[House Hearing, 111 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
THE TOXIC SUBSTANCES CONTROL ACT AND PERSISTENT, BIOACCUMULATIVE, AND
TOXIC CHEMICALS: EXAMINING DOMESTIC AND INTERNATIONAL ACTIONS
=======================================================================
HEARING
BEFORE THE
SUBCOMMITTEE ON COMMERCE, TRADE,
AND CONSUMER PROTECTION
OF THE
COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND COMMERCE
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED ELEVENTH CONGRESS
SECOND SESSION
__________
MARCH 4, 2010
__________
Serial No. 111-102
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Printed for the use of the Committee on Energy and Commerce
energycommerce.house.gov
_____
U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
76-014 WASHINGTON : 2012
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing
Office Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512-1800; DC
area (202) 512-1800 Fax: (202) 512-2104 Mail: Stop IDCC, Washington, DC
20402-0001
COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND COMMERCE
HENRY A. WAXMAN, California, Chairman
JOHN D. DINGELL, Michigan JOE BARTON, Texas
Chairman Emeritus Ranking Member
EDWARD J. MARKEY, Massachusetts RALPH M. HALL, Texas
RICK BOUCHER, Virginia FRED UPTON, Michigan
FRANK PALLONE, Jr., New Jersey CLIFF STEARNS, Florida
BART GORDON, Tennessee NATHAN DEAL, Georgia
BOBBY L. RUSH, Illinois ED WHITFIELD, Kentucky
ANNA G. ESHOO, California JOHN SHIMKUS, Illinois
BART STUPAK, Michigan JOHN B. SHADEGG, Arizona
ELIOT L. ENGEL, New York ROY BLUNT, Missouri
GENE GREEN, Texas STEVE BUYER, Indiana
DIANA DeGETTE, Colorado GEORGE RADANOVICH, California
Vice Chairman JOSEPH R. PITTS, Pennsylvania
LOIS CAPPS, California MARY BONO MACK, California
MICHAEL F. DOYLE, Pennsylvania GREG WALDEN, Oregon
JANE HARMAN, California LEE TERRY, Nebraska
TOM ALLEN, Maine MIKE ROGERS, Michigan
JANICE D. SCHAKOWSKY, Illinois SUE WILKINS MYRICK, North Carolina
CHARLES A. GONZALEZ, Texas JOHN SULLIVAN, Oklahoma
JAY INSLEE, Washington TIM MURPHY, Pennsylvania
TAMMY BALDWIN, Wisconsin MICHAEL C. BURGESS, Texas
MIKE ROSS, Arkansas MARSHA BLACKBURN, Tennessee
ANTHONY D. WEINER, New York PHIL GINGREY, Georgia
JIM MATHESON, Utah STEVE SCALISE, Louisiana
G.K. BUTTERFIELD, North Carolina
CHARLIE MELANCON, Louisiana
JOHN BARROW, Georgia
BARON P. HILL, Indiana
DORIS O. MATSUI, California
DONNA M. CHRISTENSEN, Virgin
Islands
KATHY CASTOR, Florida
JOHN P. SARBANES, Maryland
CHRISTOPHER S. MURPHY, Connecticut
ZACHARY T. SPACE, Ohio
JERRY McNERNEY, California
BETTY SUTTON, Ohio
BRUCE L. BRALEY, Iowa
PETER WELCH, Vermont
Subcommittee on Commerce, Trade, and Consumer Protection
BOBBY L. RUSH, Illinois
Chairman
JANICE D. SCHAKOWSKY, Illinois CLIFF STEARNS, Florida
Vice Chair Ranking Member
JOHN SARBANES, Maryland RALPH M. HALL, Texas
BETTY SUTTON, Ohio ED WHITFIELD, Kentucky
FRANK PALLONE, New Jersey GEORGE RADANOVICH, California
BART GORDON, Tennessee JOSEPH R. PITTS, Pennsylvania
BART STUPAK, Michigan MARY BONO MACK, California
GENE GREEN, Texas LEE TERRY, Nebraska
CHARLES A. GONZALEZ, Texas MIKE ROGERS, Michigan
ANTHONY D. WEINER, New York SUE WILKINS MYRICK, North Carolina
JIM MATHESON, Utah MICHAEL C. BURGESS, Texas
G.K. BUTTERFIELD, North Carolina
JOHN BARROW, Georgia
DORIS O. MATSUI, California
KATHY CASTOR, Florida
ZACHARY T. SPACE, Ohio
BRUCE L. BRALEY, Iowa
DIANA DeGETTE, Colorado
JOHN D. DINGELL, Michigan (ex officio)
C O N T E N T S
----------
Page
Hon. Bobby L. Rush, a Representative in Congress from the State
of Illinois, opening statement................................. 1
Hon. Ed Whitfield, a Representative in Congress from the
Commonwealth of Kentucky, opening statement.................... 3
Hon. Janice D. Schakowsky, a Representative in Congress from the
State of Illinois, opening statement........................... 4
Hon. Joe Barton, a Representative in Congress from the State of
Texas, opening statement....................................... 5
Prepared statement........................................... 6
Hon. John D. Dingell, a Representative in Congress from the State
of Michigan, prepared statement................................ 11
Hon. Joseph R. Pitts, a Representative in Congress from the
Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, opening statement................ 13
Hon. Diana DeGette, a Representative in Congress from the State
of Colorado, opening statement................................. 13
Hon. Steve Scalise, a Representative in Congress from the State
of Louisiana, opening statement................................ 14
Hon. Gene Green, a Representative in Congress from the State of
Texas, opening statement....................................... 15
Hon. Phil Gingrey, a Representative in Congress from the State of
Georgia, opening statement..................................... 16
Hon. Betty Sutton, a Representative in Congress from the State of
Ohio, opening statement........................................ 17
Hon. Henry A. Waxman, a Representative in Congress from the State
of California, prepared statement.............................. 83
Hon. Kathy Castor, a Representative in Congress from the State of
Florida, prepared statement.................................... 85
Witnesses
Jim Jones, Deputy Assistant Administrator, Office of Prevention,
Pesticides and Toxic Substances, Environmental Protection
Agency......................................................... 19
Prepared statement........................................... 22
Answers to submitted questions............................... 135
John Thompson, Division Director, Office of Environmental Policy,
Bureau of Oceans, Environment and Science, Department of State. 28
Prepared statement........................................... 30
Linda Greer, Director, Health and Environment Program, Natural
Resources Defense Council...................................... 35
Prepared statement........................................... 38
Christina Cowan-Ellsberry, CE2 Consulting, Former Principal
Scientist, Environmental Sciences Department, Procter and
Gamble......................................................... 44
Prepared statement........................................... 46
Answers to submitted questions............................... 158
Ted Sturdevant, Director, Department of Ