
these agencies. In addition, the efforts are not coordinated and are
not strategic in nature.
6. Summary of H.R. 3970
The Green Chemistry Research and Development Act would authorize an
interagency green chemistry R&D program. NSF and EPA would lead an
Interagency Working Group to coordinate federal green chemistry
activities. The Working Group would also include DOE and NIST, as well
as any other agency the President designates. The program would be
authorized at $26 million in FY05 rising to $30 million in FY07 (from
within existing authorizations). See Appendix III for a break down of
funding by agency.
The Program would support R&D grants, including grants for
university-industry partnerships, support green chemistry R&D at
federal labs, promote education through curricula development and
fellowships, and collect and disseminate information about green
chemistry. A complete section-by-section analysis of the legislation is
provided in Appendix III.
7. Questions for the Witnesses
Questions for Dr. Bement
Please describe the National Science Foundation's
(NSF's) current activities in green chemistry. How much does
NSF spend on green chemistry research? Through which NSF
programs? How much emphasis is placed on basic research versus
applied research and development?
To what extent does NSF coordinate and collaborate
with other federal agencies in green chemistry research and
development?
What are NSF's views on H.R. 3970, the Green
Chemistry Research and Development Act of 2004? How could the
bill be improved?
Questions for Dr. Gilman
Please describe the Environmental Protection Agency's
(EPA's) current activities in green chemistry. How much does
EPA spend on green chemistry research? How much of this
research is conducted intramurally versus extramurally? How
much emphasis is placed on basic research versus applied
research and development?
To what extent does EPA coordinate and collaborate
with other federal agencies in green chemistry research and
development?
What are EPA's views on H.R. 3970, the Green
Chemistry Research and Development Act of 2004? How could the
bill be improved?
Questions for Dr. Cue
Please describe Pfizer, Inc.'s green chemistry
activities. Have past investments in green chemistry paid off
for Pfizer, Inc.? What environmental and human health benefits
have resulted from Pfizer, Inc.'s green chemistry activities?
What impediments exist that deter companies from
pursuing green chemistry solutions? What more can the Federal
Government do to encourage adoption of green chemistry products
and processes?
What are your views on H.R. 3970, the Green Chemistry
Research and Development Act of 2004? How could the bill be
improved?
Questions for Mr. Bradfield
Please describe Shaw Industries, Inc.'s green
chemistry activities. Have past investments in green chemistry
paid off for Shaw Industries, Inc.? What environmental and
human health benefits have resulted from Shaw Industries,
Inc.'s green chemistry activities?
What impediments exist that deter companies from
pursuing green chemistry solutions? What more can the Federal
Government do to encourage adoption of green chemistry products
and processes?
What are your views on H.R.3970, the Green Chemistry
Research and Development Act of 2004? How could the bill be
improved?
Questions for Dr. Woodhouse
What is the potential of green chemistry products and
processes to contribute to environmental protection and
sustainability?
What are some of the reasons that chemists have for
so long relied on ``brown chemistry''? What are the barriers to
more rapid development and adoption of green chemistry
alternatives?
What should the Federal Government do to accelerate
development and adoption of green chemistry products and
processes?
What are your views on H.R.3970, the Green Chemistry
Research and Development Act of 2004? How could the bill be
improved?
Appendix I
Twelve Principles of Green Chemistry\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ Anastas, P.T., Warner, J.C. Green Chemistry: Theory and
Practice; Oxford University Press; New York, 1998, pg. 30.
1. It is better to prevent waste than to treat or clean up
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
waste after it is formed.
2. Synthetic methods should be designed to maximize the
incorporation of all materials used in the process into the
final product.
3. Wherever practicable, synthetic methodologies should be
designed to use and generate substances that possess little or
no toxicity to human health and the environment.
4. Chemical products should be designed to preserve efficacy
of function while reducing toxicity.
5. The use of auxiliary substances (e.g., solvents,
separation agents, etc.) should be made unnecessary wherever
possible and innocuous when used.
6. Energy requirements should be recognized for their
environmental and economic impacts and should be minimized.
Synthetic methods should be conducted at ambient temperature
and pressure.
7. A raw material of feedstock should be renewable rather
than depleting wherever technically and economically
practicable.
8. Unnecessary derivatization (blocking group, protection/
deprotection, temporary modification of physical/chemical
processes) should be avoided whenever possible.
9. Catalytic reagents (as selective as possible) are superior
to stoichiometric reagents.
10. Chemical products should be designed so that at the end of
their function they do not persist in the environment and break
down into innocuous degradation products.
11. Analytical methodologies need to be further developed to
allow for real-time, in-process monitoring and control prior to
the formation of hazardous substances.
12. Substances and the form of a substance used in a chemical
process should be chosen so as to minimize the potential for
chemical accidents, including releases, explosions, and fires.
Appendix II
Presidential Green Chemistry Challenge Award Winners
In 1995, the EPA initiated the Presidential Green Chemistry
Challenge Award program to recognize achievement in green chemistry.
Each year since 1996, awards have been given out in five categories:
academic, small business, alternative synthetic pathways, alternative
solvents/reaction conditions, and designing safer chemicals. Past
winners have included:
Pfizer, Inc. developed a green chemistry approach to
the manufacture of setraline, the active ingredient in the
anti-depressant Zoloft. The new, streamlined process is
accomplished in a single step instead of three, reduces
consumption of some raw materials by as much as 60 percent, and
uses a single, benign solvent instead of four. As a result,
Pfizer, Inc. has improved worker and environmental safety,
reduced energy and water use, and doubled overall product
yield. (Alternative Synthetic Pathways Award, 2002)
Shaw Industries, Inc. developed a novel type of
carpet tile backing made from their EcoWorxTM compound.
Traditional carpet tile backings are landfilled at the end of
their useful life. Also, the combustion of PVC backings, the
most commonly used carpet tile backings, produces toxic
byproducts. EcoWorxTM, on the other hand, is made from low
toxicity feedstocks and is recyclable. The cost of collection,
transportation, and recycling of EcoWorxTM carpet tile backings
is less than the cost of using virgin raw materials. (Designing
Safer Chemicals, 2003)
SC Fluids, Inc. developed a new technology to improve
manufacturing processes in the semiconductor industry. The
fabrication of integrated circuits currently generates an
estimated four million gallons of wastewater and uses thousands
of gallons of corrosive chemicals and hazardous solvents per
day. Supercritical CO2 Resist Remover (SCORR)
technology offers a cost-effective alternative by using
supercritical CO2 to strip resist from the silicon
wafer. SCORR outperforms conventional resist removal techniques
in the areas of waste minimization, water use, energy
consumption, worker safety, feature size compatibility,
material compatibility, and cost. (Small Business Award, 2002)
Cargill Dow LLC developed a new family of polymers
derived entirely from annually renewable resources that is
competitive on a cost and performance basis with traditional
plastics. Called NatureWorksTM, it requires 20-50 percent less
fossil resources than comparable petroleum-based plastics, and
is fully biodegradable or recyclable. (Alternative Solvents/
Reaction Conditions Award, 2002)
Chemical Specialties, Inc developed an alternative
wood preserving product called ACQ. More than 95 percent of
pressure-treated wood is currently preserved with a chemical
known as CCA. To manufacture CCA, approximately 40 million
pounds of arsenic and 64 million pounds of hexavalent chromium
(both probable carcinogens) are used. These chemicals may pose
a risk to children through contact with CCA-treated items such
as playground equipment. ACQ, however, does not contain arsenic
or hexavalent chromium. Widespread adoption of ACQ has the
potential to nearly eliminate the use of arsenic in the U.S.,
and would eliminate 64 million pounds of hexavelant chromium.
This would also avoid the risks associated with the production,
transportation, use and disposal of these chemicals. (Designing
Safer Chemicals Award, 2002)
Biofine, Inc. developed a novel technique to convert
biomass waste into levulinic acid and its derivatives. Biofine,
Inc., in collaboration with the Department of Energy, the New
York State Energy Research and Development Authority, and
Biometics, Inc., developed a method to convert biomass waste,
including municipal solid waste, unrecyclable municipal waste
paper, waste wood, and agricultural residues, into levulinic
acid and its derivatives, which are marketable chemicals in
many sectors. One full-scale commercial plant could convert
1000 dry tons of waste per day into 160 million pounds per year
of product. (Small Business Award, 1999)
Professor Joseph M. DeSimone from the University of
North Carolina at Chapel Hill and North Carolina State
University initiated a research program aimed at dramatically
advancing the solubility performance characteristics of carbon
dioxide (CO2). More than 30 billion pounds of
organic and halogenated solvents are used each year that have a
variety of negative impacts on the workplace and the
environment. CO2 has long been recognized as an
ideal solvent, since it is nontoxic, nonflammable, safe to work
with, energy efficient, cost-effective, waste minimizing, and
reusable. This work has applications in the precision cleaning,
medical device fabrication, garment care, and chemical
manufacturing and coating industries. (Academic Award, 1997)
BHC Company developed a new process for the
manufacture of ibuprofen in which virtually all starting
materials are either converted to product or are recovered and
recycled. Using this process, the generation of waste is all
but eliminated. This process has been hailed as a model of
source reduction. (Alternative Synthetic Pathways Award, 1997)
Appendix III
Section-by-Section Analysis of H.R. 3970, Green Chemistry Research and
Development Act of 2004
Sec. 1. Short Title
``Green Chemistry Research and Development Act of 2004''
Sec. 2. Definitions
Defines terms used in the text.
Sec. 3. Green Chemistry Research and Development Program
Establishes an interagency research and development (R&D) program
to promote and coordinate federal green chemistry research,
development, demonstration, education, and technology transfer
activities. The program will provide sustained support for green
chemistry R&D through merit-reviewed competitive grants to researchers,
teams of researchers, and university-industry R&D partnerships, and
through R&D conducted at federal laboratories.
The program will provide support for, and encouragement of, the
application of green chemistry through encouragement of consideration
of green chemistry in all federally-funded chemical science and
engineering R&D; examination of methods to create incentives for the
use of green chemistry; promotion of the education and training of
undergraduate and graduate students in green chemistry; collection and
dissemination of information on green chemistry R&D and technology
transfer; and provision of venues for outreach and dissemination of
green chemistry advances such as symposia, forums, conferences, and
written materials.
Establishes an interagency working group composed of
representatives from the National Science Foundation, the National
Institute for Standards and Technology, the Department of Energy, the
Environmental Protection Agency, and any other agency that the
President may designate, to oversee the planning, management, and
coordination of all federal green chemistry R&D activities. Names the
Director of the National Science Foundation and the Assistant
Administrator for R&D at the Environmental Protection Agency as co-
chairs and requires the group to establish goals and priorities for the
program and provide for interagency coordination, including budget
coordination. Requires the group to submit a report to the Committee on
Science of the House of Representatives and the Committee on Commerce,
Science and Transportation of the Senate within two years that includes
a summary of federally-funded green chemistry activities and an
analysis of the progress made towards the goals and priorities
established for the program, including recommendations for future
program activities.
Sec. 4. Authorization of Appropriations
Authorizes appropriations for green chemistry R&D programs, from
sums already authorized to be appropriated, at the National Science
Foundation, the National Institute of Standards and Technology, the
Department of Energy, and the Environmental Protection Agency.
From sums already authorized to be appropriated for each of the
agencies.
Chairman Boehlert. Good morning. I want to welcome everyone
here today for our hearing on green chemistry, and I want to
thank our colleague, Dr. Gingrey, for introducing the bill that
will increase the focus of Congress, and, we hope, the
Executive Branch, on this important and exciting area of
research.
We scheduled our green chemistry hearing for today because
it seemed like an especially appropriate topic for St.
Patrick's Day, but it is really a timely subject, indeed a
pressing subject, any day of the year.
While it is certainly true, to paraphrase the old adage,
that without green chemistry, most of us--most of what we take
for granted in modern life would be impossible. It is also true
that chemicals compose a threat to life, and we are discovering
more threats all of the time.
But many of those threats could be lessened and avoided
entirely if we focused more of our research on green chemistry,
on chemistry that reduces or eliminates the use of toxic
substances and the generation of toxic byproducts. And the good
news is that green chemistry solutions can also save companies
money and give them a competitive edge, in addition to
protecting the environment and workers. That all is very
appropriate. Green chemistry can result in green cash as well
as a green environment. It is the ultimate ``win-win
strategy.'' And I would direct your attention to our Director
of Communications, who, appropriately, is dressed in green.
At least it is potentially. While the government and some
companies have small and scattered efforts in green chemistry,
it is rarely a central focus. That has to change.
And that will change only if the government takes action.
The insufficient research in and application of green chemistry
is a textbook example of market failure. Green chemistry has
broad public benefits, but the market can not supply adequate
incentives for the private sector to invest enough in it. The
problems green chemistry solves are externalities, problems
like pollution that have costs that are borne by the public at
large rather than by their source. And inertia alone is enough
to slow investment in new products and processes.
So Dr. Gingrey's bill takes a sensible and targeted
approach. It says, ``Let us focus more of the millions of the
dollars the government already invests in chemistry research
and development on green chemistry. And let us train more young
scientists in this field. And let us make working on green
chemistry R&D a conscious effort with an explicit budget.'' It
is awfully hard to argue with that.
And indeed, we don't hear much argument. The bill has
already been endorsed by the American Chemical Society, and
industry is starting to line up behind it.
The Administration will tell us today that green chemistry
is great, but we really don't need a bill. But that is what
every Administration tells every Congress about just about
every bill. I don't think we will be dissuaded by the
traditional, ``Don't worry; we have already got that covered,''
line of argument. Maybe green chemistry can develop a way to
make Article I of the Constitution more indelible to Executive
Branch readers.
So we look forward to reporting out this bill within the
next month, and we hope for a time when the announcement of the
Green Chemistry awards will be a red-letter day on everyone's
calendar. Then we will really be able to achieve better living
through chemistry. And I yield to--the balance of my time to
the author of this legislation, Dr. Gingrey.
[The prepared statement of Chairman Boehlert follows:]
Prepared Statement of Chairman Sherwood Boehlert
I want to welcome everyone here today for our hearing on green
chemistry, and I want to thank our colleague, Dr. Gingrey, for
introducing the bill that will increase the focus of the Congress--and,
we hope, the Executive Branch--on this important and exciting area of
research.
We scheduled our green chemistry hearing for today because it
seemed like an especially appropriate topic for St. Patrick's Day, but
it is really a timely subject--indeed a pressing subject--any day of
the year.
While it is certainly true--to paraphrase the old ads--that,
without chemistry, most of what we take for granted in modern life
would be impossible; it's also true that chemicals can pose a threat to
life--and we're discovering more threats all the time.
But many of those threats could be lessened or avoided entirely if
we focused more of our research on green chemistry--on chemistry that
reduces or eliminates the use of toxic substances and the generation of
toxic byproducts. And the good news is that green chemistry solutions
can also save companies money and give them a competitive edge in
addition to protecting the environment and workers. Green chemistry can
result in green cash as well as a green environment. It's the ultimate
``win-win strategy.''
At least it is potentially. While the government and some companies
have small and scattered efforts in green chemistry, it's rarely a
central focus. That has to change.
And that will change only if the government takes action. The
insufficient research in, and application of green chemistry is a
textbook case of market failure. Green chemistry has broad public
benefits but the market cannot supply adequate incentives for the
private sector to invest enough in it. The problems green chemistry
solves are externalities--problems like pollution that have costs that
are borne by the public at large rather than by their source. And
inertia alone is enough to slow investment in new products and
processes.
So Dr. Gingrey's bill takes a sensible and targeted approach. It
says, ``Let's focus more of the millions of dollars the government
already invests in chemistry research and development (R&D) on green
chemistry. And let's train more young scientists in this field. And
let's make working on green chemistry R&D a conscious effort with an
explicit budget.'' Awfully hard to argue with.
And indeed we don't hear much argument. The bill has already been
endorsed by the American Chemical Society, and industry is starting to
line up behind it.
The Administration will tell us today that green chemistry is
great, but we really don't need a bill. But that's what every
Administration tells every Congress about just about every bill. I
don't think we'll be dissuaded by the traditional, ``Don't worry, we've
already got that covered'' line of argument. Maybe green chemistry can
develop a way to make Article I of the Constitution more indelible to
Executive Branch readers.
So we look forward to reporting out this bill within the next
month, and we hope for a time when the announcement of the Green
Chemistry awards will be a red-letter day on everyone's calendar. Then,
we'll really be able to achieve ``better living through chemistry.'' I
yield the balance of my time to Dr. Gingrey.
Mr. Gingrey. I thank the Chairman for yielding, and I want
to first start off by thanking all, and certainly--and
especially our panel of witnesses for being here today. I am
looking forward to all--hearing your testimony. I wanted to
also thank Chairman Boehlert and Ranking Member Gordon for
holding this important hearing on green chemistry.
As a physician, I am a big believer in that old adage, ``An
ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure.'' The majority of
environmental protection laws passed by Congress focus on
limiting the spread of pollutants, cleaning up waste, or
assessing fines to polluters. We should be devoting more effort
toward finding ways to prevent pollution in the first place
rather than cleaning it up after it has been created. The Green
Chemistry Research and Development Act of 2004 does just that.
As a Chemistry major, trained in traditional chemistry, or
what some have come to call ``brown chemistry,'' I am very
excited about the potential economic, environmental, and
national security benefits from the emerging field of green
chemistry. Preventing pollution and waste in the first place is
often cheaper than mitigating and cleaning it up later, and the
development of new products and processes will help spur
economic growth. Green chemistry aims to design processes that
can be conducted at or near room temperature and pressure and
that use benign materials, decreasing the present risks for
workers, while the replacement of toxic substances with safe
ones reduces the potential threat to public safety due to
accidental release. In our post-9/11 world, the reduction of
the number of toxic chemical locations and the transport of
toxic chemicals also improves national security by reducing the
number of potential terrorist attacks and targets.
Yet despite all of the promise of green chemistry, the
Federal Government invests very little, very little in this
area. The Green Chemistry Research and Development Act
establishes an interagency research and development program to
promote and coordinate federal green chemistry research,
development, demonstration, education, and technology transfer
activities. I think that this bill provides modest and prudent
funding in an area that deserves greater federal attention. I
look forward to receiving the testimonies and engaging in
dialogue on this very important area.
Mr. Chairman, I thank you, and I yield back the balance of
my time.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Gingrey follows:]
Prepared Statement of Representative Phil Gingrey
I thank the Chairman for yielding. I want to first start off by
thanking all and our panel of witnesses for being here today, I'm
looking forward to hearing your testimonies. I wanted to also thank
Chairman Boehlert and Ranking Member Gordon for holding this important
hearing on green chemistry.
As a physician, I'm a big believer in the old adage, `an ounce of
prevention is worth a pound of cure.' The majority of environmental
protection laws passed by Congress focus on limiting the spread of
pollutants, cleaning up waste, or assessing fines to polluters. We
should be devoting more effort toward finding ways to prevent pollution
in the first place rather than cleaning it up after it's been created.
The Green Chemistry Research and Development Act of 2004 does just
that.
As a Chemistry major, trained in traditional chemistry, or what
some have come to call `Brown Chemistry,' I am very excited about the
potential economic, environmental, and national security benefits from
the emerging field of Green Chemistry. Preventing pollution and waste
in the first place is often cheaper than mitigating and cleaning it up
later, and the development of new products and processes will help spur
economic growth. Green chemistry aims to design processes that can be
conducted at or near room temperature and pressure, and that use benign
materials, decreasing the present risk for workers; while the
replacement of toxic substances with safe ones reduces the potential
threat to public safety due to accidental release. In our post-9/11
world, the reduction of the number of toxic chemical locations and the
transport of toxic chemicals also improves national security by
reducing the number of potential terrorist targets.
Yet despite all of the promise of green chemistry, the Federal
Government invests very little in this area. The Green Chemistry
Research and Development Act establishes an interagency research and
development program to promote and coordinate federal green chemistry
research, development, demonstration, education, and technology
transfer activities. I think that this bill provides modest and prudent
funding in an area that deserves greater federal attention. I look
forward to receiving the testimonies and engaging in dialogue on this
important area.
Thank you Mr. Chairman and I yield back my time.
Chairman Boehlert. Thank you very much, Dr. Gingrey. And
let me once again commend you for your leadership in this
effort. That is the type of thing we have come to expect from
the Members of this committee. We are at the forefront of so
many things, and we are glad to be there once again.
The Chair is now pleased to recognize the distinguished
Ranking Member of the Full Committee, Dr.--Mr. Gordon. I was
going to give you a doctorate, too, Bart. You have had a few
honoraries.
Mr. Gordon. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thanks for calling
this important hearing. I concur with you that our goal here is
to raise the awareness of the public and the Administration,
and I think that this bill is a good start. Our champion on
this side has been Ms. Johnson, who has taken a lead in this
issue. And I would like to yield the balance of my time to her.
Chairman Boehlert. Before she takes the microphone, just
let me commend Ms. Johnson, too, because it is her leadership,
combined with Dr. Gingrey, working as a team, bipartisan,
across the center aisle, that is making this happen. And I want
to thank her for her leadership.
Ms. Johnson. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. And thank
you, too, Ranking Member Gordon, for giving me this opportunity
to speak on an issue that is so important to me.
Frequently, we, as legislators, preach about how we want to
make this world a better place for those who are to follow. I,
for one, want to help create a better planet, not only for the
sake of my beloved grandchildren, but for all future
generations.
Imagine a policy that can help clean the environment by
increasing the use of renewable fuels, encourage manufacturing
processes that generate less toxic waste and promote the
development of materials which can be easily recycled. These
are the goals of green chemistry. And this bill is an
aggressive first step in reaching these goals. I am so pleased
that my colleague, Congressman Gingrey, has introduced the
Green Chemistry Research and Development Act of 2004, and I am
proud to be an original cosponsor of this legislation.
Green chemistry is the utilization of a set of principles
that reduces or eliminates the use or generation of hazardous
substances in the design, manufacture, and application of
chemical products. Green chemistry, as defined, tries to get at
eliminating hazards in products and processes, making
workplaces safer, dropping costs associated with safety and
hazardous waste disposal, reducing risks to homeland security,
preventing pollution, and creating healthier products that are
effective and desirable. It is especially helpful in
agriculture in conventional and organic crops. It has the
capability of saving companies millions of dollars by reducing
waste and providing a higher rate of return.
Over the past decade, there has been increasing interest in
a fundamentally new approach to environmental protection. In
studying green chemistry, we realize that science and
technology can help produce processes and products that are
both more environmentally benign and economically attractive.
An increased interest in new approaches for environmental
protection may also derive, in part, from significantly changed
attitudes about the environment over the past few decades.
Increasing numbers of corporate executives may begin to see
environmental protection as an important part of their
corporate responsibility. Many firms now see an increased
environmental consciousness as offering the potential for
market niches that can emphasize the environmental benefits of
products and services.
That is why I am so excited about our discussion of this
legislation today. Although there is more work that can be done
to strengthen this legislation, it still provides just the
right impetus to encourage the science and manufacturing
communities to start in the right direction, not only because
green chemistry can save them money now, in the short term, but
because it also can save our planet in the long term.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I yield.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Johnson follows:]
Prepared Statement of Representative Eddie Bernice Johnson
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And thank you too, Ranking Member Gordon,
for giving me this opportunity to speak on an issue that is so
important to me.
Frequently, we as legislators preach about how we want to make this
world a better place for those who are to follow. I for one want to
help create a better planet not only for the sake of my beloved
grandchildren, but for all future generations.
Imagine a policy that can help clean the environment by increasing
the use of renewable fuels, encourage manufacturing processes that
generate less toxic waste, and promote the development of materials
which can be easily recycled. These are the goals of Green Chemistry.
And this bill is an aggressive first step in reaching these goals. I am
so pleased that my colleague, Congressman Gingrey, has introduced the
Green Chemistry Research and Development Act of 2004, and I am proud to
be an original co-sponsor of this legislation.
Green Chemistry is the utilization of a set of principles that
reduces or eliminates the use or generation of hazardous substances in
the design, manufacture and application of chemical products. Green
chemistry as defined tries to get at eliminating hazards in products
and processes, making workplaces safer, dropping costs associated with
safety and hazardous waste disposal, reducing risks to homeland
security, preventing pollution and creating healthier products that are
effective and desirable. It is especially helpful in agriculture in
conventional and organic crops. It has the capability of saving
companies millions of dollars by reducing waste and providing a higher
rate of return.
Over the past decade, there has been increasing interest in a
fundamentally new approach to environmental protection. In studying
Green Chemistry we realize that science and technology can help produce
processes and products that are both more environmentally benign and
economically attractive.
An increased interest in new approaches for environmental
protection may also derive in part from significantly changed attitudes
about the environment over the past few decades. Increasing numbers of
corporate executives may begin to see environmental protection as an
important part of their corporate responsibility. Many firms now see an
increased environmental consciousness as offering the potential for
market niches that emphasize the environmental benefits of products and
services.
That is why I am so excited about our discussion of this
legislation today. Although there is more work that can be done to
strengthen this legislation, it still provides just the right impetus
to encourage the science and manufacturing communities to start in the
right direction. Not only because Green Chemistry can save them money
now in the short-term, but because it can also save our planet in the
long-term.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Smith follows:]
Prepared Statement of Representative Nick Smith
Today we meet to review the Green Chemistry Research and
Development Act of 2004. The legislation establishes a modest
interagency green chemistry R&D program at the National Science
Foundation, Environmental Protection Agency, Department of Energy, and
National Institute of Standards and Technology.
Green chemistry is defined as ``the utilization of a set of
principles that reduces or eliminates the use or generation of
hazardous substances in the design, manufacture and application of
chemical products.'' It is a relatively new term that describes
relatively old ideas regarding our application of chemistry and related
technologies to protect the environment. Today we actively think of
such technologies as ``green,'' and actively think ``green'' when
applying these technologies.
By almost every indicator, the environment in the United States is
substantially better than it has been at any time over the last thirty
years. For example, emissions of chemicals such as nitrogen oxides from
automobiles and mercury from power plants have decreased significantly.
Drinking water is cleaner, and we're releasing much lower quantities of
toxic chemicals into the environment in general. We have achieved all
of this in concert with rapid population and economic growth.
How have we had such great success improving the environment? To be
sure, sensible regulations and increased public awareness have been
important overall contributors. But if I had to give an award to the
single most important factor responsible for the clean environment in
America today, it would be technology.
Technological advancement and information allows us to minimize
wastes, improve efficiencies, and address nearly any environmental
problem. So-called green chemistry is an important piece in this
effort. As a farmer, I have to be tested and licensed to handle
pesticides for the growing of crops. Thanks to our improved
understanding and application of green chemistry, the safety of the
chemicals I use on the farm has improved dramatically during the last
25 years.
Still, there is much room for improvement. We continue to have a
problem with environmentally toxic chemicals in many industries. For
example, in agriculture, we are searching for safer alternatives to
potential environmental hazards such as Atrazine and Methyl Bromide.
Green chemistry provides a fresh and different approach to addressing
these ongoing environmental challenges.
Too often, we romance about the environmental benefits of
regulations and other environmentally benign practices without regard
to their impact on businesses and the economy. That approach is
shortsighted, especially in today's globally competitive environment
where even the most minor misguided regulation can drive entire
industries overseas. With it's potential to provide non-regulatory,
economically competitive solutions to some of today's most pressing
environmental challenges, green chemistry can be a win-win approach to
what is all too often a lose-lose situation.
To that end, the Federal Government can play an important role in
stimulating green chemistry advances that are otherwise too risky and
expensive for industry to undertake. The legislation before us today
outlines that role and will hopefully move us closer to a broader goal
I think we all share: economically friendly environmental protection
through science, technology, and the dissemination of information.
I look forward to today's discussion.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Costello follows:]
Prepared Statement of Representative Jerry F. Costello
Good morning. I want to thank the witnesses for appearing before
our committee to examine federal and industry green chemistry research
and development activities and to receive testimony on the Green
Chemistry Research and Development Act of 2004.
Green chemistry is the use of chemistry for pollution prevention.
More specifically, green chemistry is the design of chemical products
and processes that reduce or eliminate the use and generation of
hazardous substances.
Private industry has benefited from and contributed to green
chemistry efforts. Pfizer and Shaw Industries should be commended for
their work in this area. However, barriers to greater adoption of green
chemistry products and processes by industry include a workforce
unfamiliar with green chemistry, a lack of existing and demonstrated
alternatives, the high capital costs of changing processes, and
inertia.
I am interested to know about the current status of the Federal
Government's efforts in green chemistry research and development and if
efforts are underway to alleviate some of the above mentioned barriers.
While agencies have conducted numerous green chemistry related R&D,
these efforts are small, not coordinated and strategic in nature.
Further, I am interested to know if expanded federal efforts and
increased coordination in green chemistry is warranted and if so, how
this legislation would further the effort.
I welcome our panel of witnesses and look forward to their
testimony.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Jackson Lee follows:]
Prepared Statement of Representative Sheila Jackson Lee
Mr. Chairman,
Thank you for calling this timely hearing to discuss the importance
of ``green chemistry'' and the federal investment in that important
subject. I commend my colleague from Georgia, Dr. Gingrey, for
authoring a bill that may help focus some of our attention on the need
to encourage our schools, and labs, and industries to work toward
protecting and preserving our environment.
I also welcome this distinguished panel. I thank you all for taking
the time to be here today, to share your views on green chemistry and
this bill.
I assume that everyone in this room is ``for'' green chemistry. It
only makes sense that if there are two ways to do something--a harmful
way and a non-harmful way--we would all want to choose the non-harmful
way. And assuming we agree that it is a responsibility of the Federal
Government to stimulate research and investment in areas that could
have a beneficial impact on our nation, I believe we would all agree
that we should focus some of the Nation's research energies on green
chemistry.
The questions are: how much of our resources should be allocated to
program, and where should they come from? These are especially tough
questions in a budget environment like the one we have today. Massive
tax cuts for the rich and a violent and expensive foreign policy have
left us with little money left to fund critical programs.
The President's latest budget has slashed dozens of research and
education programs. I have been very pleased with the bold leadership
of the Chairman and Ranking Member of this Science Committee, pointing
out that under-investing in science and technology is a grave error. It
could jeopardize our position at the front of the world economy, and
cost us jobs galore. I feel we need to find money to make investments
in growth industries, and green chemistry certainly qualifies.
I am concerned, however, that the bill we are discussing, although
well-intentioned, may not make the necessary improvement of investment
in the field. Because the bill only draw from funds that have been
previously authorized, existing programs will have to be cannibalized,
or simply renamed to fit the ``green chemistry'' label. As important as
green chemistry is, I would hate to see it come at the expense of
programs at NIST or DOE that we have been fighting for years. Some of
the programs that are to be incorporated into the green chemistry
initiative have not even been re-authorized in years, further confusing
the matter of funding.
Again, I am a firm supporter of green chemistry. It holds great
promise for allowing our economy and standard of living to grow, while
protecting our environment. However, I look forward to a serious
discussion of how it will be funded, and what the bill we are
discussing will accomplish.
Thank you.
Chairman Boehlert. Thank you very much.
Our witness list today, the sole panel we have, is Dr.
Arden Bement, Acting Director, National Science Foundation, and
a frequent visitor here.
Dr. Bement. Thank you, sir.
Chairman Boehlert. Dr. Paul Gilman, Assistant Administrator
for Research and Development, Environmental Protection Agency.
And let me commend Dr. Gilman and the Governor for the
statement issued yesterday on mercury. Dr. Berkeley Cue, Vice
President of Pharmaceutical Sciences, Pfizer Global Research
and Development. Dr. Cue, good to have you here. Mr. Steven
Bradfield, Vice President of Environmental Development, Shaw
Industries, Incorporated. Mr. Bradfield. And Dr. Edward
Woodhouse, Associate Professor of Political Science, Department
of Science & Technology Studies at that great institution,
Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute.
It is a pleasure to have all of you here. We would ask that
you try to summarize your statement in approximately five
minutes. The Chair will not be arbitrary, because we really
want to hear what you have to say, but we also want the
advantage of a dialogue between Members and the panel, and I
would advise all that your statements will appear in the record
in their entirety.
Dr. Bement.
STATEMENT OF DR. ARDEN L. BEMENT, JR., ACTING DIRECTOR,
NATIONAL SCIENCE FOUNDATION
Dr. Bement. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Good morning to you,
to Ranking Member Gordon and Members of the Committee. I am
pleased to have the opportunity to testify before you this
morning on the National Science Foundation's support of
research on green chemistry and engineering, and specifically
on the legislation under consideration by the Committee.
Green chemistry and engineering are critical components of
a comprehensive approach to manufacturing, an approach that
considers not just the desired product, but the feedstocks,
energy costs, purification procedures, and environmental impact
associated with making the product.
Over the past dozen years, the National Science Foundation,
principally through the Division of Chemical and Transport
Systems and the Division of Chemistry, has been investing in
basic research that supports this holistic view of what might
be called ``the molecular economy.'' Through existing
partnerships with the Environmental Protection Agency, the
Department of Energy, and the National Institute of Standards
and Technology, NSF has been leveraging its investments in
green chemistry and engineering for almost a decade.
In 1991, NSF announced a joint program in Environmentally
Benign Chemical Synthesis and Processing, whose goal was to
reduce the environmental footprint of manufacturing processes
while maintaining economic competitiveness. In 1994, a
Memorandum of Understanding was signed between NSF and EPA that
had three components, one of which was a program to support
Technology for a Sustainable Environment.
The current NSF investments in green chemistry and
engineering are approximately $11 million per year in the
Division of Chemistry, and $13 million per year in the Division
of Chemical and Transport Systems. Areas of support include
chemical synthesis, catalysis, separations research, and
environmental research. Advances in chemical synthesis provide
new products and alternative chemical routes to existing
products that minimize or eliminate potentially harmful
byproducts. New catalysts can be used to accelerate desired
reactions, lower the energy costs associated with them, and
reduce their hazards and environmental impact. Separations
research can lead to more environmentally friendly and cost-
effective methods for purifying chemical feedstocks and
products.
NSF funding supports both individual investigators and
multi-investigator interdisciplinary teams of researchers
working on green chemistry and engineering projects. A number
of young investigators supported through NSF's CAREER program
have projects related to green chemistry and engineering.
Adding value to NSF awards in these areas is a Memorandum of
Understanding with NIST under which NSF awardees may apply for
supplements that enable them to travel to NIST and take
advantage of NIST facilities and expertise.
An example of a team approach to green chemistry and
engineering is the Science and Technology Center for
Environmentally Responsible Solvents and Processes, based at
the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. The center has
pioneered the industrial use of carbon dioxide as a reaction
medium, thereby avoiding production, use, and subsequent
release into the environment of contaminated water, volatile
organic solvents, chlorofluorocarbons, and other noxious
pollutants. DuPont has recently invested in the construction of
a plant in North Carolina to use this technology in the
manufacture of materials like Teflon. Research supported at
this center has also yielded new, less hazardous dry cleaning
technologies, and this research is being extended to process
applications for the microelectronics industry.
Current manufacturing processes in the semiconductor
industry involve toxic solvents, poisonous metals, and
corrosive chemicals. The NSF Engineering Research Center on
Environmentally Benign Semiconductor Processing, based at the
University of Arizona with partners at Stanford University and
MIT, is developing alternative technologies that both
substitute safer materials in the production of semiconductor
devices and minimize waste and water use. This Center has
demonstrated the use of high-pressure carbon dioxide as a green
solvent, and it has developed improved methods for water
purification and recycling. In the past five years, this Center
has spawned four new start-up companies that are
commercializing their novel, environmentally friendly
technologies.
Mr. Chairman, I would like now to briefly comment on the
draft Green Chemistry Research and Development Act of 2004. As
I mentioned earlier, NSF and the Environmental Protection
Agency have an ongoing, sustainable environmental program that
appears to be meeting many of the goals of this bill. NSF has
worked with both the Department of Energy and NIST in this
area, as well. So we are in complete agreement on the value of
research and processes and products that reduce the generation
or use of hazardous substances. And I might add that my visit
last night with the bright, young people in the Intel Science
Award Program introduced me to at least two or three that are
very active in this field, and I was very heartened by that.
Although we welcome congressional attention and oversight in
this area, we are always concerned about the unintended
consequences of codifying research programs into law. While we
look forward to working with the Committee to implement the
goals of this legislation, the Administration believes that it
is unnecessary to enact this legislation at this time.
Thank you for this opportunity to testify on a topic of
great importance to the science and engineering community, to
the economy, and to the environment, and I would be pleased to
respond to any questions that you might have.
[The prepared statement of Dr. Bement follows:]
Prepared Statement of Arden L. Bement, Jr.
Good morning, Mr. Chairman and Members of the Committee. I am
pleased to have the opportunity to testify before you this morning on
the National Science Foundation's support of research on green
chemistry and engineering, and specifically on the legislation under
consideration by the Committee.
Green chemistry and engineering are critical components of a
comprehensive approach to manufacturing--an approach that considers not
just the desired product, but the feedstocks, energy costs,
purification procedures, and environmental impact associated with
making the product.
Over the past dozen years, the National Science Foundation (NSF),
principally through the Division of Chemical and Transport Systems and
the Division of Chemistry, has been investing in basic research that
supports this holistic view of what might be called ``the molecular
economy.'' This approach integrates manufacturing with environmental
considerations. Through existing partnerships with the Environmental
Protection Agency (EPA), Department of Energy (DOE) and the National
Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST), NSF has been leveraging
its investments in green chemistry and engineering for almost a decade.
Beginning in 1991, the two NSF divisions announced a joint program
in Environmentally Benign Chemical Synthesis and Processing, whose goal
was to reduce the environmental footprint of manufacturing processes
while maintaining economic competitiveness. In 1994, a Memorandum of
Understanding (MOU) was signed between NSF and the EPA that had three
components, one of which was a program to support Technology for a
Sustainable Environment (TSE). The TSE program, launched in 1995 and
administered nearly annually since then, will be formally reviewed in
May, 2004. In addition, some components of Biocomplexity in the
Environment, an NSF Priority Area, support studies of the use of
resources and pollutant transport in the environment.
The current NSF investments in green chemistry and engineering are
approximately $11 million per year in the Division of Chemistry and $13
million per year in the Division of Chemical and Transport Systems.
Areas of support include chemical synthesis, catalysis, separations
research, and environmental research. Advances in chemical synthesis
provide new products and alternative chemical routes to existing
products that minimize or eliminate potentially harmful byproducts. New
catalysts can be used to accelerate desired reactions, lower the energy
costs associated with them, and reduce their hazards and environmental
impact. Separations research can lead to more environmentally friendly
and cost-effective methods for purifying chemical feedstocks and
products. The design of green manufacturing processes is guided by NSF-
supported basic research that characterizes the fate of molecular
species in the environment through experimental, theoretical, modeling
and simulation studies.
NSF funding supports both individual investigators and multi-
investigator, interdisciplinary teams of researchers working on green
chemistry and engineering projects. Projects typically include
undergraduate and graduate students and postdoctoral research
associates, who are trained through these awards. A number of young
investigators supported through NSF's CAREER program have projects
related to green chemistry and engineering. Adding value to NSF awards
in these areas is an MOU with NIST under which NSF awardees may apply
for supplements that enable them to travel to NIST to take advantage of
NIST facilities and expertise.
An example of a team approach to green chemistry and engineering is
the Science and Technology Center for Environmentally Responsible
Solvents and Processes, based at the University of North Carolina at
Chapel Hill (Partners include North Carolina State University, North
Carolina A&T University, the University of Texas at Austin, Georgia
Institute of Technology, and a large number of industrial affiliates).
Research at this center has already led to new green manufacturing
processes. For example, the center has pioneered the industrial use of
carbon dioxide as a reaction medium, thereby avoiding production, use
and subsequent release into our environment of contaminated water,
volatile organic solvents, chlorofluorocarbons and other noxious
pollutants. DuPont has recently invested in the construction of a plant
in North Carolina to use this technology in the manufacture of
materials like Teflon. Research supported at this center has also
yielded new, less hazardous dry cleaning technologies and this research
is being extended to process applications for the microelectronics
industry.
For example, current manufacturing processes in the semiconductor
industry involve toxic solvents, poisonous metals, and corrosive
chemicals. The NSF Engineering Research Center (ERC) on Environmentally
Benign Semiconductor Processing, based at the University of Arizona
with partners at Stanford University and MIT, is developing alternative
technologies that both substitute safer materials in production of
semiconductor devices and minimize waste and water use. This Center has
demonstrated the use of high-pressure carbon dioxide as a green solvent
in microchip fabrication and has developed improved methods for water
purification and recycling. One of the young faculty members at Arizona
was recognized this year as one of Scientific American's 50 most
influential researchers. In the past five years this Center has spawned
four new start-up companies that are commercializing their novel,
environmentally friendly technologies.
The NSF supports smaller projects in green chemistry and
engineering involving partnerships of academic institutions with
industry and/or national laboratories through its Grant Opportunities
for Academic Liaisons with Industry (GOALI) and its Environmental
Molecular Science Institutes (EMSI) programs. The EMSI program is
managed by the Division of Chemistry and includes the Geosciences
Directorate at NSF and the Department of Energy as partners. Several
EMSI projects provide a molecular-level perspective on industrial
processes that allow an understanding of their environmental impact at
the level of ecosystems.
A measure of the quality of investments made through NSF awards is
that nearly all of the academic winners who have received the EPA's
Presidential Green Challenge Award have been NSF-supported
investigators. This award recognizes major contributions to green
chemistry and engineering research that have significant societal
impact.
Broader impacts of green chemistry and engineering are supported
both through a variety of technical workshops and through education and
outreach activities. Many Research Experiences for Undergraduates (REU)
projects provide summer research opportunities for advanced
undergraduates in basic research related to green chemistry and
engineering. Instrumentation and curricular investments across NSF
likewise contribute to education and the development of the future
workforce that will be needed to develop and implement ideas to promote
green chemistry and engineering.
Mr. Chairman, I would like to briefly comment on the draft Green
Chemistry Research and Development Act of 2004. As I mentioned earlier,
NSF and the Environmental Protection Agency have an ongoing technology
for a sustainable environment program that appears to be meeting many
of the goals of this bill. NSF has worked with both the Department of
Energy and NIST in this area as well. So we are in complete agreement
on the value of research on processes and products that reduce the
generation or use of hazardous substances. Although we welcome
Congressional attention and oversight in this area, we are always
concerned about the unintended consequences of codifying research
programs into law. While we look forward to working the Committee to
implementing the goals of this legislation, the Administration believes
that it is unnecessary to enact this legislation at this time.
Thank you for this opportunity to testify on a topic of great
importance to the science and engineering community, to the economy,
and to the environment. I would be pleased to respond to any questions
you might have.
Biography for Arden L. Bement, Jr.
Arden L. Bement, Jr., became Acting Director of the National
Science Foundation on February 22, 2004.
He joins NSF from the National Institute of Standards and
Technology, where he has been director since Dec. 7, 2001. As head of
NIST, he oversees an agency with an annual budget of about $773 million
and an onsite research and administrative staff of about 3,000,
complemented by a NIST-sponsored network of 2,000 locally managed
manufacturing and business specialists serving smaller manufacturers
across the United States. Prior to his appointment as NIST director,
Bement served as the David A. Ross Distinguished Professor of Nuclear
Engineering and head of the School of Nuclear Engineering at Purdue
University. He has held appointments at Purdue University in the
schools of Nuclear Engineering, Materials Engineering, and Electrical
and Computer Engineering, as well as a courtesy appointment in the
Krannert School of Management. He was director of the Midwest
Superconductivity Consortium and the Consortium for the Intelligent
Management of the Electrical Power Grid.
Bement came to the position as NIST director having previously
served as head of that agency's Visiting Committee on Advanced
Technology, the agency's primary private-sector policy adviser; as head
of the advisory committee for NIST's Advanced Technology Program; and
on the Board of Overseers for the Malcolm Baldrige National Quality
Award.
Along with his NIST advisory roles, Bement served as a member of
the U.S. National Science Board from 1989 to 1995. The board guides NSF
activities and also serves as a policy advisory body to the President
and Congress. He also chaired the Commission for Engineering and
Technical Studies and the National Materials Advisory Board of the
National Research Council; was a member of the Space Station
Utilization Advisory Subcommittee and the Commercialization and
Technology Advisory Committee for NASA; and consulted for the
Department of Energy's Argonne National Laboratory and the Idaho
National Engineering and Environmental Laboratory.
Bement joined the Purdue faculty in 1992 after a 39-year career In
industry, government, and academia. These positions included: vice
president of technical resources and of science and technology for TRW
Inc. (1980-1992); deputy under secretary of defense for research and
engineering (1979-1980); director, Office of Materials Science, DARPA
(1976-1979); professor of nuclear materials, MIT (1970-1976); manager,
Fuels and Materials Department and the Metallurgy Research Department,
Battelle Northwest Laboratories (1965-1970); and senior research
associate, General Electric Co. (1954-1965).
He has been a director of Keithley Instruments Inc. and the Lord
Corp. and was a member of the Science and Technology Advisory Committee
for the Howmet Corp. (a division of ALCOA).
Bement holds an Engineer of Metallurgy degree from the Colorado
School of Mines, a Master's degree in metallurgical engineering from
the University of Idaho, a doctorate degree in metallurgical
engineering from the University of Michigan, an honorary doctorate
degree in engineering from Cleveland State University, and an honorary
doctorate degree in science from Case Western Reserve University. He is
a member of the U.S. National Academy of Engineering.
Chairman Boehlert. Thank you very much, Dr. Bement, but
once again, the Chair will observe, this Administration, like
all previous Administrations, usually finds the work of
Congress unnecessary. The Administration feels that the source
of all wisdom is vested in 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue and the
environs, but we want to be active, working partners----
Dr. Bement. I am your canonical messenger.
Chairman Boehlert. And I was pleased to see you note the
relationship with NIST, because the Chair understands that you
have some familiarity with NIST.
Dr. Bement. Yes, I do have some familiarity, and if I had
more time, I could go into a long list----
Chairman Boehlert. For the benefit of the audience that
might not be aware, Dr. Bement is taking over the
responsibility of NSF to fill a void created by the retirement
of Dr. Rita Colwell. He is on leave from his job as Director of
NIST, where he has performed with exceptional skill. So they
give him another burden, taking on, at least on a temporary
basis, NSF. But Dr. Bement, we really appreciate----
Dr. Bement. Well, I would welcome, for the record, to
submit work that NIST is doing in this area as well.
[The information referred to appears in Appendix:
Additional Material for the Record.]
Chairman Boehlert. Thank you very much.
Dr. Gilman.
STATEMENT OF DR. PAUL GILMAN, ASSISTANT ADMINISTRATOR FOR
RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT, ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
Dr. Gilman. We welcome the Committee's interest, and look
forward to working with you on your legislation, as it proceeds
through the Congress.
A critical part of EPA's mission is really embodied in the
green chemistry and green engineering that you are addressing
in this bill. We have historically addressed the issue. We hope
to focus on it in the future. It is the kind of science that
takes us beyond the limits of ``command and control''
approaches to keeping our environment clean and cleaning it up.
Recently, our Administrator challenged the Agency to try and
accelerate our pace in improving the environment using science
and technology, market-based mechanisms, results-oriented work
and collaborations in large networks.
I would like to tell you a little bit about a new framework
we are implementing in the research side of the organization,
and more broadly, within which green chemistry and green
engineering is captured. We will be releasing next week some
solicitations in the area of ``Collaborative Science and
Technology Network for Sustainability,'' really a cornerstone
of our approach for the future, working with states, local
government, and industry to address high-priority challenges
with rigorous science. We will be announcing two pilots that we
are initiating with the Delaware River Basin Commission and the
Canaan Valley Institute in West Virginia looking at ecological
restoration and watershed practices for sustainability. We are
also opening up today a portal in sustainability on the EPA
website, which is trying to organize the dozens of programs
throughout the EPA that embrace principles of sustainability,
the scientific tools, and the programs aimed at that, including
green chemistry and green engineering. And lastly, in an effort
to encourage a focus on sustainability in our university
systems, we have released what we call a P3 Award. The P3
standing for people, prosperity, and the planet, really an
effort to solicit, through competitive grants, projects, and
interdisciplinary teams trying to address solutions to
environmental challenges. The National Academy of Engineering
has agreed to serve as a judging organization for us in that
regard, and we are very pleased with the early response to that
effort.
Your Green Chemistry R&D Act really does build on a lot of
successes that have already taken place in government. We are
in the process of trying to really document the productivity of
those grants that have already been done. Looking at the first
64 that we have been able to gather information on, those 64
first grants under the Technology for a Sustainable Environment
(TSE) program that we have done in collaboration with the NSF,
have resulted in 347 articles, 25 chapters in books, six
patents, and one of the recipients received a Nobel Prize for
Chemistry in 2001. You will hear a lot of examples of successes
today. I would only note several teams of our grant recipients
at Georgia Tech are working at making water a better solvent
and using water-based coatings to replace more hazardous
solvents. You have heard the story of the CO2 work
in North Carolina, the work of Professor Dorgan on polylactic
acid to make bio-based materials a feedstock for the future,
and Professor Wool at Delaware working on, again, bio-based
products where today John Deere is using bio-based products in
the manufacture of its tractors. And Professor Wool even has a
patent on a bio-based silicon replacement for silicon chips
that would utilize chicken feathers as part of the matrix of
those chips. And while you may laugh at that sort of thing, I
would only note that the chip operates at about two times the
pace of silicon-based chips.
So there are wonderful examples out there. Some of those
that I named are noteworthy not just because of their
curiosities, but because industry is investing not tens, but
hundreds of millions of dollars in the commercial use of those
technologies.
Some programs that have also borne fruit are things like
the Presidential Green Chemistry Challenge. Just the award
winners of that since 1996 represent a reduction of 326 million
pounds of hazardous substances, 390 million gallons of water
saved, and 120 million pounds of CO2 reduction.
Those are the kinds of results that we think this work will
lead to, and not only noting the competitive nature of those
products, I should also point out that, for those projects I
mentioned, those were grants in the late '90s. The time from
the lab bench to the commercial enterprise for these kinds of
research projects is on the order of 10 years or less. And this
is a committee that often hears that the basic research is 20
years or more away from practical application. So the fruits of
this work are being seen as we speak.
Thank you for the opportunity to testify today.
[The prepared statement of Dr. Gilman follows:]
Prepared Statement of Paul Gilman
Good morning, Mr. Chairman and Members of the Committee, I am
honored to appear before you today to discuss the U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency's green chemistry and engineering research and
development activities, the subject of the draft Green Chemistry
Research and Development Act of 2004. The U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA) welcomes the interest of the Committee on green chemistry
and engineering. The subject of this bill represents a critical part of
EPA's focus on environmental and human health protection. EPA
historically has and continues to address the goals in the proposed
legislation. I will highlight today some of our ongoing efforts in
green chemistry and engineering.
Every day decisions are made at local, state, and regional levels
that affect our quality of life. To the extent possible, each of these
decisions, from new building construction, highway development or
ecosystem management, should be based on the best available scientific
information and scientific tools available. Industry leaders are also
making decisions on chemical, product, and process design that will
have significant environmental and economic impacts. Sustainability
draws on sound science to support these decisions to protect our
natural systems, to provide a higher quality of life for people, and to
further a competitive economy.
By building on traditional ``command-and-control'' regulations, EPA
has been refocusing its efforts by conducting and funding research in
areas such as green chemistry and engineering, global change, economics
and decisions sciences, watershed management, industrial ecology,
environmental justice, ecological forecasting, and emerging
technologies. In the future, EPA will continue to focus on rigorous
science as a better way to advance EPA's mission of protecting human
health and the environment.
INTRODUCTION
Administrator Leavitt has outlined EPA's strategy to achieve its
mission quickly and efficiently based on four key components: science
and technology innovation, market mechanisms, results, and
collaborative networks. Science and technology innovation provides new,
cost-effective alternatives that better protect human health and the
environment. Results ensure that our programs and processes achieve
environmental and human health results. Collaborative networks serve to
solve problems through partnerships and open dialogues among private
and public stakeholders.
EPA's next step in achieving its mission is to apply this framework
to specific environmental and human health challenges. Traditionally,
environmental protection programs have focused on a particular medium
or problem through command-and-control regulations. These programs have
been very effective at reducing point source pollution and improving
environmental quality over the past three decades. However, the
environmental challenges we face today involve several media types and
diffuse sources that are less amenable to command-and-control programs.
EPA is looking for solutions that seek to address the various causes of
environmental problems and understand the interrelationships between
human behavior and the environment in specific areas.
A place-based approach is one example that supplements and
complements the traditional environmental protection approach by
focusing on the health of an ecosystem and the behavior of the humans
who live within the boundaries of the ecosystem, instead of
concentrating on a specific medium or particular problem. This
strategy, therefore, moves beyond media-based or issue-based strategies
to a holistic perspective that will lead to comprehensive, long-term,
sustainable solutions.
FOCUS ON SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY THROUGH GREEN CHEMISTRY AND ENGINEERING
EPA is focusing on science and technology programs that incorporate
the principles of green chemistry and engineering. The concept of green
chemistry and engineering is a very real and specific component of our
science and technology. The goals of green chemistry and engineering
move us towards innovation and collaboration for the mutual benefit of
human health and the environment while furthering economic
competitiveness. Green chemistry and engineering are unique in that
they focus on inherently benign alternatives for chemical products and
processes that can address many challenges in a broad, multi-media
framework. The advances of green chemistry and engineering have
demonstrated results that provide cost-effective environmental and
human health improvements. For these reasons, green chemistry and
engineering represent the kind of science on which EPA is focusing to
move to the next level of environmental and human health protection.
Before I discuss EPA's specific programs in green chemistry and
engineering, I want to describe the broader context of EPA's focus.
Three approaches are underway that cut across Administrator Leavitt's
framework of science and technology innovation, results, and
collaborative networks including: the ``Collaborative Science and
Technology Network for Sustainability,'' the Sustainability Portal, and
the P3 Award: A National Student Design Competition for Sustainability.
Collaborative Science and Technology Network for Sustainability (CSTNS)
At the cornerstone of EPA's focus on sustainability is the
``Collaborative Science and Technology Network for Sustainability''
(CSTNS). Through CSTNS, EPA will be funding innovative, regional-scale
projects that address the high-priority challenges. These projects will
be a testing ground for developing and applying tools while drawing on
scientific understanding of the consequences of decisions and actions.
CSTNS will provide an opportunity for communities, states, the private
sector, EPA, and other government agencies to explore new approaches to
environmental protection that are systems-oriented, forward-looking,
and preventative.
EPA is developing a number of pilot projects that illustrate the
potential for this approach. One pilot project that is under
development in EPA's Region 3 (Pennsylvania, West Virginia, Virginia,
Delaware, Maryland, and the District of Columbia) is sustainable
watershed management in the Delaware River Basin. This project will
develop and implement strategies for sustainable water resource
management in a watershed threatened by high population growth. EPA
will work in cooperation with the United States Geological Survey;
Delaware River Basin Commission (DRBC); the Commonwealth of
Pennsylvania; local municipalities; the Brodhead Watershed Association
and other stakeholders to evaluate the effects of growth and land use
on groundwater, stream flows, and ecology in Pocono Creek. Tools will
be developed to determine the appropriate ground water withdrawal
limits considering environmental, economic, and social concerns. Those
limits will be implemented by Monroe County, Pennsylvania to maintain
the high quality of life in the watershed as future growth occurs.
Research findings and results will be transferred to other parts of the
Delaware River Basin as well as to other regions of the country. As
evidenced by this project, CSTNS will transcend traditional regulatory
approaches for air, water and land and rely on a more place-based
perspective that takes a long-term view while measuring short-term
outcomes.
A second project, in collaboration with the Canaan Valley
Institute; local communities; State and local governments of the Mid-
Atlantic Highlands area (portions of Maryland, Pennsylvania, Virginia,
and West Virginia); West Virginia University; and other stakeholders,
will develop and evaluate sustainable restoration technologies. Methods
for stream restoration, which address the problems of sedimentation,
riparian habitat loss and biological degradation will be included. In
addition to the environmental benefits, it is expected that there will
be increased potential for job creation as a result of restoration
activities. Research findings and results will be transferred
throughout the Mid-Atlantic Highlands area as well as to other regions
of the country.
We envision that these projects, as well as those funded under the
upcoming competitive solicitation for the next phase of CSTNS projects,
will serve to integrate the many existing EPA programs, identify gaps
and demonstrate how such practices can be applied in the real world.
Sustainability Portal
EPA has dozens of programs and activities that support elements of
science and technology for sustainability. To provide better access to
these programs and work to integrate them, EPA is developing a web
portal (www.epa.gov/sustainability). This portal will provide easy
access to EPA tools and programs that can help individuals,
communities, and institutions achieve their sustainability goals. Links
are provided to EPA programs and research for planning and practices,
scientific and technical tools, measuring results and evaluating
progress. The programs and research presented under ``planning and
practices'' promote the integration of existing social, economic and
environmental policies while anticipating new programs. Long-range,
integrated planning and educating the next generation in sustainability
practices are also included. The ``scientific and technical tools''
section highlights the development of underlying scientific and
engineering knowledge needed to develop sustainability tools and
techniques. ``Measuring results and evaluating progress'' focuses on
providing a science-based foundation for monitoring and assessing
trends in the environment and providing support for decision-making in
businesses, communities, and across government. The website provides a
``one-stop'' portal to EPA's programs and research appropriate to
advancing the goal of sustainability.
P3 Award: A National Student Design Competition for Sustainability
To encourage the integration of sustainability into higher
education and training, EPA launched the P3 Award competition in
November 2003. ``P3'' was chosen to highlight people, prosperity and
the planet--the three pillars of sustainability. The P3 Award is a
partnership between the public and private sectors to achieve the
mutual goals of economic prosperity while protecting the natural
systems of the planet and providing a higher quality of life for its
people. The P3 Award program (www.epa.gov/P3) will provide up to 50
grants to interdisciplinary teams of college students to research,
develop, and design sustainable solutions to environmental challenges
in both the developed and the developing world. A panel convened by the
National Academy of Engineering will select the P3 Award winners at an
event on the National Mall. The winner(s) of the P3 Award will be
eligible for additional funds from EPA to match contributions from the
private sector for further development, implementation and placement in
the marketplace. This will ensure that EPA is supporting the research
and development of innovative, inherently benign, integrated scientific
and technical solutions that will advance the goal of sustainability.
EPA'S ONGOING PROGRAMS SUPPORTING GREEN CHEMISTRY AND ENGINEERING
The framework for EPA's ongoing programs is also based on
Administrator Leavitt's four components that the Agency is adopting to
better and more quickly achieve its mission: science and technology
innovation, market-based mechanisms, results, and collaborative
networks. Focusing on research, development, and implementation in this
Agency-wide framework is one mechanism that EPA will use to move to the
next level of environmental and human health protection.
While the approaches previously discussed were developed to address
all of the framework's components, current EPA activities can also be
classified using this model. The following sections highlight EPA's
activities in green chemistry and engineering, and more broadly, based
on science and technology innovation, market mechanisms, results, and
collaborative networks.
Science and Technology Innovation
Green chemistry and engineering are a critical part of EPA's
current activities on science and technology. Research, development,
and implementation of green chemistry and engineering are components of
both the extramural Science to Achieve Results (STAR) grant program as
well as intramural activities.
The Green Chemistry Research and Development Act of 2004 will build
upon the active and successful research and development traditionally
supported and conducted by the EPA. Since the mid-1990's EPA has
partnered with the National Science Foundation on a grants program
called Technology for a Sustainable Environment (TSE) that focuses on
green chemistry and engineering. In addition, EPA's intramural research
program is centered on innovative scientific and technical advances in
alternative energy sources, alternative reactor design, alternative
solvent and catalyst strategies, and green metal finishing.
EPA has supported green chemistry and engineering research in both
its intramural and extramural research programs. Including support for
personnel, approximately $6.9 million is included in the FY04 budget
for green chemistry and engineering activities. Of this amount,
research is about $5.1 million, including about $1.9 of personnel
costs. About $2.4 million of the extramural funding is for competitive
grants through the TSE program. (Approximately 70 percent of the
research under TSE--which was $3 million in FY04--is focused on green
chemistry and engineering.) Due to a redirection of funds within EPA,
funding for EPA's portion of the TSE program was not provided in the
President's FY05 budget request. However, grants funded with prior year
resources will continue.
EPA's Small Business Innovation Research (SBIR) program is another
funding mechanism for innovative science and technology with economic
and environmental benefits. EPA has also concentrated on the potential
for innovative technologies to move us to the next level of
environmental protection. Efforts include third-party environmental
technology verification (ETV), an environmental technologies
opportunity web portal (ETOP), and the creation of the Environmental
Technology Council (ETC). These programs focus on researching and
developing a knowledge base to support the development sustainable
alternatives, through green chemistry and engineering, to enhance or
replace current designs that present environmental and human health
challenges.
Except for the SBIR and ETV, program, EPA's research is pre-
competitive. The research under TSE is relatively more fundamental and
the in-house research is somewhat more applied. However, in both cases,
the priorities for the research are driven by EPA's goals and the
research is in support of those goals.
Technology for a Sustainable Environment (TSE)
Since 1995, EPA and the National Science Foundation (NSF) have been
partners in the Technology for a Sustainable Environment (TSE) program,
a grants program designed to support research in pollution prevention.
TSE (http://www.epa.gov/greenchemistry/tse.html) is an integral part of
EPA's research program to support Agency program offices and regions
and demonstrates leadership in addressing emerging environmental issues
and advancing science and technology. TSE strongly encourages the
collaboration of interdisciplinary academic researchers with industrial
investigators who represent the eventual customers for the products of
this research.
Together, EPA and NSF have funded over 200 TSE grants totaling
approximately $56 million for applied and fundamental research in the
physical sciences and engineering that will lead to the discovery,
development, implementation and evaluation of innovative
environmentally benign molecules, products and processes. Due to a
redirection of funds within EPA, funding for EPA's portion of the TSE
program was not provided in the President's FY05 budget request.
However, grants funded with prior year resources will continue. TSE
research focuses on ideas that advance the development and use of
innovative science, technologies, and approaches directed at avoiding
or minimizing the generation of pollutants at the source. As such, TSE
focuses primarily on green chemistry and green engineering research.
Green Chemistry. The goal of the green chemistry research portion,
similar to the Green Chemistry Research and Development Act of 2004, is
to develop safer commercial substances and environmentally benign
chemical syntheses to reduce risks posed by the manufacture, use and
disposal of commercial chemicals. By preventing pollution at its source
and designing inherently benign chemicals and processes, green
chemistry has the potential to reduce environmental risks while
providing more cost-effective products.
Green Engineering. The green engineering supported by TSE focuses
on developing novel engineering approaches for preventing or reducing
pollution from industrial manufacturing activities. The scope of green
engineering includes equipment and technology modifications,
reformulation or redesign of products, substitution of alternative
materials, and in-process changes. Although these methods are often
linked to the chemical, biochemical, and materials process industries,
they can be utilized in many other industries, such as semiconductor
manufacturing systems.
Quantifying Benefits. TSE also encourages research in physical
sciences and engineering that will lead to the development of novel
measurement and assessment techniques for green chemistry and
engineering, and pollution prevention. Activities in this area include
life cycle analysis, computational simulations, and process design
algorithms as well as the development of appropriate measurement
methods to quantify outcomes in terms of direct benefits to human
health and the environment
Environmental Benefits. To better demonstrate these benefits,
research proposals for a grant under TSE must include a section
entitled ``potential impacts.'' While the research supported by this
program may be related to an individual reaction, unit operation or
unit process, the investigators must address the environmental benefits
or impacts of the research in the broader context of the industrial
system of which it is a part. In this regard, the proposal must contain
a discussion of expected potential environmental benefits or impacts in
the broadest systems sense, which could include considerations of the
efficient use of natural resources and energy and materials flows in
manufacturing, product use, recycling, recovery or ultimate disposal.
In this section, it is strongly recommended that the investigator
address issues such as: the pollutant or class of pollutants the
research proposes to prevent or minimize; the seriousness and
importance of the environmental problem; and how the proposed
technology or method is more economical and more environmentally benign
than current technologies or methods.
Results. The goal of the TSE program is the discovery of innovative
chemical alternatives with economic and environmental benefits through
the design of inherently benign chemicals, materials, and energy for
reduced risks, liabilities, accidents, and vulnerabilities. The first
64 of the 211 research grants funded under the TSE program produced 347
peer-reviewed journal articles, 25 book chapters, and six patents. In
addition, one of the investigators funded under TSE was awarded the
2001 Nobel Prize in Chemistry.
Examples of research conducted through TSE (Appendix 1) highlight
the potential for green chemistry and engineering research supported by
the Federal Government to move from the laboratory to the marketplace.
This research demonstrates mutual benefits to the economy and the
environment in a wide array of industrial processes from alternative
solvents to renewable and biodegradable materials to benign
alternatives for oxidation.
All the TSE products that moved to commercialization had an
important feature in common. These scientific and technical advances
met or exceeded current cost and performance criteria, were competitive
in the marketplace, and benefited human health and the environment.
While it is extraordinary that there are TSE examples (Appendix 1) that
have moved from the bench to commercialization in such a short
timeframe (less than ten years), it demonstrates the potential for
scientific and technical innovation in green chemistry and engineering
to mutually achieve environmental and economic goals in the long-term.
These innovations provide a basis for science and technology for
sustainability by achieving the mutual goals of economic prosperity
while protecting the natural systems of the planet and providing a
higher quality of life for its people.
Green Chemistry Program
EPA's Green Chemistry Program (www.epa.gov/greenchemistry), in
collaboration with EPA's Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxic
Substances, is directed at preventing pollution by promoting the design
of less toxic chemical substances and identifying alternative chemical
pathways that involve less toxic reagents or solvents and generate
fewer toxic products or co-products. As part of this program, EPA
initiated the Green Chemistry Challenge that includes an award to
recognize those in industry and academia that have met the objectives
of Green Chemistry in an exemplary way. The Challenge also includes TSE
as a research component to enhance support for innovative, inherently
benign alternative chemical products and processes.
The Presidential Green Chemistry Challenge Awards Program (http://
www.epa.gov/greenchemistry/presgcc.html) is an opportunity for
individuals, groups, and organizations to compete for annual awards
that recognize innovations in cleaner, cheaper, and smarter chemistry.
The Awards Program provides national recognition of outstanding
chemical technologies that incorporate the principles of green
chemistry into chemical design, manufacture, and use, and that have
been or can be utilized by industry in achieving their pollution
prevention goals.
Award nominations are invited that describe the technical benefits
of a green chemistry technology as well as its human health and
environmental benefits. The Awards Program is open to all individuals,
groups, and organizations, both nonprofit and for profit, including
academia, government, and industry. The nominated green chemistry
technology must have reached a significant milestone within the past
five years in the United States; e.g., been researched, demonstrated,
implemented, applied, patented, etc.
To date, the Award winning technologies alone are responsible for
the following cumulative green chemistry benefits since 1996:
eliminating 326,000,000 pounds of hazardous substances from commercial
and industrial products and processes; saving 390,000,000 gallons of
water; and preventing 120,000,000 pounds of carbon dioxide emissions.
EPA's Intramural Science and Technology for Sustainability
Research
The mission of EPA's intramural sustainability research (http://
www.epa.gov/ORD/NRMRL/std/index.html) is to advance the understanding,
development, and application of technologies and methods of prevention,
removal, and control of environmental risks to human health and
ecology. This research can be categorized by key areas including:
alternative energy sources, alternative reactor design, alternative
solvent and catalyst strategies, and green metal finishing. As a result
of this research, several significant scientific and technical advances
in green chemistry and engineering have been developed and implemented.
In addition, the researchers have developed software tools to enable
inherently benign design and measure environmental and human health
benefits of scientific and technological advances (Appendix 2).
Alternative Energy Sources. This research involves the use of new
energy sources, such as microwaves and ultrasonic waves, as a means to
enhance reaction conditions. The primary benefits of this approach
include the reduction of reaction times from hours to minutes, a
significant reduction of by-product or undesirable product formation,
an overall increase in conversion of feedstocks, and the elimination of
harmful solvents.
Alternative Reactor Design. This research focuses on the use of new
reactor designs to increase reaction efficiency and decrease energy
consumption. These designs include a corona ozone generating reactor, a
titanium dioxide (TiO2) ultraviolet (UV) reactor, and a
spinning tube-in-tube reactor. The first two designs are considered
advanced oxidation technologies that are best suited for use in
oxidation-type reactions. They provide benefits such as increased
conversion to desired products and minimal solvent or catalyst usage.
The third reactor design is used for process intensification, a step
that minimizes the time required to complete a given reaction. This in
turn significantly reduces or completely eliminates by-product
formation and increases overall conversion of the feedstock.
Alternative Solvents and Catalysts. This research uses novel
solvents and catalysts to increase reaction efficiency while minimizing
the use of more traditional and harmful solvents. Strategies include
using supercritical CO2 as a reaction medium; using room-
temperature ionic liquids as a reaction media; using benign hydrogen
peroxide (H2O2) to replace traditional catalysts
(oxidants) such as magnesium permanganate (KMnO4) and chromium
trioxide/sulfuric acid (CrO3/H2SO4); and using nonvolatile,
alternative, polyethylene glycol (PEG) to replace traditional solvents.
Green Metal Finishing. EPA is working cooperatively with industry
leaders in the metal finishing sector to provide green solutions to
their most critical issues. The program has investigated the use of
less toxic process alternatives for various metal finishing systems
that are both energy efficient and cost effective, and in the end, more
sustainable. The program has identified greener chemical replacements
to several metal finishing processes, including hexavalent chromium.
Presently, the program is evaluating green chemistry alternatives to
chlorinated solvents and alkaline cleaners for degreasing operations in
the metal finishing industry.
Additional Research. Additional intramural research focuses on
industrial multimedia and systems analysis. The industrial multimedia
research includes mine waste technology, metal finishing pollution
prevention, metal forming, fuel cell applications, lead paint
abatement, and base catalyzed dechlorination for contaminated soil
remediation. The objective of the sustainable environments research is
to construct a strategy for sustainable environmental management using
economics approaches, water resource and land use planning, physical
and ecological theory, and technological methods and knowledge
implemented through computer-based tools, field data, and human
experience to reduce risks to human health and the ecology. The main
research efforts under systems analysis focus on life cycle
assessments, cost engineering and cost benefit, chemical simulation and
measurement, and pollution prevention at federal facilities.
Small Business Innovation Research (SBIR)
The EPA is one of 11 federal agencies that participate in the SBIR
Program established by the Small Business Innovation Development Act of
1982. The SBIR program (http://www.epa.gov/ncer/sbir) supports research
in cutting-edge environmental technologies. EPA issues annual requests
for applications for Phase I and Phase II research proposals from
science- and technology-based firms. Through this phased approach to
SBIR funding, EPA can determine whether the research idea--often on
high-risk advanced concepts--is technically feasible, whether the firm
can conduct high-quality research, and whether sufficient progress has
been made to justify a larger Phase II effort.
Historically, EPA has solicited projects on pollution prevention
through SBIR. In 2004, however, EPA is focusing a significant portion
of the program on pollution prevention and hazardous waste
minimization. Working across EPA program and regional offices, we are
soliciting highly relevant proposals to address pressing environmental
challenges. These solicitations specifically request green chemistry
and engineering innovations for alternatives to high-priority chemicals
and environmental challenges ranging from inherently benign flame-
retardants to lead and mercury alternatives to green building design.
These newly solicited projects will become part of a legacy of
pollution prevention science and technology successful developed under
SBIR (Appendix 3).
Environmental Technology Verification
In October 1995, EPA established the Environmental Technology
Verification (ETV) Program (http://www.epa.gov/etv). The goal of ETV is
to provide credible performance data for commercial-ready environmental
technologies in order to speed their implementation for the benefit of
vendors, purchasers, permitters, and the public. Because the level of
potential environmental risk reduction for a technology is directly
related to its level of performance and effectiveness, EPA verifies the
performance of innovative, private-sector environmental technologies.
It is important to note that private-sector technology developers
produce almost all of the new technologies purchased in the United
States and around the world. ETV offers purchasers and permitters of
environmental technology an independent, objective, and high-quality
source of performance information for informed decision-making.
Processes. EPA's ETV Program develops testing protocols and
verifies the performance of innovative technologies that have the
potential to improve how we protect human health and the environment.
The ETV Program operates as a public/private partnership through
agreements between EPA and private testing and evaluation
organizations. These ETV verification organizations work with EPA
technology experts to create efficient and fully quality-assured
testing procedures that verify the performance of innovative
technologies in air, water, soil, ecosystems, pollution prevention,
waste, and monitoring. All quality assurance plans and protocols are
developed with participation of technical experts, stakeholders, and
vendors and are available prior to testing, peer reviewed by other
experts, and updated after testing, as appropriate.
Results. Since ETV's inception in 1995, more than 200 environmental
technologies have been verified and more than 70 protocols for
technology testing have been developed. A 2001 survey of participating
vendors indicated that 73 percent of the vendors were using ETV
information in product marketing and 92 percent of those surveyed
responded that they would recommend ETV to other vendors. To date, more
than 25 vendors have returned to ETV for additional product
verification.
Environmental Technology Opportunities Portal (ETOP)
The Environmental Technology Opportunities Portal (ETOP)
(www.epa.gov/etop) is a web network designed to promote programs that
foster the development of new, cost-effective environmental
technologies and relay existing EPA environmental technology
information (such as best available technologies for air, water and
waste treatment and control).
ETOP highlights funding opportunities, information, and links to
EPA and other programs that assist in development and commercialization
and others that foster the use and acceptance of innovative
technologies through collaborative recognition and incentive, and
advocacy and information programs. Links are also provided to other
agencies and groups outside EPA that offer environmental technology
information.
ETOP was established as a result of a Congressional mandate through
the FY 2003 House Appropriations Conference Report 108-10, page 1438.
Congress directed EPA to develop a ``one-stop-shop'' office to
coordinate similar programs that foster private and public sector
development of new, cost-effective, environmental technologies. As part
of the requirement to establish the ``one-stop-shop'' office, EPA
established ETOP as an Internet portal page. ETOP was designed to
clearly outline and highlight all of EPA programs as well as others
that foster the development of environmental technologies, giving users
direct access to funding and other incentive programs.
ETOP, while not specifically focused on science and technology for
sustainability, provides a means to search on advances and
opportunities at EPA in the areas of green chemistry and green
engineering. ETOP provides a much needed mechanism to raise awareness
and increase communication between the public and private sectors in
developing and commercializing new technologies that benefit human
health and the environment.
Environmental Technology Council (ETC)
EPA is presently establishing the Environmental Technology Council
with members from all Agency technology programs, offices and regions.
The ETC will enhance the communication and coordination of all EPA
technology activities, especially for priority environmental problems.
This will improve results of core regulatory, enforcement, and
voluntary programs and will facilitate innovative technology solutions
to environmental challenges, particularly challenges with multi-media
or place-based elements. The challenges addressed will be clearly
related to the Agency's strategic plans, advance the Agency's mission
of protecting human health and the environment, and contribute to
moving the Agency to sustainability--the next level of environmental
protection.
Results
A focus on science and technology for sustainability will enable
EPA and the Nation to more cost-effectively attain the ultimate
environmental results of clean air, pure water, and protected land.
Pollution prevention, achieved through the research, development, and
market-adoption of green chemistry and engineering tools and
technologies, is the foundation of such an approach. Green chemistry
and engineering, along with environmentally benign manufacturing and
industrial ecology, enable United States industries to design
environmental benefits into their processes, products, and systems so
that pollution and environmental hazards are avoided. These fields also
enable United States industry to more effectively use benign materials
and resources that are have the potential to benefit national security
as well as the environment. Finally, these fields enable United States
industry to remain economically competitive in the global marketplace
by reducing risks, vulnerabilities, and the potential for accidents.
Future Plans. To better address outcomes and the recommendations of
the Administration's Program Assessment Rating Tool (PART) analysis,
EPA is making a strategic shift in its goals for Pollution Prevention
and New Technologies (P2NT). The shift reflects the growing recognition
that the goals of pollution prevention are the first steps in moving to
the next level of environmental and human health protection. EPA is now
focused on improving practices and approaches through P2NT. We are also
developing a new research program, Science and Technology for Pollution
Prevention and Sustainability (STPPS) that will be both intramural and
extramural.
Intramural Program. Three overarching issues have been established
to guide the direction and measure the progress of the new intramural
STPPS program: identifying and defining sustainable systems;
identifying metrics to measure progress towards sustainability; and
developing methods, technologies, and approaches that can contribute to
sustainability-based policies. This represents a shift to place-based
environmental challenges that can be diffuse and have multi-media
elements.
EPA's green chemistry and engineering research is currently focused
on pollution prevention activities. These scientific and technical
advances will now be quantified in terms of sustainability metrics and
focused on the highest priority environmental challenges for the Agency
and industry. For example, research will be conducted on designing
tradable credits programs for storm-water runoff control and developing
sustainability criteria for critical ecosystem restoration. By
refocusing the modeling and simulation strength of P2NT to a long-term
goal of computational environmental protection, research outcomes will
create simulated ``ecological-economic-social'' systems. Environmental
decision-support tools and methods will deliver results on applying,
calibrating, and validating current life-cycle models and applying them
to sustainable technologies, policies, products and processes. This
will lead to an intramural research program that is not only working
toward EPA's mission and sustainability, but to one that can be
quantified in terms of clear benefits to economic, environmental, and
social systems.
Extramural Research. EPA's extramural research program is also
refocusing its efforts towards sustainability with quantifiable results
in terms of the Agency's mission. Primary research will support
research to use materials and energy more effectively while shifting to
more inherently benign materials and energy sources. The most
significant way to move to inherently benign material and energy flows
is to advance green chemistry and engineering and to demonstrate these
advancements in terms of economic and environmental improvements. It is
important to recognize multiple benefits of an extramural STPPS
research program. Such a program develops underlying scientific and
engineering expertise; stimulates broader adoption of principles and
practices in an academic community such as in chemical sciences and
engineering; and helps to educate the next generation of scientists and
engineers.
EPA recognizes the importance of demonstrating quantifiable,
meaningful outcomes from our intramural and extramural research
programs. The work to date has resulted in significant benefits to
human health and the environment and future directions will build upon
this legacy. By integrating these results into new research activities,
EPA will be in a position to establish that economic and environmental
goals can be achieved simultaneously and sustainably.
Collaborative Networks
EPA consistently uses collaborative networks to advance its mission
of protecting human health and the environment. EPA's focus on science
and technology sustainability also depends on working within EPA,
across the government, and throughout the private sector to bring the
most relevant science to all stakeholders to improve the economy and
the environment for social benefit. These networks include EPA's
program offices and regions, working through the National Science and
Technology Council's Committee on Environment and Natural Resources
(CENR), and collaborating with other Agencies including the Department
of Energy (DOE), National Science Foundation (NSF), and the National
Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST). EPA also reaches out to
state, local, and tribal governments as well as the private sector and
non-governmental organizations (NGOs) on issues of sustainability.
EPA's Program Offices and Regions
EPA's research and development activities are intimately related to
activities in the program offices and regions. While these
relationships exist throughout the Agency and across the Agency's
mission, the following examples will focus on collaborations of EPA's
Office of Research and Development with the EPA's Office of Solid Waste
and Emergency Response and Office of Water as well as the regional
offices that are advancing science and technology for sustainability.
Resource Conservation Challenge, Office of Solid Waste. The
Resource Conservation Challenge (RCC) (www.epa.gov/rcc) is a major
national effort to find flexible, yet more protective ways, to conserve
our valuable resources through waste reduction and energy recovery
activities. The RCC extends across EPA programs and media to include
waste, water, air, toxics, pollution prevention, pesticides, and
compliance, as well as activities in the regions, states, and tribes.
The RCC identifies areas of program focus, or ``challenges'' that are
ready for voluntary partnerships. Each of these challenges works to
resolve national environmental problems by finding environmentally
acceptable solutions that are long-term, preventative, comprehensive,
and sustainable. One of the key areas of the RCC is ``targeted
chemicals.'' EPA has targeted 30 chemicals that are potential
environmental hazards and challenged American industries to cutback on
the use of these agents. As part of the RCC, EPA has pledged to support
projects that help eliminate chemicals from the waste stream. The
Agency's primary focus will be to secure commitments from the highest
volume generators, sectors, and their related industry associations to
reduce these chemicals in products, emissions, and waste. Clearly,
green chemistry and engineering represents a vital area of research in
meeting the RCC's targeted chemical challenge in a long-term,
sustainable manner.
Smart Growth, Office of Water; Office of Policy, Economics, and
Innovation; and Regional Offices. Smart growth (http://www.epa.gov/
livability/) is development that serves the economy, the community, and
the environment. It changes the terms of the development debate from
the traditional growth/no growth question to ``how and where should new
development be accommodated.'' Smart growth answers these questions by
simultaneously achieving healthy communities that provide families with
a clean environment, balancing development and environmental
protection, encouraging economic development and jobs, and promoting
strong neighborhoods and transportation choices. Much research has been
conducted to determine if a more balanced pattern of growth could
benefit the environment. Preliminary results from these studies
indicate that smart growth developments can minimize air and water
pollution, facilitate brownfields cleanup and reuse, and preserve open
space. Research must also be conducted to address how development
patterns are influenced by market forces and by local, state, and
federal policies and initiatives. Smart growth aims to minimize
development's impact on the environment through sound site decisions
and finding a sustainable balance of economic, social and environmental
systems.
Interagency Collaboration
Critical to EPA advancing its mission and the goal of
sustainability is close coordination and interaction with other
government agencies. While EPA has many bilateral agreements with other
agencies, such as the partnership with NSF for the TSE program and the
Department of Energy through a formal Memorandum of Understanding, EPA
also coordinates with other agencies through the Committee on
Environment and Natural Resources (CENR) under the National Science and
Technology Council. The CENR addresses science policy matters and
research efforts that cut across agency boundaries and provide a formal
mechanism for interagency coordination relevant to domestic and
international environmental and natural resources issues. The CENR
recently discussed the addition of an Interagency Working Group on
sustainability, clearly a crosscutting issue that EPA welcomes. The
CENR has been an effective mechanism for working with other agencies
and will serve as an excellent model for the new Interagency Working
Group on Green Chemistry established under this bill. The CENR has
played a role in significantly advancing collaboration with other
agencies, specifically on issues related to sustainability, including
advancing the mutual goals of economic growth and environmental
protection.
State and Local Governments
Strong partnerships between EPA and the states achieve better
environmental results. EPA has always worked with states to plan, set
priorities, and encourage innovation to solve environmental problems.
Most recently, EPA has begun to work with states to determine the most
effective and appropriate ways for EPA to bring sound science to state-
level decision-makers for environmental protection. At the same time,
EPA is working with the Environmental Council of States (ECOS) to
assess the sustainable development programs underway in the states and
determine how states address their scientific needs in the context of
meeting environmental goals. This project entails compiling a
compendium of state sustainability activities, research needs, and
existing means by which states access sound science. The compendium
will include information about flagship sustainability projects in the
states as well as an inventory of legislative, regulatory, and non-
regulatory programs and tools. This represents one way in which EPA is
working with states for improved environmental and human health
protection as well as advancing the goal of sustainability.
Tribes
The American Indian Environmental Office (AIEO) coordinates the
Agency-wide effort to strengthen public health and environmental
protection in Indian Country, with a special emphasis on building
tribal capacity to administer their own environmental programs. AIEO
oversees development and implementation of the Agency's Indian Policy
and strives to ensure that all EPA headquarters and regional offices
implement their parts of the Agency's Indian Program in a manner
consistent with Administration policy. One aspect of this relationship
is the National EPA-Tribal Science Council, commonly referred to as the
Tribal Science Council (TSC). The TSC was created in partnership with
tribal representatives to help integrate Agency and tribal interests,
specifically with respect to environmental science issues. The TSC
provides a forum for tribes and EPA to identify priority environmental
science issues and collaboratively design effective solutions to
environmental concerns. Through this partnership, EPA and Indian
Country are moving towards improved sustainable, comprehensive, long-
term approaches to environmental and human health protection.
Beyond Government
EPA has extensive collaborations and partnerships beyond the
government with non-governmental organizations (NGOs) and industry.
Because these activities are so numerous, they cannot be included here.
While many of the EPA's programs focused on sustainability--including
the Collaborative Network for Sustainability and the P3 Award--
encourage partnerships across a range of stakeholders, there are
several existing examples that demonstrate collaborations specific to
advancing science and technology for sustainability. The examples shown
in Appendix 4 represent current ongoing activities in terms of green
chemistry, green engineering, pollution prevention and sustainability
with the American Chemical Society and other activities with the
private sector through the National Environmental Performance Track.
CONCLUSION
By conducting research, developing green alternatives, implementing
solutions, and measuring results, EPA will achieve its mission more
quickly and more cost-effectively. Green chemistry and engineering are
at the core of science and technology, and represent a critical
component for EPA's move to the next level of environmental protection.
Through science and technology innovations, demonstrated results, and
collaborative networks, EPA continues to bring strong science to
Federal, State, local, and tribal governments as well as the private
sector for catalyzing action in protecting human health and
safeguarding the environment. While we look forward to working with the
Committee to meet the goals of this legislation, the Administration
believes that it is unnecessary to enact this legislation at this time.
Appendix 1
Examples of Results from the EPA/NSF Technology for a Sustainable
Environment (TSE) Grants Program
TSE Grant Example 1: In the first few years of the TSE program,
research focused on environmentally benign solvents. Organic solvents
are often toxic substances with widespread use as intermediates and
final products. The early TSE research focused on identifying
environmentally benign alternatives to toxic solvents such as liquid or
supercritical CO2, water, and ionic liquids. CO2
became the primary focus of TSE research when EPA and NSF received
numerous, high-quality proposals that addressed the key scientific
questions related to the use of CO2 as an alternative
solvent. In 2003, EPA funded a ``State of the Science'' report on the
use of CO2 as a solvent that outlined the scientific
progress and growing commercial interest in CO2. The report
noted that the ``use of CO2 as a solvent is fast becoming
'mature', an achievement due in large part to sustained funding in the
area from EPA and NSF.''
TSE-funded research has resulted in the development of
CO2-based processes as alternatives to organic or
halogenated solvents for cleaning, treating, and coating surfaces. This
work resulted from a 1997 grant awarded to Dr. Joseph DeSimone at the
University of North Carolina-Chapel Hill. His research led to the
development of specialty detergent systems that easily dissolve in
CO2. A small business was then created and funded by EPA
under its Small Business Innovation Research (SBIR) program to advance
this technology as an alternative to traditional dry cleaning.
Implementing this technology in the dry-cleaning sector has resulted in
significant reductions of perchloroethylene (perc) emissions (a
suspected carcinogen) and the associated burdens of environmental
regulations. This technology is now being used in five states and over
100 dry cleaning establishments.
These same technological advances used to develop CO2 as
an alternative solvent led Dr. DeSimone to develop a process to
manufacture polytetrafluoroethylene (Teflon) using CO2. This
process replaced previous processes that used chlorinated chemicals or
millions of gallons of water that needed to be treated before they
entered the public water system.
DuPont, the manufacturer of Teflon, adopted this innovative process
and announced that it would invest $275 million to build and operate a
world-class manufacturing facility in Fayetteville, North Carolina,
using this new technology.
The potential for CO2 as an environmentally preferable
solvent is now being realized in several additional areas, including
separation processes in the food industry, coatings in the automotive
and furniture industries, polymer production and processing, and
cleaning processes for the garment care (dry cleaning) and
microelectronics industries. The cost of ownership associated with the
continued use of organic solvents is no longer a minor issue and
CO2 presents a unique, cost-effective, benign alternative to
utilizing a potential environmental pollutant as a feedstock.
For more information, see (http://cfpub.epa.gov/
ncer-abstracts/index.cfm/fuseaction/display.abstractDetail/
abstract/905/report/0).
TSE Grant Example 2: A critical component of waste minimization in fine
chemicals manufacture is the substitution of classical organic
syntheses using stoichiometric amounts of inorganic reagents with
cleaner, catalytic alternatives. New and improved catalysts will enable
important chemical reactions to be conducted under milder conditions,
with less energy expenditure, in a shorter time, using less reactive
and more environmentally friendly chemicals and solvents. For these
reasons, catalysis is another area of research focus under TSE.
A TSE grant awarded by EPA in 1996 to Dr. Terrence Collins at
Carnegie Mellon University, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, led to the
development of oxidant activators based on iron. These activators
promise extensive environmental benefits including a significant
reduction in chlorinated pollutants. In addition, these alternative
catalysts provide superior technical performance and significant cost
and energy savings across a wide range of oxidation technologies.
Uses for these oxidant activators range from pulp and paper
bleaching to fuel desulfurization to water disinfection, and most
recently, biological or chemical decontamination for homeland security.
In the case of pulp and paper bleaching, these activators proceed
rapidly and efficiently at ambient temperatures with competitive
performance while completely eliminating chlorinated pollutants.
More than 85 percent of recalcitrant sulfur compounds in refined
automotive fuels can be easily removed using these powerful,
environmentally friendly catalysts. Further development of this
technology has the potential to provide an attractive alternative to
existing methods that remove sulfur contaminants from fuels. Sulfur is
associated with human health impacts, contributes to acid rain, and
causes engines to burn less efficiently. This innovative technology
demonstrates immediate environmental benefits by simultaneously
reducing sulfur emissions from fuel combustion and improving fuel
efficiency.
Given the widespread applicability of this technology and its
demonstrated environmental and economic benefits, Dr. Collins is
currently negotiating with several companies to manufacture these
oxidants on a metric-ton scale for widespread use.
For more information, see (https://www.fastlane.nsf.gov/servlet/
showaward?award=9612990).
TSE Grant Example 3: Another area of research concentration in the TSE
program has been the use of renewable, bio-based feedstocks for
chemical production. Use of renewable resources reduces the reliance on
petroleum and has significant long-range strategic benefits for the
U.S. Bio-based feedstocks also do not have environmental impacts
associated with petroleum refining and processing. A ``State of the
Science'' report on the development of this process and the
contribution of TSE research is currently in progress.
A TSE grant awarded by EPA in 1998 to Dr. John Dorgan at Colorado
School of Mines in Golden, Colorado, contributed to the development of
the first family of polymers derived entirely from annually renewable
resources that can compete with traditional fibers and plastic
packaging materials on a cost and performance basis. These polymers are
based on polylactic acid (PLA), a fully biodegradable and completely
recyclable material, which is produced by fermenting and distilling
corn sugar. PLA production also uses internal recycle streams to
eliminate waste, resulting in over 95 percent yields and preventing
pollution at the source.
This technology is the basis for the world's first global-scale
manufacturing facility capable of making commercial-grade plastic
resins from annually renewable resources such as ordinary field corn.
Cargill-Dow opened this facility in November 2001 after a $750 million
investment. The plan now produces more than 300 million pounds of PLA
annually and employs close to 100 people. From the corn plant to the
retail counter, PLA has a lifecycle that reduces fossil fuel
consumption by up to 50 percent. In addition, the process to make PLA
generates 15 to 60 percent less greenhouse gases (GHG) than the
material it replaces. Research also shows that technology advancements
in PLA could allow up to 80 to 100 percent reduction in GHGs. This
unique technology offers a new material alternative that competes on
performance and price, while also reducing impact on the environment.
For more information, see (http://cfpub.epa.gov/
ncer-abstracts/index.cfm/fuseaction/display.abstractDetail/
abstract/967/report/0).
Appendix 2
Intramural Research, Development, and Implementation at EPA
As a result of EPA intramural research, several significant
scientific and technical advances in green chemistry and engineering
have been developed and implemented including:
A novel process reactor, called a ``Spinning Tube-in-
Tube'' or STT Reactor, has been used by EPA research staff to
enhance the effectiveness of new catalysts. The STT Reactor,
developed by Kreido Laboratories, consists of a small cylinder
spinning within a hollow tube at speeds beyond 5500 rpm. This
creates a well-stirred medium for chemical reactions such that
mass transfer limitations can be either minimized or
eliminated. The SST Reactor embodies the idea of process
intensification through its potential for high throughput while
maintaining a small physical footprint. Utilizing a CRADA with
Kreido, EPA obtained an operating STT reactor for in-house
experimentation. Employing the newly created EPA-designed
catalysts, and using identical reaction conditions, researchers
have been able to decrease the reaction time for partial
selective oxidation of cyclohexane from four hours in a
traditional batch reactor to below 25 minutes in the STT
reactor. Currently, additional experiments with the STT Reactor
are being negotiated under CRADAs to allow EPA researchers to
develop other green chemistry applications for chemical
production where significant toxic releases occur.
Over the years, EPA's Green Metal Finishing program
has evolved through close interactions with the regulatory
programs in the offices of Water and Air Quality and Planning
and Standards (OAQPS) in the Office of Air and Radiation. One
project evaluated the use of fume suppressants for emissions
control in hard chrome plating operations, an industry
dominated by small businesses. Using this work, OAQPS revised
their newly promulgated maximum achievable control technology
(MACT) emission standards to include the results of the EPA
demonstration of fume suppressants. The adoption of this
technology resulted in multi-million dollar cost savings to
industry, as well as major improvements in both EPA and
Occupational Safety and Health Administration compliance. EPA
was also involved with the metal finishing industry under the
Common Sense Initiative (CSI) program involving industry,
stakeholder groups, and the Agency's program offices including
Office of Water, OAQPS and Office of Solid Waste. Ultimately,
the CSI's Metal Finishing Committee developed a research agenda
that was jointly implemented by EPA's laboratory and industry
groups. EPA and the American Electroplaters and Surface
Finishers Society jointly sponsor an annual conference to
insure that the results of this research are transferred
between the research office, program offices, and industry.
Researchers in EPA developed a novel process reactor
called a Corona Reactor. This reactor can be effectively and
efficiently used in industrial oxidation processes, such as in
the oxidation of alcohols and hydrocarbons for the production
of value-added products. It can also be applied in advanced air
and water cleaning processes. The Corona Reactor (patent
pending) uses an oxidation protocol that has the advantage of
the high oxidizing power of ozone formed within the reactor, as
well as the photo-oxidation capability of UV light generated
during ozone formation. This research has been conducted in
collaboration with Washington University at St. Louis and a
small business supported by EPA's SBIR program, Ceramatec, of
Salt Lake City, Utah. The cleaning of indoor and airline cabin
air are two potential applications of this. Other applications
include the cleaning and partial and deep oxidation of waste
gas streams from kraft pulp and paper mills. This ongoing study
is being done in collaboration with Miami University and the
Mead Westvaco Pulp and Paper Company of Chillicothe, Ohio.
As a result of EPA intramural research, several significant tools
in science and technology for sustainability have been developed and
implemented including:
Program for Assisting the Replacement of Industrial
Solvents (PARIS II): EPA is working to find cost-effective
alternatives for industrial solvents that raise concerns for
worker health and toxins in the environment. PARIS II is a
software tool created to address this need by identifying pure
chemicals or design mixtures that can serve as alternatives to
more hazardous substances currently in use. The ``greener''
solvents formulated by PARIS II have improved environmental
properties and can perform as well as the solvents they were
designed to replace.
Tool for the Reduction and Assessment of Chemicals
and other environmental Impacts (TRACI): The most effective way
to achieve long-term environmental results is to use a
consistent set of metrics and a coherent decision-making
framework. The EPA developed TRACI, a software package that
characterizes the potential effects of specific chemicals or
processes on ozone depletion and global warming, human health
and the ecosystem. TRACI's modular design allows the most
sophisticated impact assessment methodologies to be compiled.
TRACI can be used in life cycle assessments, to improve design,
set corporate environmental goals, plan a path to meet those
goals, and then measure environmental progress.
Waste Reduction Algorithm (WAR): In traditional
chemical process design, attention is focused primarily on
minimizing cost while the environmental impact of a process is
often overlooked. This could, in many instances, lead to the
production of large quantities of waste materials. It is
possible to reduce the generation of these wastes and their
environmental impact by modifying the design of the process.
EPA recently developed a method to reduce wastes that is based
on a potential environmental impact (PEI) balance for chemical
processes. The PEI is a relative measure of the potential for a
chemical to have an adverse affect on human health and the
environment. The result of the PEI balance is an impact
(pollution) index that provides a measure of the impact of the
waste generated by a process. The goal of this methodology is
to minimize the PEI for a process instead of minimizing the
amount of waste (pollutants) generated by a process. The impact
estimation algorithm is sophisticated and flexible enough to
allow users to emphasize or de-emphasize different hazards as
needed for particular applications. The result is a robust
process design that integrally incorporates environmental
impact reduction. The first version of the WAR Algorithm has
been integrated into the commercial simulator ChemCAD IV under
a Cooperative Research and Development Agreement (CRADA)
between the EPA and Chemstations, Inc. A number of other CRADAs
are being negotiated that involve further development of the
WAR algorithm.
Appendix 3
Success Stories in Pollution Prevention from EPA's Small Business
Innovation Research Program
SBIR Example 1: EnerTech Environmental, Atlanta, Georgia, has
successfully developed an innovative process that chemically converts
municipal sewage sludge, municipal solid waste, and other organic
wastes into a high-energy, liquid fuel that is cleaner to combust than
most fuels. This process eliminates the need to burn or bury organic
wastes and begins to address the environmental burdens associated with
combustion and landfills. Instead it produces E-fuel, a valuable and
cleaner supplement or substitute for conventional fuels such as coal or
oil.
For more information, see (http://cfpub.epa.gov/
ncer-abstracts/index.cfm/fuseaction/display.abstractDetail/
abstract/1517/report/0).
SBIR Example 2: Creare Incorporated, Hanover, New Hampshire, has
designed a novel cutting tool-cooling system (CUTS) that eliminates the
need for cutting fluids by indirectly cooling the cutting tool. Many
companies use these costly and often environmentally problematic
cutting fluids during machining operations. CUTS meets or exceeds
current machining performance, including tool life and final product
quality, when compared to traditional cooling systems that use cutting
fluids. This technology uses a prevention-oriented approach that
alleviates the human and environmental health and safety issues
associated with cutting fluids.
For more information, see (http://cfpub.epa.gov/
ncer-abstracts/index.cfm/fuseaction/display.abstractDetail/
abstract/6098/report/0).
SBIR Example 3: Lynntech, Incorporated, College Station, Texas, is
working to commercialize a fundamentally new, inorganic conversion
coating that is chromium free and will protect aluminum from corrosion.
Potentially toxic chromium conversion coatings are used extensively to
protect aluminum parts for the aerospace, automobile, construction, and
consumer products industries. Lynntech's newly developed protective
coatings meet rigorous corrosion protection standards and also
eliminate chromium exposure in the workplace and the environment.
For more information, see (http://cfpub.epa.gov/
ncer-abstracts/index.cfm/fuseaction/display.abstractDetail/
abstract/1375/report/0).
Appendix 4
Examples of Collaborative Networks with the Private Sector Related to
Green Chemistry, Green Engineering, Pollution Prevention, and
Sustainability
American Chemical Society (ACS): EPA and the ACS have partnered for the
past eight years to host an annual Green Chemistry and Engineering
Conference on issues that include global awareness, innovation,
homeland security, and sustainability. A key objective of these
conferences is to extend and strengthen the community of scientists,
engineers, government officials, and the public in support of green
chemistry. Conferences and symposia provide important opportunities for
peer review, network building, increased awareness, and general
development of a Green Chemistry community.
National Environmental Performance Track: This voluntary partnership
program recognizes and rewards private and public facilities that
demonstrate strong environmental performance beyond current
requirements. The program is based on the premise that government
should complement existing programs with new tools and strategies that
not only protect people and the environment, but also capture
opportunities for reducing costs and spurring technological innovation.
Performance Track encourages participation of small, medium, and large
facilities and its members are located throughout the United States and
Puerto Rico.
All major industries are represented in Performance Track, with
manufacturers of chemical, electronic and electrical, and medical
equipment composing nearly 40 percent of the 344 members. Performance
Track also provides recognition, regulatory flexibility, and other
incentives that promote high levels of environmental performance and
provide a learning network where best practices can be shared. The
program encourages continuous environmental improvement through the use
of environmental management systems. Public outreach, community
involvement, and performance measurement are also important components
of the program. Performance Track works within the business environment
to encourage industry to reduce environmental emissions below regulated
levels through approaches that are cost-effective.
For more information, see http://www.epa.gov/performancetrack.
Biography for Paul Gilman
In April 2002, Dr. Gilman was sworn-in to serve as the Assistant
Administrator for the Office of Research and Development which is the
scientific and technological arm of the Environmental Protection
Agency. In May 2002, he was appointed the Agency Science Advisor. In
this capacity, he will be responsible for working across the Agency to
ensure that the highest quality science is better integrated into the
Agency's programs, policies and decisions.
Before his confirmation, he was Director, Policy Planning for
Celera Genomics in Rockville, Maryland. Celera Genomics, a bio
information and drug discovery company, is known for having decoded the
human genome. In his position Dr. Gilman was responsible for strategic
planning for corporate development and communications.
Prior to joining Celera, Dr. Gilman was the Executive Director of
the life sciences and agriculture divisions of the National Research
Council of the National Academies of Sciences and Engineering. The
National Research Council is the operating arm of the National
Academies which were chartered to provide independent advice to the
government in matters of science and engineering. Dr. Gilman's
divisions focused on risks to health and the environment, protection
and management of biotic resources, and practical applications of
biology including biotechnology and agriculture.
Before joining the National Research Council. Gilman was the
Associate Director of the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for
Natural Resources. Energy, and Science. There he coordinated budget
formulation, regulatory, and legislative activities between agencies
such as the Environmental Protection Agency, National Science
Foundation, Agriculture, and Energy with the Executive Office of the
President.
Dr. Gilman served as Executive Assistant to the Secretary of Energy
for technical matters before joining the OMB. His responsibilities
included participating in policy deliberations and tracking
implementation of a variety of programs including the Department's
environmental remediation and basic science research.
Gilman has 13 years of experience working on the staff of the
United States Senate. He began that time as a Congressional Science
Fellow sponsored by the American Association for the Advancement of
Science in the office of Senator Pete V. Domenici. Later, as the Staff
Director of the Subcommittee on Energy Research and Development, he was
involved in the passage of the Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982 and
oversight of energy technology and environmental research. Later he
served as the chief-of-staff for Senator Domenici.
Dr. Gilman matriculated at Kenyon College in Ohio and received his
A.B., M.A., and Ph.D. degrees in ecology and evolutionary biology from
Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, Maryland.
Chairman Boehlert. Thank you very much.
Dr. Cue.
STATEMENT OF DR. BERKELEY W. CUE, JR., VICE PRESIDENT OF
PHARMACEUTICAL SCIENCES, PFIZER GLOBAL RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT
Dr. Cue. I need to have my first slide, please.
[Slide.]
Good morning, Chairman Boehlert and Members of the House
Science Committee. Thank you for the invitation to be here
today to describe Pfizer's green chemistry program. I will
summarize the written testimony I have already submitted.
First, I will describe Pfizer's green chemistry activities
and, in doing so, indicate how we believe these investments are
paying off. I will also discuss what we believe are the
environmental and human health benefits of pursuing green
chemistry. I will address some important impediments to
pursuing green chemistry solutions, and finally, I will share
with you my views on the Green Chemistry Research and
Development Act of 2004.
First, let me begin by telling you about Pfizer. Pfizer was
founded in 1849 in Brooklyn, New York. Today, we are the
world's leading health care company, with more than 130,000
employees worldwide and over $45 billion in annual sales. We
have over 200 potential drugs in our R&D pipeline, and we spent
over $7 billion in 2003 to discover, develop, register, and
commercialize them.
[Slide.]
Pfizer is committed to a business model that is
sustainable. Our environmental health and safety policy is
based on the International Chamber of Commerce Charter on
Sustainable Development. Sustainable development means meeting
the economic, environmental, and social needs of the present
without compromising the ability of future generations to meet
their own needs.
[Slide.]
In 2002, Pfizer was the first U.S. pharmaceutical company
to sign the U.N. Global Compact, committing us to nine
principles on human rights, labor, and environmental
performance.
[Slide.]
So what is green chemistry? I think several of you have
already defined it the way I do. There are 12 principles that
guide green chemistry, which is shown in this slide.
[Slide.]
Many chemists believe that the environmental gain usually
comes at an economic cost. However, for every green chemistry
principle, there is both an environmental and an economic
benefit. Without a doubt, green chemistry has been a win-win
proposition for Pfizer.
[Slide.]
Roger Sheldon, in 1994, reported that for every kilogram of
drug produced in our industry, between 25 and 100 kilograms of
waste are also produced. For those processes, we have
redesigned--using green chemistry principles, we have been able
to reduce this number to between five and ten kilos of waste, a
five to ten-fold improvement. At typical commercial volumes,
this equates to hundreds of thousands of kilograms of waste
prevented each year for each product. This is a double economic
benefit. We are not purchasing unnecessary raw materials or
incurring the costs associated with treating and disposing this
waste. Moreover, reducing the environmental profile of our
processes removes potential health hazards from our
environment.
[Slide.]
In 2002, Pfizer was awarded a U.S. EPA Presidential Green
Chemistry Challenge Award for our improvements in the
manufacturing process of sertraline with the following results:
our manufacturing yield doubled, the benign solvent ethanol was
now used for three of our conversions, almost 600 metric tons
per year of solid waste and 250 metric tons per year of aqueous
waste were eliminated. And as you can see in the lower left-
hand corner of the slide, the number and volume of organic
solvents were dramatically reduced.
[Slide.]
We achieved similar results for our manufacturing process
improvements for sildenafil citrate, the active ingredient in
Viagra, and received a Crystal Faraday Award in the United
Kingdom last year.
Going forward, all Pfizer major drug product manufacturing
processes are being evaluated for green chemistry improvements.
Like any R&D activity, not all efforts will be successful, but
when we are, the economic and environmental savings should be
dramatic.
[Slide.]
Now let me address a couple of impediments. Today, there
are very few students graduating with chemistry majors who are
trained in, or even exposed to, green chemistry. So we are now
educating our scientists about these principles. And to
encourage this, teams with the best ideas are awarded an annual
trophy, management recognition, and a cash prize to be donated
to a college or a university of their choice to encourage green
chemistry education.
[Slide.]
We are also reaching out to academic institutions near our
R&D sites by hosting annual symposia where students are exposed
to green chemistry with real-life case studies. They leave with
a better understanding of how green chemistry is practiced in
our industry.
One question that has repeatedly surfaced in green
chemistry discussions is whether consumers will pay extra for
environmentally benign products. The general consensus is they
will not. As to the questions for this specific legislation,
our experience teaches that an integrated approach to green
chemistry at Pfizer that coordinates all of our efforts is a
more effective way to a green chemistry strategy.
By analogy, this proposed legislation establishes a green
chemistry R&D program to promote and coordinate federal green
chemistry research, development, demonstration, education,
technology transfer, and commercial application activities.
These are all critical components of Pfizer's successful green
chemistry program. The availability of merit-reviewed,
competitive grants to support academic programs and promote
education and training of undergraduate and graduate students
in green chemistry should help to address the issue of lack of
adequate green chemistry programs. And the charge of the
Federal Government to create incentives for the use of green
chemistry products and processes will help to address the issue
of preferred treatment to--of companies who practice green
chemistry.
[Slide.]
In closing, I would like to thank the Committee for your
attention. I believe green chemistry has the potential to
produce the greatest change in the way synthetic chemistry is
practiced in at least the last quarter century. It is already
redefining how chemistry is thought about and practiced at
every stage of R&D and commercial manufacture at Pfizer.
Thank you, again, for the opportunity to appear before this
committee and to discuss Pfizer's green chemistry initiatives
and the proposed legislation.
[The prepared statement of Dr. Cue follows:]
Prepared Statement of Berkeley W. Cue, Jr.
Good morning Chairman Boehlert and Members of the House Science
Committee. I want to take this opportunity to thank you for the
invitation to be here today to describe Pfizer's efforts around green
chemistry and to help you understand why we believe green chemistry is
a critical ingredient in our company's approach to corporate
citizenship and in developing more efficient research processes.
Over the next few minutes I will do my best to address three
topics. First, I will describe Pfizer's green chemistry activities and,
in doing so, indicate how we believe these investments are paying off.
Also, I will state as clearly as I can what we believe are the
environmental and human health benefits of pursuing green chemistry.
I will address some important impediments to pursuing green
chemistry solutions and provide some context to help the Members of
this committee understand which areas could possibly benefit from more
federal involvement in green chemistry.
Finally, I will share with you my views on the Green Chemistry
Research and Development Act of 2004.
First, let me begin by telling you about Pfizer. Pfizer was founded
in 1849 in Brooklyn New York. The majority of the penicillin that went
ashore with the Allied forces on D-day was made by Pfizer using a novel
deep vat fermentation process. Today, we are the world's leading health
care company, with more than 130,000 employees worldwide, over $45
billion in annual sales reported for 2003, more drugs rated number one
in their therapeutic class in sales volume than any other company, we
have over 200 potential products in our R&D pipeline and we spent over
$7 Billion in 2003 to discover, develop, register, and commercialize
these products. In addition to prescription human health care we have a
large consumer health, or over-the-counter drug business and are ranked
first in animal health care as well. I work in Pfizer Global R&D in the
Groton, Connecticut Laboratories. There I lead the departments that are
responsible for the design and optimization of the manufacturing
processes for our active drug (API) and dosage forms such as tablets,
capsules, and injectable formulations. I also lead the company's green
chemistry efforts, working with colleagues around the world.
When a company achieves this sustained level of success we are
expected to provide leadership. Pfizer is committed to a business model
that is sustainable. Our environmental, health and safety or EH&S
policy is based on the International Chamber of Commerce Charter on
Sustainable Development. The Brundtland Commission's report in ``Our
Common Future'' in 1987 states that sustainable development meets the
economic, environmental and social needs of the present without
compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs.
In 2002 Pfizer was the first pharmaceutical company to sign the
U.N. Global Compact, committing us to nine principles on human rights,
labor and environmental performance.
Our purpose statement is to dedicate ourselves to humanity's quest
for healthier, happier lives through innovation and our mission is to
become the world's most valued company to patients, customers,
colleagues, investors, business partners and the communities where we
live and work. Green Chemistry helps make all of this achievable.
So what is Green Chemistry? The best articulation I've found is the
one proposed by Paul Anastas from the White House Office of Science and
Technology Policy (OSTP) and John Warner, Director of the Center for
Green Chemistry at the University of Massachusetts-Boston and a Pfizer
consultant for green chemistry. ``Green Chemistry is the utilization of
a set of principles that reduces or eliminates the use or generation of
hazardous substances in the design, manufacture and application of
chemical products.''
The Twelve Principles of Green Chemistry
1. Prevention: It is better to prevent waste than to treat or
clean up waste after it has formed.
2. Atom economy: Synthetic methods should be designed to
maximize the incorporation of all materials used in the process
into the final product.
3. Less Hazardous Chemical Synthesis: Wherever practicable,
synthetic methodologies should be designed to use and generate
substances that possess little or no toxicity to human health
and the environment.
4. Design Safer Chemicals: Chemical products should be
designed to preserve efficacy of function while reducing
toxicity.
5. Safety Solvents and Auxiliaries: The use of auxiliary
substances (e.g., solvents, separation agents, etc.) should be
made unnecessary wherever possible and, innocuous when used.
6. Design for Energy Efficiency: Energy requirements should
be recognized for their environmental and economic impacts and
should be minimized. Synthetic methods should be conducted at
ambient temperature and pressure.
7. Use Renewable Feedstocks: A raw material of feedstock
should be renewable rather than depleting wherever technically
and economically practicable.
8. Reduce Derivatives: Unnecessary derivatization (blocking
group, protection/deprotection, temporary modification of
physical/chemical processes) should be avoided wherever
possible.
9. Catalysis: Catalytic reagents (as selective as possible)
are superior to stoichiometric reagents.
10. Design for Degradation: Chemical products should be
designed so that at the end of their function they do not
persist in the environment and break down into innocuous
degradation products. For the Pharmaceutical Industry this
principle is especially challenging since we are required to
demonstrate our drug to be stable in the dosage form for the
shelf life of the product.
11. Real-Time Analysis for Pollution Prevention: Analytical
methodologies need to be further developed to allow for real-
time, in-process monitoring and control prior to the formation
of hazardous substances.
12. Inherently Safer Chemistry for Accident Prevention:
Substances and the form of a substance used in a chemical
process should be chosen so as to minimize the potential for
chemical accidents, including releases, explosions, and fires.
Now I will address some of the benefits we have achieved by
practicing green chemistry. The general perception among chemists who
are not savvy about green chemistry is that the environmental gain
usually comes at an economic cost. In this slide we demonstrate that
for every principle there is both an environmental and an economic
benefit. Thus, green chemistry supports our corporate citizenship to
both environmental and economic performance. Without a doubt, it has
been a win-win proposition for Pfizer.
Pfizer has been practicing the principles of process development
and optimization for a long time. When we became aware of green
chemistry in the late 1990's it seemed to us that this approach offered
several benefits. We found a strong level of alignment between our
traditional approach to chemical synthesis and process optimization
with many of the principles, as well as a new way of thinking about
chemical at all scales--from milligram quantities in the laboratory to
tens of thousands of kilograms produced commercially.
An analysis of the performance of the pharmaceutical industry in
terms of process efficiency published by Roger Sheldon in 1994
determined that for every kilogram of drug produces between 25 and 100
kilograms of waste are produced. For those processes where we have
applied green chemistry principles we have been able to reduce this
number to between 5-10 kilos of waste per kilo of product. A 5- to 10-
fold improvement! At commercial product volumes this equates to
hundreds of thousands of kilos of waste prevented each year for each
product where we have succeeded in finding a greener chemistry
alternative. There is a double economic benefit here-we are not
purchasing raw materials that are lost to unwanted byproducts and we do
not incur the expense costs associated with treating and disposing of
this waste.
There may be some who believe zero waste is achievable. My view is
that in preparation of complex organic molecules the production of by
products is unavoidable. The goal of our chemists is to make this
number as small as is technically feasible.
In 2002 Pfizer was awarded a U.S. EPA Presidential Green Chemistry
Challenge Award for our improvements in the manufacturing process of
sertraline hydrochloride, the active ingredient in our anti depression
product Zoloft. Please note in the lower left corner of the slide, the
substantial reduction in overall solvent usage as well as the complete
elimination of the use of methylene chloride, a highly hazardous
substance.
Green Chemistry objectives were emphasized in the redesign of the
sertraline process, resulting in quality chemical transformations with
dramatic environmental and worker safety improvements. Manufacturing
yield has essentially doubled. The benign solvent ethanol, obtainable
from biomass, is now used for three synthetic conversions. The
hazardous dehydrating reagent titanium tetrachloride was eliminated. A
more selective catalyst now drives more complete conversion of the
starting materials to racemic sertraline. In-situ resolution of the
diastereomeric salts, through highly selective crystallization, is now
used to produce pure S,S-sertraline. Overall, two intermediate
isolations and a salt conversion step were eliminated.
The environmental and safety improvements are dramatic. Use of
approximately 140 metric tons/year of titanium tetrachloride and the
generation of 440 metric tons/year of problematic solid titanium
dioxide wastes were eliminated. Approximately 150 metric tons/year of
35 percent HCl were eliminated. Neutralization of the highly acidic
step 2, requiring approximately 100 metric tons/year of 50 percent
NaOH, was eliminated. Consequently, high-salt waste streams are no
longer produced. Dehydration additives and aqueous washes were
eliminated, and the number and volume of solvents used were
dramatically reduced. The efficiency of raw material, water, and energy
use were dramatically improved.
The EPA is to be commended for sponsoring this award, not because
we received it in 2002, but because it is contributing to raising the
visibility of green chemistry and contributing to a cleaner, safer
environment.
This slide demonstrates that, following green chemistry principles,
similar dramatic improvements have been achieved for the manufacture of
sildenafil citrate, the active ingredient in Viagra, our drug for
treating erectile dysfunction. This improvement was recognized with a
2003 Crystal Faraday Award, presented by the Institute of Chemical
Engineering in the United Kingdom. The efficiency factor for this
process is below 10, down from a typical 25 or greater for
pharmaceutical manufacturing processes developed in the absence of
green chemistry considerations.
This year we have submitted three applications for U.S. EPA
Presidential Green Chemistry Challenge Awards for improvements in the
manufacturing processes to celecoxib, the active ingredient in our anti
arthritis agent Celebrex, for quinapril hydrochloride, the API in
Accupril for treating high blood pressure and for sildenafil citrate,
which I already described. Going forward all, major drug product
manufacturing processes are being evaluated for green chemistry
improvement potential. Like any R&D activity, not all efforts will be
successful, but when we are the economic and environmental savings can
be dramatic.
There are other benefits as well. Our leadership in green chemistry
has improved our ability to attract and retain the best synthetic
chemists in the marketplace. Today's graduating students are more
environmentally conscious. They asked tough questions and we have good
answers. Our green chemistry program allows us to communicate with
external stakeholders about our commitment to corporate citizenship and
sustainability. Last year we maintained our position in the
pharmaceutical sector Dow Jones Sustainability Index, which enhances
our shareholder value, in part because of our leadership in green
chemistry.
Let me now address the question of impediments-focusing on three
that are important to our industry.
1. Academic training: Today, there are very few students graduating
with chemistry majors who are trained in or even exposed to green
chemistry. In the slide shown now we are investing a huge amount of
energy to educate our scientists about the green chemistry principles
and how they apply to our daily R&D efforts. We would be in a much
better place if the chemists who joined our company were practicing
green chemistry on the first day of work. In addition to active
education we sponsor R&D site based awards to encourage green
chemistry. In addition to a trophy and public recognition the
recipients are awarded a cash prize, with the stipulation that they
donate it to a college or university of their choice to encourage green
chemistry education. The legislation you are considering today should
help support more focus on green chemistry education at the college and
university levels. There are a few schools that do this very well
today: U. Mass.-Boston, Carnegie Mellon, University of Alabama,
Washington State University, to mention some of them. More are needed.
To address this issue Pfizer has begun a program of reaching out to
universities near our R&D sites to host symposia where students are
exposed to green chemistry in real life case studies. They leave with a
better understanding of how chemistry is practiced in the
pharmaceutical industry and how green chemistry contributes to R&D
success.
Another potential barrier to companies in our industry pursuing
green chemistry solutions is the need to pay strict attention to the
purity profile of the drugs we produce. By definition, an active
pharmaceutical ingredient (API) is the active chemical and its normal
process related substances (PRS's). This profile is established as part
of the R&D process and is ``qualified'' as part of our preclinical
animal safety studies and human clinical development experience. This
profile is described in our regulatory submissions (New Drug
Application in the U.S.) and establishes the ranges for our product
quality specifications. Changes in the manufacturing processes can
create new process-related substances, easily detectable using modern
analytical tools. Presence of these new PRS's at higher than allowed
levels could necessitate redoing significant portions of development
work, a time-consuming expensive and risky proposition. Every company
has instances where processes which produce higher yields of cleaner
product with a much better environmental profile, but were not pursued
further because of this barrier. Obviously, using green chemistry
earlier will lessen, but not remove this risk. In this case the goal of
the FDA and the EPA may not always be mutually compatible. It is very
important that we retain the flexibility to make business decisions
that weigh and balance business risks with potential benefits.
One issue that has repeatedly surfaced in green chemistry
discussions is whether consumers will pay for environmentally benign
products. The consensus is that they will not.
Executive Order 13101 was signed in September 1998. In section 102,
it states, ``consistent with policies established by the Office of
Federal Procurement Policy (OFPP) agencies will comply with executive
branch policies for the acquisition and use of environmentally
preferable products and services and implement cost-effective
procurement preference programs favoring the purchase of these products
and services.
We believe that companies that produce products derived from
manufacturing processes consistent with green chemistry principles
should qualify for consideration under this Executive Order.
As to the question of this specific legislation our experience
teaches that an integrated approach to green chemistry at Pfizer that
coordinates the efforts of R&D, Manufacturing and EH&S is a more
effective way to create an effective green chemistry strategy. Prior to
this we had a series of unconnected tactics, with no guarantee that we
were gaining maximum benefit or that we were not seeing unnecessary
duplication of effort.
The proposed legislation establishes a Green Chemistry R&D Program
to promote and coordinate federal green chemistry research,
development, demonstration, education, technology transfer and
commercial application activities. These are all critical components of
Pfizer's successful green chemistry initiative. The availability of
merit-reviewed competitive grants to support academic programs and to
promote education and training of undergraduate and graduate students
in green chemistry should help address the issue of lack of adequate
green chemistry programs in academic institutions. The charge to the
Federal Government to create incentives for use of green chemistry
products and processes should help to address the issue I raised with
respect to Executive Order 13101. Of specific interest to the
Pharmaceutical industry would be the working relationship between this
inter-agency group and reviewing chemists at the Food and Drug
Administration. We believe that the levels of appropriation are
appropriate for the initiation and sustaining of this program over the
2005-2007 timeframe.
In closing I would like to thank the Committee for your attention.
Green chemistry has the potential to produce the greatest change in the
way synthetic chemistry is practiced in the last quarter century. It is
already redefining how chemistry is thought about and practiced at
every stage of R&D and commercial manufacture at Pfizer.
My crystal ball is no better at discerning the future than
anyone's, but my prediction is that at some time in the future a Nobel
Prize in Chemistry will be awarded to a green chemist. Our CEO, Dr.
Hank McKinnell is fond of telling Pfizer employees, ``the patient is
waiting.'' In this context, it is clear that our environment is waiting
too.
Thank you again for the opportunity to appear before you today and
discuss Pfizer's Green Chemistry initiatives and the proposed
legislation.
Biography for Berkeley W. Cue, Jr.
At Pfizer Dr. Cue is responsible for the departments (Analytical
R&D, BioProcess R&D, Chemical R&D, Pharmaceutical R&D, Regulatory CMC
and Pharmaceutical Sciences Business Operations) that comprise
Pharmaceutical Sciences. He was a member of the Worldwide
Pharmaceutical Sciences Executive Team, and the Groton Laboratories
Leadership Team. He also leads Pfizer's Green Chemistry Initiative and
has spoken extensively on this topic since 2000. Dr. Cue started in
Pfizer in 1975 in the Animal Health Organic Chemistry Department. He
transferred to the Process R&D Department of Developmental Research in
1979. Became head of the PR&D Department in 1988 assumed responsibility
for Analytical and BioProcess R&D as well in 1993 and US Developmental
Research in 1998. Chaired the CVMD EDMT (1998-1999) and co-chaired the
division's Performance Management Task Force (1992-1993). He received a
BA from the University of Massachusetts-Boston (1969), his Ph.D.
(Organic Chemistry) from the University of Alabama (1974), and
completed Postdoctoral Research at the Ohio State University (1974),
National Cancer Institute Research Fellow, University of Minnesota
(1975). In 2000 he was appointed to the Science Advisory Board at the
University of Massachusetts-Boston. In 2003 he was elected to the Green
Chemistry Institute Board of Directors. Dr. Cue will retire from Pfizer
in 2004 after almost 29 years. He intends to remain active in Green
Chemistry through his affiliations with the Green Chemistry Institute
and the University of Massachusetts-Boston.
Chairman Boehlert. Thank you, Dr. Cue. Pfizer has a good
story to tell in its responsible approach to this subject, and
I appreciate your telling it exceptionally well.
For the purpose of introduction, I recognize the author of
the bill and a leading voice in the Congress, Dr. Gingrey.
Mr. Gingrey. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I am very pleased to--actually to reintroduce Mr. Steve
Bradfield from Shaw Industries in Georgia. And Steve, I
understand your son is with you today, is that correct? Can he
raise his hand? His name is----
Mr. Bradfield. Drew.
Mr. Gingrey.--Drew. We welcome you, too, Drew.
Steve has been with Shaw Industries since 1991 and
currently serves as Vice-President of Environment Development.
And I am proud to have Shaw Industries in my home state,
Whitfield County, Dalton, Georgia. It is not quite in my 11th
Congressional District, but I am still working on that. Shaw
won a 2003 Presidential Green Chemistry Challenge Award for the
development of EcoWorxTM, carpet tile that is made from low-
toxicity feedstocks and is recyclable. Steve conceived and led
that effort and continues to push Shaw's model cradle-to-cradle
environmental statement throughout Shaw Industries. And I look
forward to hearing from his expertise and experience on green
chemistry.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Boehlert. Thank you, Dr. Gingrey. That is a great
introduction. And I am glad, Mr. Bradfield, that you brought
Drew with you, because that is the very corner in our society
that we are really anxious to get excited about this. So I am
glad to hear him listening with wrapped attention to our
witnesses.
Mr. Bradfield.
STATEMENT OF MR. STEVEN BRADFIELD, VICE PRESIDENT OF
ENVIRONMENTAL DEVELOPMENT, SHAW INDUSTRIES, INC.
Mr. Bradfield. I would like to think, Mr. Chairman, that he
is just enthralled by this, but I think the prospect of getting
out of school for a couple of days was what swung him my way.
Congressman Gingrey, Mr. Chairman, and Committee Members,
it is an honor to be invited to share my comments with you
today on the Green Chemistry Research and Development Act of
2004. I am here more on the capacity of representing the
industry today, quite frankly. I would like to make comments on
the behalf of the Carpet and Rug Institute, and the many carpet
members who are making such important strides, as well as Shaw,
in this area. I have been asked to speak and communicate the
outstanding efforts and collective comments of the industry in
the area of green chemistry and sustainability.
Good carpets begin with good chemistry. Over the years, our
industry has consistently made changes to promote human and
environmental health and safety. We did this before green
chemistry and sustainability became watchwords for a very
simple reason: it increased the desirability of carpet in the
eyes of our customers and provided--and improved our
profitability. Customer demand and profitability are the most
enduring drivers of green chemistry and sustainability, without
a doubt.
Green chemistry has long been valued by the industry. Since
1992, the CRI has administered a voluntary indoor air quality
program, known as Green Label Certification. It is a
cooperative effort between the carpet industry and its
suppliers to eliminate and reduce chemicals of concern to
levels that are far below the volatile organic compound
emission rates of other interior building finishes. No other
building material industry has committed this level of
resources or achieved as much progress in indoor air quality
improvement.
With this experience in mind, we urge the Interagency
Working Group to work closely with industry to set ambitious
and realistic goals for ongoing green chemistry programs. It is
often easy to lose sight of the value vested in the
``willing,'' those who take up the challenge to develop
materials that extend the reach of green chemistry, while the
``unwilling'' remain anonymous and untouched by the effort to
create a sustainable environment for our children. We are not
suggesting penalties for the faint of heart. We believe that
rewarding those that commercialize green chemistry developments
with research and development grants, tax incentives, and
preferential federal purchasing programs will drive the desired
advances in green chemistry, in addition to the bill before
you.
To those of us in the manufacturing sector, green chemistry
implies developments that are robust, that are additive to the
value we bring to our markets, and are highly implementable. We
believe green chemistry should be defined to include materials
and process development. It should include pollution prevention
that moves us to the paradigm of becoming ``less bad'' in the
near term, but should look forward to the longer term
development of ``closed-loop'' systems that can help us
eliminate the very concept of waste.
The carpet industry believes that green chemistry will
proceed along two major pathways: nature's organic path, and
man's synthetic/technical path. Both are valid and offer a
variety of promising discoveries and inventions. Bio-chemicals
and biopolymers offer exciting possibilities for agriculture
and industry. Meanwhile, our continued reliance on oil-based
materials assures that the resulting waste will be available as
recyclable feedstock for synthetic closed-loop processes.
Our industry has many commercialized examples of green
chemistry at work. On the fiber side, Mohawk Industries and
Beaulieu of America are taking post-consumer polyester drink
bottles, which we have before you today, processing them into
flake, and then re-melting and extruding the material into
polyester carpet fiber, ready for spinning, dying, and tufting
into residential carpet. Honeywell has developed a technology
to recover the caprolactum monomer building block of nylon 6
from post-consumer carpet. Invista collects post-consumer
carpet and sends the dyed nylon into recycled uses, such as
extrusion molded under hood car parts and geotextiles. Dow
Cargill has developed a bio-based fiber, called polylactic
acid, from corn. It is now being evaluated for residential
carpet.
We believe that industry has a valid role in helping to
define a practical research and development agenda. We
respectfully suggest that the Interagency Working Group
undertake a survey of current environmental programs within the
Federal Government to bring them up to date with the broad
range of sustainability characteristics that will be impacted
by green chemistry developments. These impacts are being
defined and clarified through the use of life cycle analysis.
Reliance on single environmental metrics, like recycled
content, may actually result in a disincentive to green
chemistry development in many circumstances. First generation
polymers usually can not contain significant recycled content
until a value recovery system returns them to second-generation
manufacturing.
New materials and processes are beginning to take root in
our industry. Many carpet companies are recognizing that
traditional thermoset materials can be replaced by
thermoplastics, facilitating the recovery, re-melting, and re-
extrusion of tried and true materials, like vinyl. Collins &
Aikman and Interface have developed systems for returning vinyl
carpet tile backing to their backing processes. And as has been
mentioned, Shaw was recognized for the 2003 Presidential Green
Chemistry Award for developing a thermoplastic polyolefin
carpet backing. The CRI Annual Sustainability Report includes
many other industry developments and practices that reduce the
environmental footprint of carpet through green chemistry.
The Carpet America Recovery Effort, which is a nonprofit
effort, including the carpet industry, the Federal EPA, state
governments, and NGOs with the goal of diverting 40 percent of
landfill waste by 2012, a very ambitious goal. Imagine a future
when no carpet goes to a landfill but is separated into its
constituent parts at the end of its useful life to be
sustainably recycled over and over again. This is happening
today with some carpet types, but not enough as yet is being
diverted to significantly reduce the 4.5 billion pounds of
carpet that reaches our landfills today. Green chemistry can
help develop beneficial uses for these materials.
Perhaps the most compelling reason to support green
chemistry and the growth of sustainable materials and processes
in carpet is jobs. Annual carpet production and consumption in
the U.S. of $12 billion is equal to the rest of the world
carpet production and consumption combined. Carpet jobs will
stay in the U.S. if we can develop ways to keep post-consumer
carpet material in sustainable closed-loop recycling systems
that reduce the need for virgin raw materials and lower the
energy embodied in successive generations of carpet. Why would
any U.S. company choose to manufacture overseas if their
valuable raw materials are being collected and recycled at
lower cost, with no sacrifice of performance from American
homes and businesses in close proximity to the means of
production?
The economic benefits of green chemistry are quantifiable
in each of the examples given herein. As an industry, green
chemistry has helped to reduce the water required for dying a
square yard of carpet from 14.9 gallons in 1995 to 8.9 gallons
in 2002. The energy requirement for thermal fuels used to make
a square yard of carpet have fallen from 14.5 million BTUs in
'95 to 10.3 million BTUs in 2002. Today, the carpet industry
has the same level of CO2 emissions it reported in
1990, yet it produces 47 percent more carpet.
Shaw's experience with green chemistry is representative of
the developments that are ongoing in the industry. By way of
illustration, Shaw's polyolefin carpet tile backing has fueled
an average growth rate in Shaw carpet tile of almost 15 percent
per year over the last four years. This growth provides 440
jobs in our Cartersville, Georgia carpet tile facility and
generates over $100 million annually in revenue. It has reduced
packaging costs by 70 percent, shipping costs by 20 percent,
and resulted in over $100,000 in annual post-industrial scrap
recovery. The recovery of the post-consumer carpet tile will
result in even more savings in the second generation.
I brought some materials that have contributed to the
success of this program, and with your indulgence, I am running
a little later than most, but I would encourage you to take a
look at these as you can. What I have for you here is basically
recycled content nylon and metalacene catalyzed polyolefin. And
gentlemen, these things will be very difficult to see from
afar, but if you would like for someone to bring them up for
you, I would be glad to do that. In addition----
Chairman Boehlert. Perhaps your associate, Mr. Bradfield,
Drew Bradfield, could bring them up, and we could pass them
around?
Mr. Bradfield. Drew would be more than happy to. We seem to
have somebody who is coming up now. I can't get him to do
anything at home, either, by the way.
Fully oxidized fly ash is one of the components that
replaces virgin limestone, which is mined from the Earth. Post-
consumer polyethylene from plastic bag waste, the post--and the
post-consumer carpet tile processed into two raw material
streams, the nylon stream to be depolymerized by nylon and
returned to nylon production, and a polyolefin backing stream
to be returned to backing extrusion. The point here is that
what you have in your hands moving around is the entire carpet
tile. None of these materials need ever reach a landfill if
consumers will take advantage of the value recovery system at
the other end of the toll-free number imprinted on the back of
every carpet tile we ship.
Other manufacturers share similar economic stories that are
just as compelling. I have brought some other materials here.
This is post-consumer polyester bottle flake.
Chairman Boehlert. Appropriately green.
Mr. Bradfield. Appropriately green today, so I don't get
pinched. This clear version of this material, which would be
from the bottle that we have here in front of us, can be used,
as I said, to make polyester fiber for carpet. This green
material has been problematic over the years, because there has
not been a use. However, we have been able to spin this into
fiber and make it into a carpet padding, which can be attached
to the back of a carpet in today's market.
In conclusion, the carpet industry supports the adoption of
the Green Chemistry Research and Development Act of 2004 with
the suggestions that Congress encourage a cooperative effort
among government, academia, and business, that Congress seek
additional incentives to reward companies, large and small,
that commercialize green chemistry developments, that obstacles
to the green chemistry process be removed from current federal
environmental programs, and that adoption of green chemistry in
the broader context of sustainable product development should
become a primary instrument of pollution prevention policy.
These goals are worthy of our collective investment of time,
treasure, and talent. Distinguished Committee Members, I
brought my 17-year-old son, Drew, with me here today from
Dalton to let him know that it is his future, and his world,
that will benefit from our efforts. I hope someday he may sit
where you are, or where I am, with your sons and daughters to
push green chemistry to greater levels of success than we can
imagine here today.
Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Bradfield follows:]
Prepared Statement of Steve Bradfield
Mr. Chairman and Committee Members, it is an honor to be invited to
share my comments with you today on the Green Chemistry Research and
Development Act of 2004. I represent the fiber, carpet, and rug
manufacturer members of the Carpet & Rug Institute, headquartered in
Dalton, GA, as Chairman of Sustainability Issues. I have asked to speak
in this capacity to communicate the outstanding efforts, and collective
comments, of our industry members is the area of green chemistry and
sustainability.
The carpet industry is one of the last bastions of US textile
manufacturing. Our industry has maintained its long-standing
relationships with the communities where we've lived and worked for
four generations, and we intend to keep doing so. We've largely
accomplished this through the development of material and process
technologies that have resulted in continuous improvements in the value
of soft floor covering. Technology development is the lifeblood of our
industry.
Good carpets begin with good chemistry. Over the years our industry
has consistently made changes that promote human and environmental
health and safety. We did this before green chemistry and
sustainability became watchwords for a very simple reason--it increased
the desirability if carpet in the eyes of our customers and improved
profitability. Customer demand and profitability are the most enduring
drivers of green chemistry and sustainability.
While it can be argued that many environmental improvements date
from 1985 with the advent of Toxic Release Index reporting, far more
improvements have been driven by market forces. The permanence and
efficiency of positive change driven by a free market cannot be
underestimated. No regulations could have moved our industry so far and
so fast in the direction of sustainable development.
Green chemistry has long been valued by our industry. Since 1991
the CRI has administered a voluntary indoor air quality program know as
Green Label Certification. It is a cooperative effort between the
carpet industry and its suppliers to eliminate and reduce chemicals of
concern to levels that are far below the volatile organic compound
emission rates of other interior building finishes. No other building
material industry has committed this level of resources or achieved as
much progress in indoor air quality improvement.
We've raised the bar in the Green label Program three times since
1991 and will soon raise it yet again to meet our pledge of continuous
improvement and leadership on this green chemistry issue. But as with
any voluntary program, these improvements are never fast enough or far
enough to satisfy all stakeholders. We strongly urge the Interagency
Working Group to work closely with industry to set ambitious and
realistic goals for ongoing green chemistry programs.
It is often easy to lose sight of the value vested in the
``willing,'' those who take up the challenge to develop materials that
extend the reach of green chemistry, while the ``unwilling'' remain
anonymous and untouched by the effort to create a sustainable
environment for our children. We are not suggesting penalties for the
faint of heart. We believe that rewarding those that commercialize
green chemistry developments with research and development grants, tax
incentives, and preferential federal purchasing programs will drive the
desired advances in green chemistry.
We also encourage this committee to acknowledge the broad range of
activities encompassed by green chemistry. To those of us in the
manufacturing sector green chemistry implies developments that are
robust, additive to the value we bring to our markets, and highly
implementable. We believe green chemistry should be defined to include
materials and process development. It should include pollution
prevention in the classic sense of moving us toward the paradigm of
becoming ``less bad'' in the near-term, but should also look forward to
the longer-term development of ``closed-loop'' systems that move us
into the ``environmentally good'' paradigms that allow us to mimic
Mother Nature. Green Chemistry can help us to eliminate the very
concept of waste.
The carpet industry believes that green chemistry will proceed
along two major pathways--nature's organic path, and man's synthetic/
technical path. Both are valid and offer a variety of promising
discoveries and inventions. Bio-chemicals and biopolymers offer
exciting possibilities for agriculture and industry. Meanwhile, our
continued reliance on oil-based materials assures that the resulting
waste will be available as recyclable feedstock for synthetic closed-
loop processes.
Our industry has many commercialized examples of green chemistry at
work. On the fiber side Mohawk Industries and Beaulieu of America are
taking post-consumer polyester drink bottles, processing them into
flake, and remelting and extruding the material into polyester carpet
fiber ready for spinning, dyeing, and tufting into residential carpet.
Honeywell has developed a technology to recover the caprolactam monomer
building block of nylon 6 from post-consumer carpet. Invista collects
post consumer carpet and sends the dyed nylon into recycled uses such
as extrusion molded under hood auto parts and geotextiles. Cargill Dow
has developed a bio-based fiber called polylactic acid from corn that
is now being evaluated in residential carpet
While universities, laboratories, and other basic research paths
are a precursor to many of the applications of green chemistry that
will find their way into our facilities, basic research alone will not
change the way we manufacture and consume products. How will the
research and development dollars granted by the agencies specified in
the House Bill find their way into real solutions to real problems that
face all Americans? How will priorities be established? We believe
industry should have a voice in defining the research and development
agenda.
We respectfully suggest that the Interagency Working Group
undertake a survey of current environmental programs within the Federal
Government to bring them up to date with the broad range of
sustainability characteristics that will be impacted by green chemistry
developments. These impacts are being defined and clarified through the
use of life cycle analysis. Reliance on single environmental metrics
like recycled content may provide a disincentive to green chemistry
development in many circumstances. First generation polymers usually
cannot contain significant recycled content until a value recovery
system returns them to second-generation manufacturing.
New materials and processes are beginning to take root in our
industry. Many carpet companies are recognizing that traditional
thermoset materials can be replaced by thermoplastic materials--
facilitating the recovery, remelting, and re-extrusion of tried-and-
true materials like vinyl. Collins & Aikman and Interface have
developed systems for returning vinyl carpet tile backing to their
backing processes. Shaw was recognized with the 2003 Presidential Green
Chemistry Award for developing a thermoplastic polyolefin carpet tile
backing. The CRI Annual Sustainability Report includes many other
industry developments and practices that reduce the environmental
footprint of carpet through green chemistry (see www.carpet-rug.com).
The Carpet America Recovery Effort (CARE) is a nonprofit effort
including the carpet industry, the Federal EPA, State governments, and
NGO's with the goal of diverting 40 percent of carpet landfill waste by
2012 (see www.carpet-recovery.com). Imagine a future when no carpet
goes to a landfill, but is separated into its constituent parts at the
end of its useful life to be sustainably recycled over and over again.
This is happening today with some carpet types, but not enough as yet
to significantly divert the 4.5 billion pounds of carpet that went to
our nation's landfills in 2003. Green chemistry can help to develop
beneficial uses for the materials used to make carpet today and assure
that steady progress is made toward sustainable materials that can go
directly back into carpet production in the future.
Perhaps the most compelling reason to support green chemistry and
the growth of sustainable materials and processes in carpet is jobs.
Annual carpet production and consumption in the U.S. of $12 Billion is
equal to the rest of world carpet production and consumption combined.
Carpet jobs will stay in the U.S. if we can develop ways to keep post-
consumer carpet materials in sustainable closed-loop recycling systems
that reduce the need for virgin raw materials and lower the energy
embodied in successive generations of carpet products. Why would any
U.S. company choose to manufacture overseas if their valuable raw
materials are being collected and recycled at lower cost, with no
sacrifice of performance, from American homes and businesses in close
proximity to the means of production?
The economic benefits of green chemistry are quantifiable in each
of the example given herein. As an industry, green chemistry has helped
to reduce the water required for dyeing a square yard of carpet from
14.9 gallons in 1995 to 8.9 gallons in 2002. The energy required from
thermal fuels to make a square yard of carpet has fallen from 14.5
million BTU's in 1995 to 10.3 million BTU's in 2002. Today the carpet
industry has the same level of CO2 emissions it reported in
1990 yet it produces 40 percent more carpet.
Shaw's experience with green chemistry is representative of the
developments that are ongoing in the industry. By way of illustration,
Shaw's polyolefin carpet tile backing has fueled an average annual
growth rate in carpet tile of almost 15 percent per year over the last
four years. This growth provides 440 jobs in our Cartersville, Georgia
carpet tile facility and generates over $100 million in revenue. It has
reduced packaging costs by 70 percent, shipping costs by 20 percent,
and resulted in over $100,000 in annual post-industrial scrap recovery.
The recovery of the post-consumer carpet tile will result in even more
second-generation savings. Other manufacturers can share economic
success stories that are just as compelling.
In 1950 the carpet industry shipped 97 million square yards of
carpet. In 2001 we shipped 1.879 billion square yards. Between 1965 and
2001 carpet increased in price by 90.4 percent while the same time
period saw an automobile increase 180.4 percent and a combined total of
all commodities increased 315.4 percent. Over 80 percent of the U.S.
carpet market is supplied by mills located within a 65-mile radius of
Dalton, Georgia. Carpet is important to the economy of Georgia and the
United States. Green chemistry is an important tool to facilitate its
continued growth.
In conclusion, we support the adoption of the Green Chemistry
Research and Development Act of 2004 with the suggestions that Congress
encourage a cooperative effort among government, academia, and
business; that Congress seek additional incentives to reward those
companies that commercialize green chemistry developments; that
obstacles to the green chemistry discovery process be removed from
current federal environmental programs; and that adoption of green
chemistry in the broader context of sustainable product development
should become a primary instrument of pollution prevention policy in
the United States with the additional goals of job creation and
economic improvement.
Biography for Steven Bradfield
Steve Bradfield began his career in the commercial carpet industry
twenty years ago gaining experience in sales, marketing, and technical
and environmental development. He has been with Shaw Industries since
1991 in both international and U.S. positions and is currently VP of
Environmental Development.
Steve leads Shaw in its journeyman development of customer-oriented
cradle-to-cradle solutions to environmental concerns. He is active with
the USGBC, the CARE Executive Committee, TFM Green Advisory Board, and
the CRI Market Issues and Sustainability Committees. Steve conceived
and led the effort to develop the 2003 EPA Presidential Green Chemistry
Challenge Award winning EcoWorx polyolefin carpet tile backing at Shaw
and continues to push Shaw's model cradle-to-cradle environmental
statement throughout Shaw Industries. He has written many articles on
sustainability for periodicals, including the peer-reviewed
Environmental Science & Technology journal, and recently completed an
interview with Michael Toms aired on National Public Radio as part if
the ``Monticello Dialogues.''
He is a graduate of Montana State University at Bozeman and
considers himself an adventurous seeker of change. Early experiences as
an archaeological dig volunteer, a deck hand on a tugboat on the
Mississippi River, a roustabout on an offshore oil rig in the Gulf of
Mexico, a cowboy on a Wyoming Ranch, and three years in strip mining
coal in Southern Montana, have given him a unique perspective on
environmental responsibilities and a passion for sustainable
development. Steve is deeply committed to market-based implementation
of industry-leading environmental technologies.
Steve has traveled extensively all over the world in designing and
marketing carpet and considers himself fortunate to have a much broader
perspective of the diversity of the people and markets outside the U.S.
However, enough is enough, and he is well pleased to now concentrate
full time on opportunities for Shaw in environmental development in the
U.S. He has been married to his wife, Christy, for twenty-five years,
and has three teenage children that constantly challenge and delight
him. Life is good, and getting better.
Chairman Boehlert. Thank you very much, Mr. Bradfield. And
as the audience will note, we allowed you some extra time to go
on, because I thought it was very important that we get this
perspective from an industry guy, because so often what we do
up here is viewed by those outside Washington, DC as anti-
business, anti this and anti that. That is all a bunch of
nonsense. I mean, we are trying to--we recognize that the
business community is the engine that drives the economy, and
we want to work with you and so that you won't think that Mr.
Bradfield is just another guy from industry, let me read a
little bit here. ``Early experiences as an archaeological dig
volunteer, a deck hand on a tugboat on the Mississippi River, a
roustabout on an offshore oil rig in the Gulf of New Mexico, a
cowboy on a Wyoming ranch, and three years of strip mining coal
in Southern Montana have given him a unique perspective on
environmental responsibilities and a passion for sustainable
development.'' My one question of you is would you let Drew
follow that same career path? And I won't ask for an answer
right now, Mr. Bradfield.
Now for words of wisdom from Troy, New York, it is my
pleasure to introduce, from Renssalaer Polytechnic Institute,
one of America's great institutions, Dr. Woodhouse.
STATEMENT OF DR. EDWARD J. WOODHOUSE, ASSOCIATE PROFESSOR OF
POLITICAL SCIENCE, DEPARTMENT OF SCIENCE & TECHNOLOGY STUDIES,
RENSSELAER POLYTECHNIC INSTITUTE
Dr. Woodhouse. Thank you, Chairman Boehlert and Members of
the Committee. I appreciate the opportunity to think with you
this morning about what I see as an historic undertaking. It is
very seldom that one finds the kind of vision and long-term
hope that I see embodied in this bill, and I congratulate you
for it. That is not to say I don't have a few recommendations
to improve it.
I am a political scientist, not a chemist. I have, over the
past generation, made inquiries into what goes right and what
goes wrong with a wide variety of technological endeavors:
civilian nuclear power, pesticides, premanufacture notification
for new chemicals, ozone depleting chemicals, presently
nanotechnology and robotics, and a variety of other topics. My
graduate students and I have been studying the green chemistry
community for about seven years, trying to understand what the
social barriers are to the implementation of the--of their
findings and what slows down the movement of new ideas within
the worlds of chemistry and chemical engineering themselves. So
I want to just say a little bit about that, not because it has
direct impact on your pending legislation, but because it may
be of some use to you as you go forward in a variety of fronts
on this over the next decade and more.
The one thing that I have found in every area that I have
looked at is that we radically underestimate the technical
malleability, the capacity of engineers and other technical
people to work with the stuff of the world in creative ways.
Always under-estimated. We over-estimate the extent of which we
have our social purposes lined up for the technical people to
serve. So that whereas the technical capacities could be
utilized for fantastic purposes rarely do they come anywhere
close to what would be possible, because we don't have the
political, social, and economic institutions and processes that
will catalyze that, as well as could be achieved.
Let me give an example. This morning, many of you started
with decaffeinated coffee. How do they get the caffeine out of
those beans? Well, it turns out that it is green chemistry. The
supercritical carbon dioxide, which was mentioned by Dr.
Bement, is a powerful solvent under the right conditions and
can literally strip the caffeine out of the coffee bean,
leaving the bean intact. The basic understandings about
supercritical carbon dioxide are now approximately a century
old. Why has it taken this long to move it into any purposes
more important than decaffeinating coffee? That is a social
mystery, not a technical one, primarily.
Another example. There was a mention of the dry cleaning
industry and the work being done at the University of North
Carolina. Excellent work. If you sniff your suits or sweater
when it comes back from the dry cleaners, you will notice a
faint chemical odor. That is perchloroethylene, PERC, which is
used as the solvent. It is extremely toxic. It is one of the
main toxic constituents of urban air pollution. A day care
center near me had to be closed recently, because it was
located too near a dry cleaners. The children and the teachers
were getting ill. Each time an employee opens the dry cleaning
machinery, they get a sniff of that chemical.
There is now a substitute: supercritical carbon dioxide.
David Price, one of your colleagues, introduced legislation
several years ago, which would have given tax credits to dry
cleaners for switching over to the new equipment. In the
Omnibus tax legislation of several years ago, that measure
didn't make it out of Committee. The--one of the reasons--there
were financial and other prudential reasons, no doubt, but one
of the reasons was the Committee's staff and Members heard from
not one interest group, not one constituent by phone, letter,
or personal visit. The issue is simply not on the radar screen.
And hence, what could have been a simple move to encourage mom
and pop dry cleaners, who need the economic assistance if they
are to shift away from a dangerous practice, they didn't get
the help, they still don't have the help, even though the
machinery is on the market. That is not atypical. I recognize
it is outside the jurisdiction of this committee, but it is
important to realize the social barriers, I think, and that is
one of them.
More generally, we have been interviewing green chemists
around the world, and they say, over and again, that it is
economic inertia and professional inertia that are the main
barriers; it is not technical understanding and scientific
uncertainty, although those play a role. Rohm and Haas, for
example, has developed a biodegradable, water-soluble polymer,
which would go in laundry detergent. It costs twice as much as
the one now utilized. It is not being used. I asked the
relevant person, ``Well, how much would it cost the consumer?''
They said about one penny per bottle of detergent. $4.01
instead of $4. That is a lot of money, though, to Proctor and
Gamble, probably $1 million a year, if you would figure out the
number of bottles they sell. We need some way to figure out how
to do what is sensible at that level. It is a mundane practice,
not nearly as glorious as many of the research projects
discussed here today. But that is a--that is the reality.
Mattel promised to take polyvinylchloride out of their Barbie
dolls. They recently reneged on that promise, despite the fact
that Bayer Chemical provides an alternative, which would cost
only five percent more. You know what the cost of plastic in a
Barbie doll is relative to the sales price. It is a trivial
amount, and yet, it is not being utilized.
Professional inertia is almost as bad as economic inertia.
If you think about the professors that you had who were using
old lecture notes, not keeping up to date, you will have some
idea of what I mean. The curricula at a major university near
here, there is a one-credit course in green chemistry as the
sole offering in the curriculum. Another department chair told
me, ``There is no room in the curriculum.'' Another said he
tried to get the changes, but his faculty said, ``That is not
the way it is done at Harvard and Chicago.'' They require
foreign languages at half of the American universities to get a
Ph.D. in Chemistry, but no one requires a test in toxicology. A
green chemist, not me, referred to what is going on as ``stupid
chemistry,'' ``just bad design,'' ``profound failure.''
I will conclude by just suggesting that the task, then, is
larger than what can be done by a few million dollars for more
research. None of us knows exactly how to bring it about. What
we can do is to catalyze an inquiry and a discussion that aims
for ``benign by design.'' Let us figure out how to use those
tremendous technical potentials so that we aim to make each
chemical safe enough for living things. I believe that that is
chemically possible, even though most chemists today would say
it is not.
In conclusion, I have a couple of recommendations for your
consideration. First, tax credits. The industry, we don't
expect to get ice cream for free, why should we expect to get
green chemistry for free? Contrary to what some of my
colleagues on the panel have said, I believe there is a limit
to what you can do that will actually make money. I think that
some things do cost money. We need to figure out how to make
that sensible for all parties concerned.
Secondly, more precise requirements in the reports that you
are asking for under this legislation. There is too much room
for interested parties to make self-serving statements. Let us
get some devil's advocates into the process who will look more
closely at the claims, who will attempt to bring the
stakeholders into communication, shall we say, with each other.
Finally, I would suggest that you consider the possibility
of tilting the funding more towards EPA. In my experience, the
EPA Pollution Prevention Program is one of the best things that
the Federal Government does.
Thank you very much.
[The prepared statement of Dr. Woodhouse follows:]
Prepared Statement of Edward J. Woodhouse
Chairman Boehlert, Ranking Member Gordon, and Members of the
Committee, I thank you for inviting me to testify.
I am a political scientist interested in understanding how to shape
technological decision-making more wisely. I have been studying the
social aspects of green chemistry and green chemical engineering since
1998, funded in part by the National Science Foundation. My Ph.D.
student, Jeff Howard, with funding from an EPA STAR fellowship, has
been doing detailed interviews with green chemists, and I draw selected
data and insights from his study.
My purpose here today is to discuss barriers and prospects for
moving from what might be called ``brown chemistry'' toward a greener
chemistry featuring chemicals designed to be benign or close to it. I
will begin with general considerations I think Members of Congress
should be taking into account, then present three simple categories of
green chemistry and the legislative opportunities in each, and conclude
with some suggestions for further study.
General Considerations
I start with a prediction: The 21st century will see the beginnings
of a transnational phase out of chlorinated and other toxic synthetic
chemicals. Economic considerations facing industry, slow-to-change
university curricula in chemistry and chemical engineering, and
citizens' ignorance about the potential for benign chemistry may delay
the projected phase out well beyond the time period technically
required. Evidence against toxic chemicals is accumulating
relentlessly, however, and green chemistry and engineering potentials
are developing, even if more gradually than one would wish. So the main
question, it seems to me, is whether public policy will lead or lag.
I congratulate the Committee for its farsightedness in generating
the proposed Green Chemistry Research and Development Program, and I
regret to report that I find outside this room a certain timidity and
lack of vision with respect to the subject. I am sorry to say that most
professors of chemistry and chemical engineering appear to be either
uninformed or uninterested, and a few are outright opponents who
believe that toxicity is the price for what they would call
``progress.'' Professional associations such as the American Chemical
Society and the American Institute of Chemical Engineers are
rhetorically supportive of chemical greening, and even have a few
modest programs; but they are not doing much at present to actually
inflect the trajectories of their mainstream members. Even
environmental organizations such as Sierra Club could be doing a lot
more: The National Toxics Campaign and other groups have been pushing
for ``clean production'' and Zero Discharge, which bear on Green
Chemistry but do not put it front and center--perhaps partly because
their members resonate with whales, orangutans, and other charismatic
megafauna more than with molecules.
Chemical technologies are highly malleable, however, and once it
becomes widely understood that what we have been calling ``chemistry''
actually is a small and relatively backward subset of the chemical
universe, the status quo will be on the defensive. The goal of a
commendable chemical industry will be nothing less than to make
everything using benign materials, and where toxicity cannot be avoided
to draw on the services of medicinal and ecological chemists to design
chemicals that rapidly decompose and are quickly excreted from living
organisms. How closely that goal can be approximated, no one presently
knows; what we can say for sure is that many technical achievements
that seemed impossible have turned out not to be, in chemistry and in
many other fields of science and engineering. With biocatalysis,
nanochemistry, and other techniques not yet dreamed of but surely on
the way, those who defend the 20th century's ``brown chemical'' way of
doing things are pretty surely on the road to being discredited. Unless
Congress intervenes, however, the transition could take many
generations, with untold additional damage to living things around the
world.
Everyone acknowledges that contemporary technologies for producing,
using, and disposing of chemicals create numerous hazards, some of
which result in damages that have to be mitigated or compensated at
high cost. There is a sense in which present practices of the chemical
industry resemble the ``unfunded mandate'' that the Federal Government
sometimes is accused of leveling on states: Business-as-usual
concerning chemicals makes little provision for medical payments to
those affected (except for chemical workers), and little provision for
environmental and other damages (except via insurance). As is true of
health problems caused by tobacco, many such secondary and tertiary
costs of chemical usage are picked up not by the industry itself, but
by state and federal medical programs, by medical insurance companies,
and ultimately by taxpayers and those who are privately insured. It may
be misleading, therefore, to think of new regulations on the chemical
industry as creating new costs; rather, costs would be shifted onto
producers and users of chemicals--what economists refer to as
``internalizing'' such expenses by having them better reflected in
prices. Tighter regulations would reduce or eliminate the present
unfunded mandate that the chemical industry places on other businesses,
government, and individual citizens.
It also is worth considering whether there is a commercial risk of
waiting to act that may be greater for the chemical industry overall
than any one element of it will have an interest in perceiving and
acting upon. In particular, the Swedish Chemical Inspectorate already
has a list of 250 suspect chemicals that probably are on their way out.
The German chemical industry long has paid greater attention to labor,
community, and other social interests than do most U.S. firms. Some
Chinese technological universities are making a greater commitment to
green chemistry than has any U.S. university to date. Altogether, those
who care about the competitiveness of the U.S. chemical industry might
do well to take heed: If U.S. firms lag behind in moving toward green
chemistry, given the long period for amortization of chemical plant and
equipment, they may lose market share and endanger profitability during
the catch-up phase.
Another general consideration bearing on the legislation can be put
in the form of a question: Why is there no explicit research on
ethical, legal, and social implications (ELSI) of the $500 billion-
dollar chemical industry and its associated research infrastructure in
universities and elsewhere? There have been set-asides or other ELSI
initiatives in connection with nanotechnology, climate change research,
and other recent technological inquiries. But not for chemistry,
chemical engineering, and the chemical industry. Perhaps it could be
said that there is plenty of environmental research already underway,
even if not directly connected with chemicals? Just so. However,
``chemophobia,'' as some industry insiders and chemists refer to the
public's distrust for chemicals, grew to significant proportions in the
late 20th century partly because most people feel excluded from
chemical deliberations and choices. This may be a questionable
perception, in that consumers do participate in choosing final
products. We feel excluded, and we do not trust, and we do not
understand--and somewhere in that triumvirate is a nontrivial problem
concerning the relations of citizens with the chemical industry and the
chemical science community. The green chemistry deliberations bring up
the possibility of tackling the relationship between chemistry and
society in a creative way by focusing on the social components
explicitly.
Finally, as Committee Members are aware, the amount of funding
being proposed in the pending legislation is small compared with the
magnitude of the problem--and the magnitude of the opportunity. Of
course, there already are funds being expended, as the other witnesses
have pointed out; and, of course incremental funds are a fine idea. So
I do not really quarrel with the idea of adding to Green Chemistry R&D
within the limits of what will be considered fiscally prudent. Still,
looking toward the longer term, it is worth noting that although no one
knows the exact number, there are some ten thousand toxic chemicals
that may need to be replaced. Taxpayers this year are spending
approximately one hundred times as much on nanoscience and
nanotechnology research than will be spent under the new Green
Chemistry legislation, despite the fact that, in my opinion, Green
Chemistry is a more important problem and a more important opportunity.
Some observers would go so far as to characterize the nanotechnology
juggernaut as a set of techniques in search of a serious issue worthy
of taxpayers' concern. I would not go that far. In the case of brown
chemistry, however, we have a known problem of proportions far larger
than the expenditures now being contemplated.
I turn now to some more specific ideas concerning barriers to the
greening of chemicals, and prospects for circumventing or lowering some
of those barriers.
Three Categories of Green Chemistry
Chemists divide their world into many technically interesting and
important categories, such as solid state, lipid, and carbohydrate
chemistry; for our purposes, however, there are just three main
commonsensical categories of interest:
1. Green chemical techniques and products that industry may
voluntarily utilize because there are no added costs, and
sometimes even cost savings;
2. Well understood chemical processes and products that
industry probably will not voluntarily utilize, because they
are more expensive than current practices; and
3. Potential green chemistry techniques and products that are
not yet known or understood.
The goals of public policy should be:
1a. To craft chemical education to make sure that chemists and
chemical engineers have the knowledge and skills to make good
use of available GC techniques that are already affordable in
category one;
2a. To encourage industry to utilize some of the ``too-
expensive'' GC in category two--where a changeover would help
solve significant problems created by present chemical
technologies; and
3a. To invest in R&D within category three, in order to expand
the repertoire of green chemical techniques and products.
Green Chemistry Education Policy
One of the most disturbing things I've observed in my research is
how slowly the educational institutions are changing over to Green
Chemistry. Not atypical is the situation at one technological
university not far from here, where the GC curriculum consists of a
single, one-credit course, team taught as a free-standing elective
without any connection to the mainstream curriculum. When I asked a
chemistry chairperson at a different university about some elementary
steps his department could take, he replied, ``We do not have room in
the curriculum.'' At another university, the chairperson tried to lead
but his faculty refused to follow, saying ``That's not the way it's
done at Harvard or Chicago.'' One indicator of the situation, as
pointed out by a leader of the Green Chemistry movement, Chemistry
Professor John Warner of the University of Massachusetts: About half of
U.S. chemistry departments still require Ph.D. students to pass a
qualifying exam in a foreign language, but not one requires equivalent
proficiency in toxicology.
Now, I acknowledge that meddling in university curricula is a dicey
proposition; not trying to improve the situation seems irresponsible,
however. What might legitimately be done? One thing we know is that
hardly any university departments turn down funding. I expect that
Members of this committee would be taken very seriously were some of
you to approach the Ford Foundation or other major independent funding
sources regarding a Green Chemistry education initiative, perhaps
jointly with the National Science Foundation, the American Chemical
Council, and other sources? Adding courses in ethics to chemistry and
chemical engineering curricula might be the direction to head: One of
the leading Green Chemists, Professor Terry Collins at Carnegie Mellon,
has added a significant ethics component to the curriculum there, and
advocates that it be added elsewhere.
A parallel tack: Most universities depend on periodic renewals of
their accreditation to certify to parents and others that the
organization is recognized as offering an appropriate educational
environment. At present, the accrediting organizations such as Middle
States are not paying attention to whether universities continue to
train chemists and chemical engineers in the older approaches or are
training students in benign-by-design chemistry. The accrediting
agencies should be paying attention, of course, and although I have not
studied the matter I am confident that there is a way to encourage them
to do so.
A third glaring weakness in the training of chemists is that they
do not have to pass through professional licensing, and even chemical
engineers can be exempt from it if they work in industry. Those who do
sign up for the professional licensing exam administered by the
American Institute of Chemical Engineers. I was unable to secure
cooperation of the AIChE in my attempts to study the test or the
processes behind it, so my information is less complete than I would
like. But study guides for the test have changed very little in the
past decade, continue to give far more attention to economics than to
environmental issues, and evince zero appreciation of the spirit or
letter of green chemistry. This appears to be true partly because the
AIChE licensing process relies on retired engineers who volunteer their
time, rather than on forefront chemical engineering researchers. The
Science Committee obviously does not control professional licensing,
but chemistry-in-application involves not high-profile researchers but
rather ordinary chemical engineers. If they are to function, in effect,
as society's delegates in the chemical plants, we need some way to
persuade and incentivize them toward greener chemicals.
In short, there are some social barriers to better GC education
that are not immediately apparent, and that may not yield readily to
research grants or even graduate fellowships. It would be worth a
patient inquiry into the matter by those with relevant expertise and
access, perhaps as part of the report requested by the pending
legislation.
Category 2: GC Affordability and Uptake for Industry
Some of the most knowledgeable advocates for GC speak as if the
transition process might be pretty much automatic: Develop the
knowledge, and industry will utilize it. I am a bit skeptical of that,
as I expect you are. There already is a repertoire of GC knowledge that
is ready, but is not being used; and knowledge of that sort is certain
to increase as chemical researchers push beyond present understandings
of the GC universe.
One example is a water-soluble, biodegradable polymer that the Rohm
& Haas Chemical Company developed for use as a brightening agent in
laundry detergent. Despite seven years of effort and proven results,
the industry continues to use the old non-biodegradable brightener,
because the new one would cost about twice as much per ton. When I
asked how that would translate at the consumer level, the chemical
executive replied, ``About one penny''--raising the price of a bottle
of detergent from $4.00 to $4.01. For Procter and Gamble, however, that
might amount to a million dollars a year if they have to absorb the
price increase (which they would not, if every company were required to
use the new method).
Technology-forcing statutes of the sort used to reduce air
pollution probably are the way to tackle issues of this sort, along
with tradable pollution permits, scalable excise taxes, and tax
credits; but I realize that such matters are outside the jurisdiction
of the Committee on Science. I just want to let you know some of the
economic and other barriers I perceive to chemical greening, so that,
over time, you can do whatever seems feasible within your domain.
For example, recognizing the barriers to industry participation,
the Committee already has taken the laudable step of including chemical
engineering research in the pending bill. Still, given the relatively
higher status of chemistry, it seems to me likely that chemists will
garner the lion's share of the funding. That's fine, if long-term,
basic research is really what we want to stimulate. I wonder, though,
if more nearer-term engineering efforts might be designed to help move
category two knowledge into category one, so that the odds of it being
adopted by industry would go way up. This would involve reworking known
chemical processes to be greener with the lowest possible incremental
costs. Because down time is such a no-no in the industry, for example,
any ways of minimizing it translate pretty directly to the bottom line.
Engineering researchers may be able to figure out how to minimize
disruption of existing chemical production plants, equipment, and
processes. Some of the EPA and NSF programs already are doing this, I
acknowledge, but they are mainly directed at solvent replacement rather
than more complex matters.
I know that many people are reluctant to ``pay industry'' for doing
things ``it should do on its own,'' however I would urge that in
setting up the GC research efforts under this bill that your committee
establish relatively permissive guidelines. Some of the people who are
best positioned to move GC knowledge from category two into category
one are those with closest ties to the industry. If they chose to
participate in R&D under this bill, I for one would be thrilled rather
than dismayed. The draft of the bill I initially read seemed to be
heading more in the direction I would favor than the latest draft,
which has removed the term ``commercial application'' in quite a few
places. I realize that the matter is a thorny one involving
jurisdictional issues, and that the boundary between industry-funded
and government-funded endeavors has implications for many aspects of
the federal budget. Nevertheless, I recommend that you consider tilting
toward greater support for industrial R&D than might normally be
appropriate for federal funding of applied research.
The education (or mis-education) of chemists and chemical engineers
plays a role in this category also: Not many of our recent graduates
are prepared to figure out technically and economically feasible
alternatives to the chemical status quo. Just as importantly, they are
not operating within a Green Chemistry mind set, and hence are not
likely probe very intensively to create new ways of working with
chemicals. Note that this way of thinking about chemical greening means
that accountants, managers, and attorneys also get drawn into analysis
of corporate choices regarding chemical products and processes--
implying that, at least in principle, one should be thinking about the
education and ongoing training of persons holding such roles. It makes
sense initially to suppose that it all comes down to formulas and other
relatively straightforward analysis; in fact, it is the culture and
psychology of the relevant disciplines and businesses that is as much
at issue. None of us well understands how to go about intervening in
such complex social phenomena, of course, so my point is merely that we
need to be acting so as to turn out much larger numbers of greener
chemists, chemical engineers, and others as a way of seeding the
industry. In the interim, a great many opportunities for changing
chemical pathways, processes, and products may be missed by those
operating under the old governing mentality green chemicals are
technically impossible or unacceptably expensive.
Category Three: Funding Forefront Green Chemistry Research
I actually have the least to say about this category, even though
it probably is the one that comes to mind most readily when one thinks
about stimulating R&D in an emerging field. Certainly it is easy to
catalyze more Green Chemistry; if you provide the funds, researchers
will indeed create justifications for obtaining the money.
Green chemistry is a bit like the Nixon ``War on Cancer'' or the
current holy grail, nanotechnology: Many existing chemistry projects
can be tweaked so as to qualify for the new funding. That's not bad, in
a way; however, if what one really wants is to catalyze breakthroughs,
I'm not sure we know right now how to design a program to achieve that.
There's usually something to be said for learning by doing, and one can
interpret in that way the three years of funding that would be
authorized via the proposed legislation. I do not object to that
exactly, but I have seen NSF dispense sums greater than I considered
warranted--as in the current round of funding for nanotechnology
education proposals I just reviewed last month. Hence, I wonder if
there might be a way to at least get a prioritized research agenda at
the end of the three years as part of the report to Congress required
by the proposed bill.
Further Study of Social Barriers and Prospects
The general provisions for further study in the proposed bill make
good sense to me. However, either as part of the bill itself or during
its implementation, I would like to see some fine-tuning along the
following lines.
First, as suggested earlier in the discussion of ethical/legal/
social implications, social science and policy are not ruled out by
your proposed wording, but neither are they made as central as the
situation may justify. Of course there are important scientific and
engineering issues that need to be studied; but much of what stands in
the way of chemical greening is social and economic in nature.
That said, I am no fan of the ELSI set aside as part of climate
change research, because too much of the money went for relatively
trivial investigations. I have to admit, however, that a three percent
or five percent set aside does draw the attention of social scientists,
historians, and environmental philosophers, and we need some way of
getting more of them to attend to the brown/green chemistry problem/
potential. It is odd to have a problem and opportunity of the magnitude
of Green Chemistry with so little systematic social analysis available,
and I would like to see this committee catalyze enough study that when
you reconvene for a renewal hearing on this legislation, a lot more
social scientists knows something about the subject.
Second, the state of policy thinking on the subject is rudimentary.
To my knowledge, there literally is no one who has systematically
studied the matter, and no organization equivalent to the former Office
of Technology Assessment has drawn in the relevant stakeholders for
sustained discussions. Foundations are not funding or studying the
problem in the way that the Heritage Foundation, Brookings, and
American Enterprise study so many important matters of public policy.
Environmental economists are applying their increasingly refined skills
to many environmental issues, but not to brown/green chemistry.
Third, and closely related, the problem of brown chemistry is only
about ten percent a matter of shortages in supply of technical
knowledge--and about 90 percent lack of demand for an alternative to
brown chemistry. This committee's jurisdiction obviously pertains to
the improvement of science and technical knowledge, not to regulation
of the chemical industry. However, this committee may have an
indispensable role to play in catalyzing interest by other relevant
committees, ones with more regulatory authority over the subject of
chemicals. It is of course a dicey matter of how to handle such intra-
congressional matters, and I have no wisdom to offer superior to the
tacit knowledge you have acquired.
I would urge you not to underestimate the bully pulpit role,
however. We associate it with the presidency, especially as popularized
by the first Roosevelt; yet most governance is partly a matter of
persuasion, and persuasion is largely about good reasons when monetary
or other inducement has little bearing, as in intra-congressional life.
How might this committee use its staff, use its connections in the
relevant industries, use its Members' connections with other
committees, and use whatever one-on-one connections there may be with
other relevant legislators, industry executives, and executive branch
personnel? Such matters rarely are brought up directly in hearings, of
course, and yet they occur daily in governmental life. I wonder if
there isn't a way to make enrollment of other committees in an overall
push for greener chemistry a higher priority?
One example of the kind of policy proposal that would galvanize
industry demand for Green Chemistry would be a revenue-neutral tax and
subsidy program. Place an excise tax on sales of some of the most
suspect categories of existing chemicals, perhaps scaled by industry
itself based on estimated risks, and give the funds back to chemical
companies as tax credits for innovations in benign chemicals. In
effect, the innovative companies would be paid by the laggards.
Inasmuch as the largest companies in the industry tend to have the best
R&D staffs, and hence are most capable of using technological
leadership for competitive advantage, a side effect of the policy
probably would be to accentuate the comparative advantage of the most
dynamic companies. Among other results, this might better position them
for international competition if a transnational phase out of
chlorinated hydrocarbons should eventuate.
Finally, it seems to me that the Green Chemistry case raises
questions about how public-interest science gets done in the U.S. We
proceed as if it were a nonpartisan search for truth, when we all know
that ideology, careerism, narrow-mindedness, and habitual thinking are
common in science as in other human endeavors. As Michael Crichton
expressed the point,
Just as we have established a tradition of double-blinded
research to determine drug efficacy, we must institute double-
blinded research in other policy areas as well. Certainly the
increased use of computer models, such as GCMs (global climate
models), cries out for the separation of those who make the
models from those who verify them. The fact is that the present
structure of science is entrepreneurial, with individual
investigative teams vying for funding from organizations that
all too often have a clear stake in the outcome of the
research--or appear to, which may be just as bad. This is not
healthy for science.
Sooner or later, we must form an independent research
institute. . .funded by industry, by government, and by private
philanthropy, both individuals and trusts. The money must be
pooled, so that investigators do not know who is paying them.
The institute must fund more than one team to do research in a
particular area, and the verification of results will be a
foregone requirement: teams will know their results will be
checked by other groups. In many cases, those who decide how to
gather the data will not gather it, and those who gather the
data will not analyze it. (Crichton 2003).
I find his expression of the idea a bit formulaic, but the core
insight has merit. We are in the state we are, trapped in Brown
Chemistry, partly because chemists and chemical engineers worked first
of all for industry, secondly for themselves and their organizations,
and only thirdly for the public. They operated as insiders, not with
bad intent but with bad effect, and the arrangement made perfect sense,
in a way, considering who was paying. There is a sense in which 20th
century chemistry and chemical engineering did not go through
sufficiently rigorous ``social purposes review'' with respect to basic
considerations about brown versus green design of chemicals. If
Congress and the citizenry want a different sort of chemistry, and a
different sort of public-regarding science more generally, it might
make sense to face up squarely to the fact that genuine accountability
may require more sophisticated arrangements than we now have.
Conclusion
In recent interviews, Jeff Howard asked a half dozen of the world's
leading Green Chemists about impediments to chemical greening. By a
wide margin, they said that ``economic inertia'' was the most
significant barrier and ``professional inertia'' came second.
Scientific uncertainty and other technical matters were rated as
important but lesser barriers. In other words, social factors are more
important barriers than purely technical ones.
Although I strongly support the legislation pending before this
committee, therefore, I recommend thinking of it as one step in a long
process. For the future, I recommend that the Committee consider ways
to:
Increase funding (including tax credits) well beyond
what is presently feasible;
Look into some of the mundane aspects of Chemistry
and Chemical Engineering education, in order to catalyze
curricular change, promote chemical ethics education, revise
university accreditation procedures to enhance social
responsibility, and improve professional licensing;
Draw social scientists and ethicists into study of
Brown/Green Chemistry;
Stimulate chemical engineering economics research to
prepare the way for industry adoption of Green Chemistry
techniques;
Go outside the established funding agencies and
advisory mechanisms for policy analysis bolder than what can
make it through the traditional procedures;
Use the Brown/Green Chemistry case to reconsider how
to arrange much more sophisticated public-interest science;
Envision a long-term process via which this committee
plays a leading role in helping humanity re-vision its
relations with chemicals.
Discussion
Chairman Boehlert. Thank you, Dr. Woodhouse, and thank you
for those suggestions and the excellent testimony. I have got a
suggestion for you. You tell a story exceptionally well. I
would hope that you would consider doing some thoughtful op-ed
pieces, because part of the problem is that the public needs to
be educated in this area. And some of the examples you gave are
outstanding examples. And some op-ed pieces would, I think, get
people's attention. So thank you very much for that testimony.
The Chair will yield the Chair to the author of the
legislation, Dr. Gingrey. I have to take leave for a few
moments, and he will lead off with the questions, and then he
will recognize Ms. Johnson.
Mr. Gingrey. [Presiding.] I thank the Chairman and I thank
the witnesses for their testimony.
Let me just start off the questioning, and this actually
will be for all five of the panel members. Hopefully, you will
want to comment. In what ways do you think that this bill, H.R.
3970, would accelerate adoption of green chemistry in the
private sector? And please describe the elements of the bill
that you think will have the greatest effect. And we can start
with Dr. Bement.
Dr. Bement. One program at the National Science Foundation
that, I think, has a great potential in that regard is our work
in entrepreneurship and innovation--partnerships and innovation
that link the private sectors with universities, and especially
small start-ups, because this is an area that is evolving very,
very rapidly. There is a very broad, rich spectrum of research
going on at universities right now that have potential
economic, as well as environmental, benefit. And what is needed
right now is to compress the lead-time of getting some of these
new concepts into the marketplace. And I think that these types
of partnership programs would be most useful.
Mr. Gingrey. Dr. Gilman.
Dr. Gilman. I actually think one of the benefits of funding
research, as you have proposed, is the spillover that happens
in places of education with doctoral and undergraduates being
introduced to the field of research. I think as they find their
way into industry, the folks who have an understanding and the
knowledge about the use of these approaches, green engineering
and green chemistry, make it easier for the private sector to
adopt those approaches. So I think that is an indirect benefit
of what you are proposing to do with the legislation.
Mr. Gingrey. Dr. Cue.
Dr. Cue. I see three potential benefits to this
legislation. First and foremost, I think it brings the Federal
Government focus to green chemistry that has been too
infrequent in the past. Like many in my generation, I went into
science because our national leaders challenged us in the
early--late 1950s to respond to the embarrassment of Sputnik.
And I believe that a similar challenge to industry and to
academics will generate the same response in green chemistry.
Specifically, this is going to dramatically, I believe, improve
the situation with regard to students going into green
chemistry and academia, because more money will be available to
have that happen; more universities will have green chemistry
programs, and companies like mine will be hiring chemists, who,
from day one, know about green chemistry and can practice green
chemistry principles.
I also believe this is an opportunity to better integrate
government, industry, and academic activities around green
chemistry.
Mr. Gingrey. Thank you.
And Mr. Bradfield.
Mr. Bradfield. I would say that solid science is absolutely
critical to changing some of the economic and professional
inertia that Dr. Woodhouse was speaking about before. We
absolutely can not go forward without the kind of cooperative
projects between the universities and industry that are going
to provide that kind of scientific foundation. It also sends a
signal to stakeholders that we have a concern in the case, the
Federal Government, and the value of that can't be
underestimated.
Mr. Gingrey. Thank you.
And Dr. Woodhouse.
Dr. Woodhouse. I like the part about expanding the
education and training of undergraduate and graduate students.
How to achieve that, however, is an interesting question. And
one of the possibilities that I would recommend to you is to
consider the possibility--whether or not there may be
connections that Members of this committee have with Ford
Foundation and other groups of that nature so that you could
use your symbolic capital in a way that would greatly magnify
the funding that you can otherwise provide so that university
departments rarely turn down offers of funding. And yet without
very substantial offers of that kind, I fear that chemistry and
chemical engineering professors will not take the time and
effort to retool their curricula. And so I would look for
creative ways to leverage that don't cost federal dollars.
Mr. Gingrey. And if I could ask just a real quick follow-up
before yielding to the Ranking Member, H.R. 3970 authorizes an
interagency research and development program. And do you think
that greater federal investment in green chemistry R&D would
actually increase adoption of green chemistry by industry?
Anyone?
Mr. Bradfield. I would say absolutely. One of the things
that we find today is we have to cast about--out in the
marketplace, in cooperation with university partners, for
grants in order to find the way to fund a lot of these things,
which are--will underpin the ultimate green chemistry that
finds its way into practical applications in industry. These
are basic research projects that would have applicability to a
wide range of industries, and not necessarily to any particular
industry or industry player, such as Shaw Industries. We
believe that those are the kinds of things that should be done
as a cooperative effort between academia and government and the
industry. Anything over and beyond that, we, as individual
companies, should be willing to fund and invest in on our own.
But it creates a tremendous base of understanding in basic
research.
Mr. Gingrey. Thank you.
Dr. Woodhouse. I see this as being not solely about
formulas and tactics, but about being--regarding hearts and
minds, vision, worldview. What is it that humanity ought to be
aiming for? And so in that sense, it may be that the particular
research that is catalyzed is less significant than the signal
that is sent regarding the importance. I believe there will be
the beginnings of a trans-national phase-out of many of the
most toxic chemicals in the 21st century. We are not ready for
that. We can get readier by some of the research that this will
catalyze. So I think both the tangible and the intangible
matter here a great deal.
Mr. Gingrey. Thank you very much.
And I see my time is expired, so at this point, I will
yield to my friend from Tennessee, the Ranking Member, Mr.
Gordon, for his question. Thank you.
Mr. Gordon. Thank you.
And this is a question for the panel at large. In addition
to the benefits that this bill will provide, what other federal
actions could be taken that would accelerate the adoption of
green chemistry? We will just start at the--my left and work
around.
Dr. Bement. Yes. Thank you, Mr. Gordon. As you know, there
is plenty of incentive these days to develop as much leverage
of available research and development resources as is possible,
especially with tight budgets. The opportunities in research,
especially in green chemistry, are far greater than the amount
of resources. So we have been incentivized for several years in
working closely with EPA, with the Department of Energy, and
with NIST in trying to get more output, more outcome, for the
amount of R&D investment----
Mr. Gordon. Okay, but what additional federal actions could
we take? What would you recommend, additional actions beyond
this bill that would accelerate the process?
Dr. Bement. Quite frankly, I can't really come up with
anything highly creative other than----
Mr. Gordon. Okay. That is all right.
Dr. Bement.--what is currently being done.
Mr. Gordon. That is fine. Let us just work on down the
Committee and see if we do have some creativity here somewhere.
Anyone else have any suggestions? Yes, sir.
Dr. Cue. Within the pharmaceutical industry, one of the
challenges that we face in applying green chemistry solutions
to existing manufacturing processes is if we change the
manufacturing process, we almost always change the purity
profile of our product. That could require, in many cases,
redoing expensive development studies in order to prove to the
Food and Drug Administration that our products are safe. And
that is an issue that I have no solution to addressing, but
clearly, I believe, is something that we need to address, at
least in the pharmaceutical industry, as we go forward. How do
we act on these new scientific discoveries in a way that allows
them to be incorporated without altering the quality of our
products?
Mr. Gordon. Yes, sir. Go ahead.
Mr. Bradfield. Several things could help, from an industry
point of view, and my--and in my view. Certainly tax credits
are always welcome in trying to put new investment out there,
which may or may not pay off. We take a tremendous risk when we
put a couple hundred million dollars into a program for which
we may actually get no return whatsoever. In the case of Shaw
and EcoWorxTM, we got tremendous payback on that product. And
the public got good value. Federal purchasing, based on
multiple environmental impacts versus single impacts, like
recycled content, would be extremely helpful in helping to
understand exactly what all of the impacts are of development,
not simply a one-dimensional impact.
And then, of course, one of the things that we see
happening today is many people are rushing to put standards in
place for environmental programs, and yet we don't know enough.
We don't have enough good science yet to do anything more than
offer those as guidances. And so I think there is rush to
judgment, in some ways, to put hard and fast standards in at
the federal level. It needs to be mitigated a little bit by
that caution of saying, ``We may know tomorrow more than we
know today. Let us take a slow approach here.''
Dr. Woodhouse. In the nanotechnology legislation this
committee was largely responsible for, you had thoughtful
consideration about public participation. And it seems to me
that something analogous to that could be beneficial in the
green chemistry case. It is not as obvious, since it is a
different phenomenon, how to go about it, but the environmental
interest groups are not paying the attention to green chemistry
that they ought to. Journalists are not paying the attention to
green chemistry that they ought to.
Mr. Gordon. But that is not federal action; I am asking----
Dr. Woodhouse. I am----
Mr. Gordon. Okay. You will get there.
Dr. Woodhouse. Yes. I hope so. The social scientists are
not--very few social scientists have been--in history of
science, for example, history of 20th century chemistry, is one
of the least represented fields. So one of the things I would
consider catalyzing is additional social science attention and,
more generally, social attention to the phenomenon. And that is
something that sometimes funding of the sort that is targeted
set aside can assist with. So the ethical, legal, and social
implications programs that go with some federal science bills,
might be worth considering.
Mr. Gordon. All right. Let me just, finally--let us assume
that we have a consumer epiphany here in this country, and they
go to the industries involved here and say, ``We have just got
to have,'' you know, ``green products. We just can't live
without them, and we are going to pay you more for them, and so
please get them out on the market.'' So that happens. But what
happens so oftentimes then is that it is still going to be more
expensive. Third-world countries are going to say, you know,
``You have made yours. You can afford to do this. We can't, so
we are not going to go forward.'' So how do we deal with this
on an international basis? Anybody have any suggestions?
Mr. Bradfield. I think there are a couple of things that
work there, Mr. Gordon. The third-world problem is, and it is a
thorny one, as you well know as legislators. It has been said
that between--we would need between 4 and 4.7 planets the size
of the Earth in order for everyone around the globe to enjoy
the same level of standard of living that we do here in this
country. And you can imagine what a tremendous drain that would
be on the resources almost overnight. That would put us in a
cataclysmic situation.
What we have to do is be willing to share best practices
and to transfer technology, in my opinion. We can not afford
for other countries to go through the learning curve that we
did in a cradle-to-grave economy. We must move in a cradle-to-
cradle loop and be willing to share those loops and get those
into other economies and get them beyond that paradigm much
more quickly.
Mr. Gordon. Thank you.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Gingrey. Thank you, Mr. Gordon.
And I will now recognize the physicist from Michigan, my
good friend, Dr. Ehlers.
Mr. Ehlers. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. It is--I am a
physicist only because I had a few explosions in chemistry lab.
No, not really. But I have to say, when I was a student, the
only green chemistry I saw was the molds growing on some
leftover samples that I neglected to get rid of.
I am very delighted with what is happening with green
chemistry. And I guess--it seems to me the question here is how
can we accelerate the change. What are the factors here?
And let me focus in on just one. I was very surprised to
hear from Dr. Woodhouse the--not only that there is very little
green chemistry taught, but that there seems to be opposition
on the part of chemistry faculties to teaching green chemistry.
Perhaps I shouldn't be surprised. That bears out an adage that
I always used to say to--or a saying that I propagated to my
colleagues when I was a teacher, and that is that professors
and teachers are, in a sense, bi-polar: they are the world's
most liberal people about other people's affairs and most
conservative about their own affairs. And so they are quite
willing to change the world, but not willing to change their
department or their courses. The--and then I spent my life
trying to fight that tendency within myself, and didn't always
succeed, so I am not being supercritical. But a question for
each of you, other than Dr. Woodhouse, and that is what do you
see as the status of green chemistry education in the U.S.
today? Are chemistry students graduating with green chemistry
skills and knowledge or not?
And specifically for Dr. Cue and Mr. Bradfield, do your
companies typically have to train scientists in green chemistry
when you hire them, or are you finding students on the market
who do have green chemistry skills?
And the final question is: does having green chemistry
skills improve their marketability in the job place today?
So we will just go down the line. We will go right to left
this time. Mr. Bradfield.
Mr. Bradfield. What we find is we hire a tremendous number
of scientifically-based professionals: a lot of engineers, both
chemical and mechanical, textile engineers, and so forth. We
find that they come to us with a certain bias toward doing it
the old way. There is definitely some retraining that has to go
on in trying to change the way they think about some of the
things that we are trying to achieve. I do believe that it is
very hard to break down those barriers, but when you get them
young and get them trained and indoctrinated into some of the
things we want to do, and we find that they respond very
quickly.
The biggest single hurdle, and the reason for my existence
within the--our organization is simply because I am the guy
that says, ``We will not take no for an answer.'' I am the guy
who does not believe that it can not be done. When there are--
seems to be so much scientific certainty, this says that it can
not be done. And so it takes change agents. It takes problem-
solvers. It takes people who believe that there is a way, if
you only look hard enough. And what we have found is many of
those same chemists and engineers, in the end, become believers
once you show them that there are, indeed, ways to move
forward.
Mr. Ehlers. The irony is that I have always felt that
scientists, intrinsically, should be change agents just because
that is the nature of science. And it is shocking if students
don't see themselves that way.
Dr. Cue.
Dr. Cue. There is a saying that is very popular at Pfizer
right now, and that is that ``culture eats strategy for
breakfast every day of the week.'' And green chemistry is
really a strategy so far, and I think what it needs to be is a
cultural change. So I believe it is absolutely true that most
chemists, trained in academics, don't get enough exposure to
green chemistry, nor do they really understand the difference
between green chemistry and traditional chemistry.
There are some very good schools in the United States that
train chemists in green chemistry, and the programs on
toxicology and environmental chemistry are increasing, but the
pace has to increase, and the number of these schools has to
increase. And I think industry has to be more active in going
out and looking for students from these schools, as opposed to
the tried and true schools, like Harvard, Yale, MIT in the
Northeast, for example, the University of Michigan, other
schools like that.
I think the other issue that we confront is that most of
the research happens--begins at the lab stage, and a laboratory
chemist, by and large, just doesn't appreciate, when they are
handling very small quantities of material, what the impact of
that looks like when we scale it up to commercial quantities.
So there is kind of a view of, ``Well, it is only a lab. How
much can I--it is only a few hundred milliliters. It is only a
pint of water. I am not generating that much waste.'' So I
think we need to do a better job of educating the people in the
laboratory, be it an industrial lab, be it an academic lab, be
it a government lab. That lab-scale chemistry does count. And
if it is successful, somebody is going to be using it in the
commercial scale someday.
We have found that we have had to create programs of our
own to train our scientists in green chemistry, because we are
not having them show up on day one. We are starting to see now
a flow of chemists trained in green chemistry, so I predict
that will change. After all, green chemistry has only been
around for a decade, and with any kind of a program, it takes
about 10 years to start to get the yield in the investment.
We are also working very hard--diligently with schools in
our area--in our R&D site areas to bring students in to let
them understand what industrial chemistry looks like and how
green chemistry can positively impact that, so when they go
back to the universities, they can teach the faculties--tell
the faculties, ``Yes, industry is serious about this. They are
anxious to see green chemistry practiced. And we better get
about the job of teaching it in academia.''
Mr. Ehlers. Dr. Gilman.
Dr. Gilman. One of the reasons we--one of the first steps
we took in trying to reshape our focus on sustainability was to
introduce the P3 Award, largely for engineering schools, but
that includes chemical engineering as well, was to begin to
raise the level of awareness and interest. And I am very
hopeful that next month we will be able to announce to you a
collaborative effort we are doing to provide information on
those schools, those graduate schools, that provide a focus in
their curriculum on the sciences and technology associated with
sustainability. So provide for interested students and really
bring to the attention of the university administrators that
there is an interest, and just rack up for folks, on a side-by-
side basis, what curricula and what universities hold for
people interested in this direction.
Mr. Ehlers. I am glad to hear that.
Dr. Gingrey. Dr. Ehlers, if we could, and I thank you, I
think a vote has been called, and I did want to have time to
recognize your colleague from Michigan and the Subcommittee
Chairman of Research, Mr. Nick Smith.
Mr. Smith. Thank you very much.
It seems to me that too often we sort of romance about the
environmental benefits of regulations and other environmentally
benign practices without regard to their impact on business and
the economy. And so that is part of my question. That approach
is short-sighted, especially in today's globally competitive
environment, where even the most minor misguided regulation or
requirement can put us at an enormous competitive disadvantage.
And so that balance and that knowledge, and therefore, that
adequate research is so important, and I think maybe part of--
how much a role can government play? How much a role does good
information play in stimulating the kind of green chemistry
advances that can end up, like you suggested, Mr. Bradfield, in
terms of making us more competitive, rather than less
competitive? And so that would be on my--one of my questions.
And just to make a note of my second question, which is do
we need better coordination between the four agencies that we
are talking about to make sure that we are not overlapping,
that we are not reinventing the wheel, and that we are working
together in terms of the tax-dollar effort that government is
playing. And I will stop there for a couple quick answers.
Dr. Bement.
Dr. Bement. Yes. And thank you, Mr. Smith. First of all, in
answer to your first question, it is absolutely essential that
we have a strong scientific basis for any regulations that we
put out in this area. And if I can use my split personality, I
see that as a role not only for the National Science
Foundation, but also for the National Institute for Standards
and Technology. NIST is very actively involved in developing
the science base, and also the standards to support green
chemistry in several dimensions.
With regard to your second question, of course there needs
to be close interagency cooperation, and we need to build on
the cooperation that currently exists.
Mr. Smith. Any other comments? Mr. Bradfield.
Mr. Bradfield. Yes. Just two quick comments. We see a
tremendous need for interagency coordination; even within the
same agency sometimes, you can have conflicting rules that
affect industry, one giving an incentive for green chemistry,
the other, perhaps, giving you a disincentive for creating new
materials.
The other thing I would say here is as a manager at Shaw
and Vice-President, I am constantly green chemistry and
sustainability. I have to sell up. I have to sell down. I have
to sell out. And in order for--to do that, I need all of the
help I can get, and if the Federal Government would interest my
most senior management with tax credits that they know are
going to push them a little bit more in that direction, they
would be more inclined to be accepting of these projects where
they are putting dollars at risk, then I can get more done.
Mr. Smith. Thank you.
Dr. Woodhouse. I would like to pick up on your point about
global competition and cut it the other way. It seems to me
there is a danger of the U.S. losing out to the E.U. and other
arenas. BASF and B.P., for example, have taken strategic
choices to phase out chlorinated hydrocarbons, because they are
worried about the long-term effect on their industry. Whether
they phase them out over a decade, a generation, or a century,
they haven't said, so we don't really know what is going on
there.
But conversely, some of the U.S. companies are actually
moving into markets that the Europeans are vacating. That is
worrisome to me. I hate to see the U.S. lag rather than lead.
And I--just from a purely commercial point of view, given the
long lead time that is involved with major chemical facilities,
if U.S. companies are not taking an aggressive stance towards
green chemistry, and if the world continues to move, as I
predict it will, towards the phase-out of the toxic chemicals,
we are going to be caught behind. So that is the----
Mr. Smith. So the bottom line--I mean, for lack of a better
word, you--there is a golden mean on both ways----
Dr. Woodhouse. Absolutely.
Mr. Smith.--that we need to work at, and hopefully it is
going to be the green chemistry that is going to add for--add
to our ability to be competitive in the most environmentally
positive way.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Gingrey. We--thank you, Mr. Smith.
We are rapidly running out of time, and I wanted to ask a
quick question before we wrap up the hearing. And I am going to
direct this mainly to Dr. Bement and Dr. Gilman. And actually,
this is a two-part question. Do you think that the Nation might
benefit from a more strategically focused, green chemistry R&D
program? And are there adequate mechanisms by which agencies
currently interact to determine strategies and priorities in
green chemistry? Just quickly, Dr. Bement and Dr. Gilman.
Dr. Bement. I think that the program that we have is
balanced in that it balances individual investigator grants
with center grants. And the important thing about the center
grants is that they also integrate public outreach, K through
12 outreach, and also curriculum development. So the program
addresses a lot of the issues that have been raised during this
hearing.
I think those programs have a natural growth potential
right now. There is a lot of growing interest in these areas.
All of these programs are growing, and they are distributed
around the country, but obviously, it is something that needs
to be nourished, nurtured, and continued to be encouraged.
Mr. Gingrey. And Dr. Gilman.
Dr. Gilman. Our current extramural programs are well
coordinated, I think, between the National Science Foundation
and the EPA. To give it a more strategic focus, you probably
need to bring to bear more agencies, and you probably need to
bring to bear intramural work as well. EPA has both an
intramural and an extramural research program. We have quite an
extensive intramural program in pollution prevention and green
chemistry. The effort is ongoing. As I said, we have a history
of collaboration between agencies, especially on the extramural
side. There are some efforts in the Office of Science &
Technology Policy (OSTP) right now to try and make that a
broader collaboration between agencies, Department of Energy,
Department of Transportation, and the like. So we could do
better at our coordination. We are trying to do better. And the
levels of interaction are quite good, especially on the
extramural side right now.
Mr. Gingrey. Thank you, Dr. Gilman.
And with that, we will wrap up this hearing. I want to
thank all of the participants, each member of the panel, Dr.
Bement, Dr. Gilman, Dr. Cue, Mr. Bradfield, Dr. Woodhouse, for
your testimony. Unfortunately, we have to rush to make a quick
vote, as my colleagues have already left, but I do thank you
for your testimony, and of course, I really appreciate the
unanimous support of H.R. 3970.
And with that, we will declare this hearing closed.
Thank you all very much.
[Whereupon, at 11:30 a.m., the Committee was adjourned.]
Appendix:
----------
Additional Material for the Record
Statement by Arden Bement on the National Institute of Standards and
Technology's Green Chemistry Activities
NIST's Measurements and Standards Are Key Enablers for Green Chemistry
NIST provides the measurements and standards that are essential
for--development of green products and processes; industries to
accurately assess their compliance with regulations; government
agencies to ensure that environmental regulations are tenable and
supportable by science based measurements.
NIST works directly with industry, government agencies and
consensus standards organizations to facilitate the development of
scientific measurement methods and standards that enable manufacturers
test new products unequivocally for regulatory requirements. NIST is
involved in advancing new technology development--in areas of energy
such as fuel cells, in methods to minimize chemical waste and
computational tools for assessing chemical efficiency of processes and
life-cycle of products.
Examples of Impact of NIST's Research in Green Chemistry:
Green Solvents Processing: NIST is making key
property measurements and creating a web-accessible database on
the properties of ``green'' solvents. Properties include
measures of chemical stability, solubility, etc. for potential
replacement candidates for environmentally hazardous
chlorinated solvents; edible oils as alternative solvents for
agricultural product preprocessing and stabilization; and
studying ionic liquids as a class of solvents with good
potential for ``green processing.''
Lead-Free Solder for Semiconductors: The
microelectronics industry estimates that the transition to
lead-free solders in semiconductors is at least an order of
magnitude more difficult than the elimination of
chloroflurocarbons (CFCs). NIST research on materials and
standards allowed for much faster implementation of processes
leading to new lead-free products. Since the U.S. is
transitioning to the relatively expensive but non-toxic lead-
free solder, it is in the U.S.'s interest to promote lead-free
solder standards internationally.
Fuel Cells Development: NIST is developing a test
protocol for residential fuel-cell systems, covering issues of
efficiency, performance, and compatibility with the power grid
for interconnection. The NIST Center for Neutron Research, the
Nation's premier experimental neutron facility, utilizes
neutron beams to image electrochemical processes inside fuel
cells attracting the attention of major hydrogen fuel cell
manufacturers.
Green Buildings Design: NIST developed the BEES
(Building for Environmental and Economic Sustainability)
software, designed to explicitly help the construction industry
select ``green'' building products that are cost-effective over
their life-cycle. BEES measures environmental/health
performance across all stages in the life of a product.
Alternative Refrigerants: NIST enabled the transition
from ozone-depleting CFCs to alternate refrigerants by
providing a database of refrigeration properties of potential
candidates. The database has been applied to problems of mixed
refrigerant gases, and the mixtures of substances found in
natural gas. It can potentially be extended for mixtures more
typically found in fuel cell systems, and in hydrogen pipeline
systems, especially converted natural gas pipelines. An
economic assessment of this database (to provide U.S. industry
with materials properties data, which enabled refrigerant and
equipment manufacturers to comply with international agreements
to phase out use of ozone-depleting chloroflurocarbons)
indicated a benefit-cost ratio of 97 to 1.*
Standard Reference Materials for Sulphur in Fossil
Fuel: NIST produces a variety of well characterized materials
known as Standard Reference Materials (SRM). The Sulphur SRMs
are used to accurately determine the amount of unwanted Sulphur
in fossil fuels. This is an area where large economic benefits
can be expected from highly accurate measurements. An economic
analysis of this program (to provide standard reference
materials for measurement methods and validation, quality
control, and instrument calibration needed by U.S. fossil fuel
industries to reduce sulfur dioxide emissions) indicated a
benefit-cost ratio of 113 to 1.*
Regulated Materials Data Exchange Standards: NIST is
coordinating the revision of the Interconnecting and Packaging
Electronic Circuits (IPC) Product Data eXchange (PDX) standards
to include required materials declaration information. These
standards are used for thousands of transactions monthly, and
the revision under development will carry information such as
the percent content of regulated materials, such as lead,
mercury, cadmium, and hexavalent chromium.
* http://www.nist.gov/director/planning/strategicplanning.htm
Additional Testimony in Support of
H.R. 3970, GREEN CHEMISTRY RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT ACT OF 2004
Dr. J. Michael Fitzpatrick
President and Chief Operating Officer
Rohm and Haas Company
Chairman Boehlert, Ranking Member Gordon, and Members of the
Committee--thank you for inviting me to provide comments about the
proposed Green Chemistry Research and Development Act of 2004. This
legislation is a tremendous step forward in encouraging and advancing
the continued discovery of green and sustainable technologies. Although
a conflict prevented me from testifying in person at the hearing on
March 17, my company feels strongly about this subject, and I plan to
visit as many Committee Members as I can before the markup period
closes to further discuss the benefits of this legislation.
I am the President and Chief Operating Officer of Rohm and Haas
Company, one of the world's largest manufacturers of specialty
chemicals. For nearly 100 years, our company has been in the business
of discovering, developing, and manufacturing innovative materials that
find their way into a wide range of major markets. Yet, most consumers
have never heard of us because nearly everything we invent is used by
other industries to make their products better, faster, stronger, and
in many cases, more environmentally friendly. With perhaps the
exception of Plexiglas, which Rohm and Haas invented in the 1930s, and
the Morton Salt brand, which we acquired in 1999, our products have
gone largely unnoticed by the general public. Still, Rohm and Haas
technology touches our lives in one way or another every day.
We are the world's largest manufacturer of acrylic monomer, and we
pioneered the use of waterborne acrylic polymers in all kinds of
coatings, from house and road-marking paints to water-based varnishes
and paper coatings. We're a leader in developing environmentally
friendly powder coatings that can replace alternatives based on solvent
technology, and we offer a line of advanced, water-based automotive
coatings designed especially for interior and exterior plastic parts in
automobiles--a technology that gives car designers the ability to use
more high performance plastics in their designs, thus lowering vehicle
weight and increasing fuel efficiency. Recently, we introduced a new
line of waterborne acrylic emulsion polymers that can replace
formaldehyde in household insulation.
Our process chemicals can be found in a wide range of applications,
from unique ion exchange resins that purify everything from water to
new classes of pharmaceuticals, to biocides that control the growth of
harmful bacteria in personal care products.
Our research and development in electronic materials is world
class, with a broad set of products used by top semiconductor
manufacturers worldwide. Our photoresist chemicals are used to
replicate minute circuitry patterns on silicon wafers, and our
planarization technology polishes these wafers to a mirror finish, a
critical step in smaller and more powerful semiconductors. Our
``embedded'' circuit board technology places resistors and capacitors
within a circuit board instead of on top of it, enabling smaller and
smaller cell phones, PDAs, and other portable electronic devices.
Many of Rohm and Haas's water-based adhesives continue to find use
in hundreds of applications, from caulks and sealants, to construction
adhesives and laminates. Our new cold seal technology is used in food
packaging, where traditional heat sealing would be undesirable.
Our company employs more than 17,000 people and recorded over $6.4
billion in sales last year. We operate more than 100 research and
manufacturing facilities in 25 countries. Our headquarters is located
on historic Independence Mall in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, just a few
blocks away from our original offices established in 1909 by founders
Otto Rohm and Otto Haas. And while we have changed, adapted, and of
course grown since those early years, we retain a strong and
unambiguous thread to the values that our founders imparted on the
organization: concern for our employees, the neighbors where we
operate, and our customers. We strive to ensure Rohm and Haas
operations and products meet the needs of the present global community
without compromising the needs of future generations. At Rohm and Haas,
we work hard to integrate economic growth, environmental protection,
and social responsibility as important considerations in our business
decisions.
I joined Rohm and Haas in 1975 as a senior scientist following my
two years as a National Institutes of Health postdoctoral fellow at
Harvard University. My first five years were spent in the laboratory,
developing new agricultural products at our company's main research
campus in Spring House, Pennsylvania, about 20 miles outside of
Philadelphia. Although my career took a turn toward marketing and
business following that initial assignment, I have always had a passion
for the creativity, the excitement and the spirit of innovation. To
take an idea, research it, and develop it into a product from basic
chemical building blocks--a product with unique and sometimes amazing
properties--and to see that product improve life, or enhance the
broader society in some way, is the joy of every industrial chemist.
I returned to my technology roots in 1993 as Director of Research
for Rohm and Haas. Although I never made it back into the lab, I
nonetheless retain a strong relationship to the technology and research
side of our industry. I understand the daily challenges facing
researchers: the demands for greater research efficiency, the
requirements that an innovation meet multiple safety, efficacy, risk,
and environmental expectations, and that it's marketable at a fair
price with sustainable returns.
It is because of my unique career history and my passion for this
subject that I feel especially honored to comment on the benefits of
the Green Chemistry Research and Development Act of 2004. In fact, I
have been an active and vocal advocate for green and sustainable
chemistry for nearly 20 years. I am a board member of the Green
Chemistry Institute, and have authored and presented numerous papers
and presentations on green and sustainable chemistry in a variety of
publications and venues around the world. I am proud to work for a
company that has been recognized for its research and development of
environmentally friendly, game changing technologies, some of which
have completely altered the landscape in certain markets.
Since the early 1990s, Rohm and Haas has been recognized for its
``green'' technology by the World Environment Center, the U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), and the U.S. Department of
Energy (DOE), to name a few. We were the first company to be honored
with two Presidential Green Chemistry Challenge Awards, the first for a
novel pesticide that mimics a hormone in a particularly destructive
caterpillar, causing it to stop feeding, and eventually starving to
death. Best of all, the pesticide has no ill effects on other
beneficial insects. We were recognized again for our family of Sea-
Nine antifouling biocides, which replaced other products containing
tri-butyl tin. Sea-Nine safely keeps barnacles and other sea creatures
from attaching themselves to ship hulls. A smooth hull means less drag,
which translates into huge fuel savings over thousands of nautical
miles.
Rohm and Haas was practicing green chemistry before anyone thought
to label such an endeavor when, in the 1950s, we were the first company
to introduce water-based acrylic polymers used as binders in house
paint. Alkyds and other solvent-based paints--with their high VOC
emissions and difficulty to apply and clean-up--were the predominant
paint technology at the time. Despite a slow beginning and initial
resistance, our researchers remained committed to bringing not only an
environmentally friendly alternative to the paint industry, but an
alternative that actually performed significantly better than the
solvent and oil-based technologies. Our perseverance paid off and
helped spark the birth of modern acrylic latex paints. Today, 85
percent of paints, stains, and primers purchased by home owners (the
Do-It-Yourself market) use waterborne technology.
Although this technology recently celebrated its 50th anniversary,
we continue to build and improve upon our acrylic platform. We expect
to soon begin work on new low VOC coatings using sustainable
chemistries, exciting research I'll describe in more detail shortly.
During the past 15 years, Rohm and Haas Company has joined, has
been a signatory to, or has reaffirmed its support of numerous
voluntary programs, including: EPA's 33/50 emissions reduction program,
the International Chamber of Commerce charter on Sustainable
Development, the Pew Center on Global Climate Change Business
Environmental Leadership Council, the Executive Council of the World
Business Council for Sustainable Development, the U.S. Department of
Energy's Industries of the Future Allied Partner program, and the U.S.
Council on Sustainable Development. We have held various symposiums for
our employees, including a two-day ``Innovating for Sustainability''
conference for company researchers. This event presented some of the
latest green innovations from a broad spectrum of experts, including
Wolfgang Holderich and Malcolm Willis, widely recognized as the authors
of green chemistry.
Our company's commitment to green and sustainable chemistry begins
with its leadership. In 2002, our Board of Directors renamed the
Corporate Responsibility and Environment, Health, and Safety Committee
to the Committee on Sustainable Development, and adopted a new charter
for its work. This move has helped us further integrate the principles
of green chemistry throughout our company.
Collaboration is Key
During the last several years, environmental, social, and economic
forces have transformed green and sustainable chemistry from merely a
secondary consideration into a core objective of nearly every
responsible company in nearly every industry. Today, before a new
chemical compound is synthesized or a new product is designed, chemists
and engineers step back to look holistically at the short- and long-
range impact of their innovations. They question the type of raw
materials used. They assess whether safer alternatives are available.
They investigate novel manufacturing methods, and look for ways to
reduce or eliminate dangerous byproducts. They consider inherent risks
of the new product--risks to workers, communities, and end users--and
how they can be mitigated or completely avoided.
Although you will find these activities underway daily in Rohm and
Haas labs and production plants around the world--and in the labs and
plants of other responsible companies--it is by no means easy.
Significant resources are required to develop, analyze, and test
alternative raw materials or brand new chemistries. This can lead to
the study of thousands of different compounds and formulations. When a
promising material is identified, a fresh round of analysis begins to
ensure it meets strict environmental, risk, economic, and performance
expectations. To do this successfully, I believe industrial research
initiatives must turn to broad collaboration with multiple external
partners.
Innovations that incorporate green chemistry will emerge and
develop far more quickly when industry works together with government,
academia, and even non-governmental organizations (NGOs, such as
environmental or consumer groups) to address common goals. In recent
years, we have seen many tremendous examples of two or more of these
groups joining forces to develop commercially successful green step-out
innovations. The collaboration has paid off handsomely for my industry,
for the industries we serve, and certainly for society as a whole. Let
me offer a few examples.
The automotive industry may be one of the most visible stories
today that illustrates my point. Within the last three to five years,
we have witnessed dramatic changes in new sources of fuels and
alternative propulsion methods--many still under development, but some
commercialized and in use today. As governments around the world raise
fuel economy standards in an attempt to curb greenhouse gasses, some of
the largest automobile companies are rolling out cars that can achieve
two or three times the fuel efficiency versus cars operating with
traditional internal combustion engines. Today, so-called hybrid
vehicles appear to be catching on with automakers and consumers alike.
While these ultra efficient automobiles have gained momentum--to a
certain degree from pressure from NGOs and governments--industry has
clearly benefited from multiple government funding sources that have
encouraged step-out scientific research on cleaner burning, more
efficient modes of transportation.
Today, Toyota and Honda are selling tens of thousands of these
hybrids, which use a large battery recharged by a smaller-than-normal
gas engine and by collecting energy when the brakes are applied. The
electric motor assists the vehicle during heavy acceleration or at very
slow speeds, depending on the technology. By mid-decade, Japanese
automakers plan to sell hundreds of thousands of hybrid cars. American
car manufacturers are a step or two behind their Japanese counterparts,
but are also working on this technology.
Many believe this represents the beginning of large scale changes
in the automotive industry, the first significant change since a
gasoline-powered Oldsmobile gained popularity in 1903, making steam-
powered vehicles obsolete. And for the chemical industry, this change
represents both opportunities and challenges. Fundamental shifts in
automotive technologies spell changes for our product offerings. New
advanced control and electronic systems, lighter and stronger
materials, and new paint and coating technologies that adhere to and
protect composite parts, are just a few of the opportunities where
advanced green chemistry can play a role. At Rohm and Haas, in
collaboration with our JV partner, Nippon Paint, we continue to develop
advanced, environmentally friendly waterborne coatings that protect
plastic auto parts. These coatings are critically important as plastic
parts become thinner and lighter.
We are aggressively working on a new generation of automotive
coatings that use our dry powder technology, virtually eliminating all
volatile organic compounds. This illustrates how opportunities can be
uncovered at the interface of seemingly unrelated entities: in this
example, we have ever increasing laws calling for more efficient
automobiles, we have manufacturers meeting their efficiency goals by
using lighter, stronger plastic in cars, and we have our water-based
coating technology that eliminates harmful solvents and provides
superior protection to plastic parts.
Another challenge for the automotive industry is to ensure that
chemistries meet recyclability guidelines, since many regulations
today, particularly throughout Europe, require automobile components to
be recycled or reusable. In a wonderful example of collaboration, The
Dow Chemical Company and Mitsui Chemicals met this challenge head-on
when they agreed to jointly develop a new block copolymer featuring
properties of two resins that will make stronger car bumpers. Not only
will these high-strength bumpers require less resin to manufacture, but
if this new product takes the place of traditional metal parts, it will
help reduce a car's overall weight, which of course translates into
better fuel economy. Best yet, this new resin can be recycled as an
adhesive to hold other plastic parts together.
As I am sure Members of this committee are well aware, hybrid
vehicles are just the first step in a giant leap toward even more
impressive green and sustainable technology. Fuel cells that use
hydrogen and oxygen to create electric power have received widespread
attention in the media, and for good reason. Generating only heat and
water as its byproduct, this technology is seen by governments around
world (including our own), by NGOs, and by many others as a potential
number-one breakthrough in transportation power. Companies,
universities, and private laboratories are working on fuel cell
technology, and through grants and incentive programs, governments are
collaborating with industry to see this technology come to fruition. I
understand that General Motors has 600 researchers working on fuel cell
technology in the U.S. and Germany, and has worked with Germany's top
safety institute, TUV, to ensure their system meets strict European
standards. This is another example where industry and government or
quasi-government agencies, working together, are bringing sustainable
technology from the lab bench to the consumer.
Closer to the chemical industry, one doesn't have to look very far
to find examples of where we can work closely with the government on
green and sustainable technologies. The DOE launched a program to help
fund companies conducting biomass research and development for the
production of sustainable products. At Rohm and Haas, we were pleased
when the DOE enacted its Allied Partner program, which offers not only
funding opportunities for new technologies, but also access to DOE
research and data.
Success stories are not limited to collaboration between government
and industry. There are tremendous examples of industry, government,
and academic groups pooling their collective know-how to deliver
stellar technology with a promising future. A consortium of Deere &
Company, Diversa, duPont, Michigan State University, and the National
Renewable Energy Laboratory received nearly $20 million from the DOE to
develop a ``bio refinery'' that produces ethanol and other chemicals
derived from corn.
There are many more example of broad collaboration outside the
United States. Italy's National inter-university consortium of
chemistry for the environment in Venice launched an annual recognition
program for contributions to clean chemical processes. In Melbourne,
the Royal Australian Chemical Institute has held its Green Chemistry
Challenge Award since 1999. And in the United Kingdom, the Royal
Society of Chemistry in London launched the Green Chemistry Network.
Headquartered at the University of York, the 600-member network helps
chemical companies and scientists share best practices, promotes the
sharing of green technologies, and offers data supporting the cost
benefits of green science.
In another notable example of green chemistry collaboration in
England, chemistry professors looking for the right connections with
industry can turn to the Crystal Faraday Partnership, a virtual green
chemistry center. Jointly developed by the Royal Society of Chemistry,
the Chemical Industries Association in London, and the Institution of
Chemical Engineers, this group is a collaborative conduit, linking the
creative spirit and technical expertise of pure researchers with the
financial support and manufacturing resources of a corporation. In one
example I often cite, the Nottingham University chemistry department
developed a series of unique supercritical fluid reactions, and through
the Crystal Faraday Partnership, collaborated with fine chemicals firm
Thomas Swan to use these reactions in a variety of processes. The new
technology replaces conventional solvents with inert supercritical
fluids in key processes, leading to reduced or eliminated wastes and
undesirable byproducts.
Would Thomas Swan use this new technology today if the
collaborative community established by the Royal Society of Chemistry
did not exist? Perhaps. But there is no denying that the Crystal
Faraday Partnership and similar organizations that support and
encourage cooperation--often across disparate groups--is a crucial tool
and proven commodity that helps speed the pace of green innovation at
companies around the world.
Before moving on, let me touch on another group--the non
governmental organizations, or NGOs--that has collaborated with
industry to develop green chemistry.
Admittedly, the image of these two very different entities holding
hands and working toward a common goal is not one to which we're
accustomed. Suffice it so say that industry and many environmental and
consumer groups have not in the past seen eye to eye. Nevertheless,
that is beginning to change--slowly, cautiously--but progress can be
seen if you look hard enough.
Nineteen eighty-seven was the year some say we first saw a glimpse
of cooperation between industry and environmental groups, at least as
it relates to sustainability. That's the year the United Nations
published its report, ``Our Common Future,'' in which the most
frequently quoted definition of sustainable development is still cited
today. It reads:
``Development that meets the needs of the present without
compromising the ability of future generations to meet their
own needs.''
This statement marked the recognition by environmental groups that
economic growth and development were necessary to meet the needs of the
world's expanding population. It also signaled the philosophical
acceptance by industry that growth must be accomplished in a way that
meets the needs of today's society AND preserves natural resources and
the environment for future generations.
Examples of close working relationships between companies and
environmental groups are hard to come by, to be certain. But when these
groups join forces, the results can be impressive. For example, in the
late 1990s, the World Wildlife Fund and Unilever joined forces to start
the Marine Stewardship Council. Now an independent non-profit
organization, this council offered one of the first ``eco-labels'' to
identify fish certified to come from an environmentally sustainable
catch. This was a perfect match for Unilever, considering that its
Bestfoods division manufactures fish sticks and other frozen seafood
products.
There are literally hundreds of opportunities for chemical
companies to accelerate our pace toward Green and Sustainable Chemistry
through powerful collaboration and partnerships. Is it easy? No. . .it
takes work, extra effort, and relationship building. And let's be
honest--companies that develop new and successful technologies may be
inclined to use it as competitive advantage rather than share it with
competitors. That's a risk/benefit balance that responsible companies
must weigh at some point. One thing is certain, however: The speed in
which today's market demands new chemistries, better processes, and
greener products is accelerating. Bringing green chemistry out of the
labs and into the marketplace faster will require the kind of
collaboration I have just described. And it will require funding and
support.
``The Green Chemistry Research and Development Act of 2004'' Will Help
Accelerate Pace of Green and Sustainable Innovation
Many of the examples I described included one form or another of
government or quasi-government agency support, either through funding,
access to National Labs' data, or assistance in knowledge transfer. The
role of collaborative support in green and sustainable chemistry
research cannot be understated.
As I am sure Committee Members are well aware, the $460 billion
chemical industry, a key element to our nation's economy that accounts
for 10 cents out of every dollar in U.S. exports, is coping with an
unprecedented energy crisis. Volatile, runaway natural gas prices have
steadily eroded our ability to compete in an industry that continues to
see an influx of very competent, competitive chemical manufactures from
Europe, Asia, and the Middle East. Current natural gas prices have
turned U.S. chemical manufactures into the world's high cost producer.
This in turn has had a profound impact on our profitability, and
subsequently, our capacity to raise (or even maintain) expensive R&D
budgets.
Although chemical companies invest more in research and development
than any other business sector, there are disturbing signs that this
trend is slipping. In a recent survey conducted by Chemical and
Engineering News, a respected industry publication, only seven out of
17 companies surveyed expected to increase their R&D spending in 2004.
Six plan no increases, while four plan cutbacks in their R&D budget.
According to the survey, 2004 R&D as a percent of sales--a widely used
barometer to indicate a company's relative commitment to research, will
fall to an estimated decade low of 3.2 percent. This is considerably
below the decade high of five percent in 1994 and two tenths of a
percent less compared to last year's average.
The upshot? External funding for green chemistry--no matter the
size and the source--cannot come at a better time for an industry that
is grappling with historically high energy and raw material prices,
squeezed margins, and fierce competition from companies outside of our
boarders.
At Rohm and Haas, we recognized the need to bolster our
collaborative skills and external funding capabilities about two years
ago. We conducted a day-long workshop with our top research leaders to
teach them about the skill, and the art, of finding external
collaborative partners. Emerging from that seminar was the creation of
our Technology Partnerships group, which assists our scientists with
matching their projects with potential external funding opportunities.
This effort has yielded promising results.
One example is the work I mentioned earlier about new low VOC
coatings using sustainable chemistries. Last year, Rohm and Haas
submitted a proposal for a DOE cooperative grant to research and
develop new polymer technologies that can remove as much as 30 percent
of raw materials from the polymer particles in an acrylic emulsion, a
key ingredient in paint. Working together with Archer Daniels Midland
(ADM), the University of Minnesota, and the DOE, Rohm and Haas plans to
match its novel binders with new, renewable plant-based coalescing
agents from ADM to deliver breakthrough coatings that offer outstanding
performance, environmental friendliness, and cost efficiency. When
fully deployed, this new technology is expected to save up to 86
trillion BTUs per year. We hope to hear good news about our proposal
soon from the DOE!
This is precisely the type of collaboration that can accelerate
critical green chemistry research, and illustrates why the Green
Chemistry Research and Development Act of 2004 is such an important
bill. In addition to funding support, which more and more chemical
companies, including my own, are seeking to supplement tightening R&D
budgets, this Act encourages technology transfer between key
stakeholders. Collaboration between industry, government, academia, and
even NGOs, is a promising trend in research that has proven its worth,
and is poised to increase in the coming years. This bill will encourage
and accelerate that movement.
While the bill's research funding component may be, understandably,
the most visible and sought after benefit, other activities included in
the proposed legislation are equally important. The Federal
Government's encouragement of green chemistry research--using
incentives and other levers--and its power to promote the adoption and
commercial application of green chemistry innovations, can exert great
influence on the direction of these endeavors. This is especially
important, since recent history has shown us that consumers are not
going to pay more simply because a product is labeled ``green,'' or was
developed using green chemistry processes.
Although ``green'' by itself typically is not a compelling selling
point, more consumers today are taking a second look when green
products demonstrate real (or sometimes perceived) value. Chances of
successfully marketing these products increase dramatically when we can
demonstrate increased performance, long-term energy savings, or other
tangible benefits for the consumer.
For example, U.S. commercial and residential housing are
responsible for more than 36 percent of our country's energy
consumption, and yet, the success of green marketing in that industry
has varied widely. On the commercial side, marketing super efficient
office buildings has been met with limited success beyond baseline
standards set by the EPA's Energy Star program. The return on premium
costs associated with high efficiency commercial construction cannot be
realized unless property developers and owners hold their buildings
long enough to reap utility savings. And since turnover in commercial
property ownership is commonplace, green marketing in this segment is
not particularly successful.
On the other hand, the story is much more positive in residential
housing, where encouragement from NGOs and the prospects of lower
energy bills (the ``real value'' I mentioned earlier) have resurrected
interest in ``green'' homes. Spurred by consumers' interest in smaller
monthly utility bills, U.S. builders are marketing environmental
friendly features that were unheard of in homes five or 10 years ago.
Porous driveways that allow rainwater to settle back into the ground
and tankless hot water heaters, common throughout many parts of Europe
and Japan but fairly new in the U.S., can save up to 50 percent in
energy bills. Energy efficient ``low E'' double pane windows, heating
systems approaching 90 percent or better efficiency, and appliances
that use 50 percent less energy versus those in the 1970s are now
widely available. Hard wood flooring continues to loose market share to
carpeting and laminates from recycled materials, a shift that has
reduced our reliance on diminishing lumber supplies.
Although some of these examples are not related to green chemistry
per se, they do illustrate that green products can attract consumers'
attention as long as the products offer value with a clear payoff.
Encouragement from this proposed legislation to adopt and use products
that are developed from green chemistry is a positive step in marketing
the virtues of green technology.
The bill's provision to ``promote the education and training of
undergraduate and graduate students in green chemistry science and
engineering,'' is another welcome component. As chemical companies
ramp-up their green and sustainable chemistry research, the need for
new technical talent who can hit the ground running with the right
chemistry skills and proper mindset attuned to green technology is a
winning combination. There are many companies, including my own, who
have established special labs that focus on next generation sustainable
technologies. At Rohm and Haas, our Green Chemistry Laboratory uses the
12 Principles of Green Chemistry as a framework to focus on green
opportunities without taking our eyes off of market realities. As these
types of labs increase in number and size, chemists and engineering
graduates with unique green chemistry skills will be in high demand.
Finally, I do not want to short change provisions of the bill that
call for the collection and dissemination of information on green
chemistry research, and the development of outreach venues that support
knowledge transfer. It is difficult to quantify, but I can tell you
from first hand experience that the tools supporting best practice
sharing--conferences, symposiums, electronic forums and databases,
written materials--are critically important to the advancement of green
and sustainable chemistry. Bringing great minds together, no matter the
method, is a force multiplier for diverse thought and new solutions to
old problems.
On behalf of Rohm and Haas Company, I strongly support the Green
Chemistry Research and Development Act of 2004. This legislation
provides funding that is crucial, more so today than in recent times,
to accelerate green research and development endeavors. Provisions that
develop future chemistry and engineering talent, and foster
collaboration and the transfer of best practices, are important
catalysts that will advance new technologies based on sound,
responsible science and the principles of green and sustainable
chemistry.
Statement in support of H.R. 3970 by Dr. J. Michael Fitzpatrick,
President and Chief Operating Officer, Rohm and Haas Company
On behalf of the Rohm and Haas Company, I want to offer our support
for the proposed Green Chemistry Research and Development Act of 2004.
Within the last decade, environmental, social, and economic forces
have transformed green and sustainable chemistry from merely a
secondary consideration into a core objective of nearly every
responsible company in nearly every industry. Today, before a new
chemical compound is synthesized or a new product is designed, chemists
and engineers step back to look holistically at the short- and long-
range impact of their innovations. They question the type of raw
materials used, and whether safer alternatives are available. They
investigate novel manufacturing methods, and look for ways to reduce or
eliminate dangerous byproducts. They consider inherent risks of the new
product--risks to workers, communities, and end users--and how they can
be minimized or completely avoided.
Although you will find these activities underway daily in Rohm and
Haas labs and production plants around the world--and in the labs and
plants of other responsible companies--it is by no means easy.
Significant resources are required to develop and test alternatives or
brand new chemistries, and to ensure they meet strict environmental,
risk, economic, and performance expectations. To do this successfully,
we believe broad collaboration is not only prudent, but necessary.
Innovations that incorporate green chemistry will emerge and
develop far more quickly when government, industry, academia, and even
non-governmental organizations (environmental or consumer groups) work
together to address common goals. In the last few years, we have seen
many tremendous examples of two or more of these groups joining forces
to develop commercially successful ``green'' step-out innovations. But
much more can be done.
With U.S. chemical companies facing record breaking energy and raw
material prices, one cannot understate the importance of differentiated
technology based on the principles of green chemistry. Rohm and Haas
Company believes the proposed Green Chemistry Research and Development
Act of 2004, and its associated funding, will provide strong support
and encouragement for additional collaboration, knowledge transfer, and
crucial research on a new class of green and sustainable technologies.
About Rohm and Haas Company
About Rohm and Haas: Rohm and Haas is a worldwide producer of
specialty chemicals with more than 100 plants and research facilities
in 26 countries. Rohm and Haas technology is found in paint and
coatings, adhesives and sealants, construction materials, personal
computers and electronic components, household cleaning products and
thousands of everyday products. Additional information about Rohm and
Haas can be found at www.rohmhaas.com.
Statement by the American Chemistry Council
AMERICAN CHEMISTRY COUNCIL SUPPORTS COORDINATED FEDERAL GREEN CHEMISTRY
R&D PROGRAM
The American Chemistry Council (ACC) supports the establishment of
an interagency research and development program to coordinate federal
green chemistry R&D, such as efforts outlined in the Green Chemistry
Research and Development Act of 2004. A coordinated approach would
increase efficiency and help identify appropriate goals for a federal
green chemistry R&D program.
Green chemistry looks at the life cycle of chemical products--
benefits, sustainability, potential risks and other attributes--to help
develop products that bring value to society while reducing
environmental impact.
Chemical makers fully recognize the benefits of R&D. In fact, the
business of chemistry spends more on R&D than any other private sector.
Chemical makers share a common interest with the Federal Government in
conducting research that leads to the development of alternatives or
new chemistries, while meeting strict environmental, risk, economic and
performance expectations.
While R&D often is an inviting target for budget reductions in the
private and public sectors, the Federal Government should focus on
making R&D programs more productive. Despite the difficult economic
conditions in the industry and efforts by many companies to reduce
spending, chemical makers have become more efficient users of R&D
dollars by reducing bureaucracy, thereby retaining researchers at the
bench who generate the new concepts and ideas that ultimately enrich
the future for all Americans and the world.
http://www.accnewsmedia.com
The American Chemistry Council (ACC) represents the leading
companies engaged in the business of chemistry. ACC members apply the
science of chemistry to make innovative products and services that make
people's lives better, healthier and safer. ACC is committed to
improved environmental, health and safety performance through
Responsible Care, common sense advocacy designed to address major
public policy issues, and health and environmental research and product
testing. The business of chemistry is a $460 billion enterprise and a
key element of the Nation's economy. It is the Nation's largest
exporter, accounting for ten cents out of every dollar in U.S. exports.
Chemistry companies invest more in research and development than any
other business sector. Safety and security have always been primary
concerns of ACC members, and they have intensified their efforts,
working closely with government agencies to improve security and to
defend against any threat to the Nation's critical infrastructure.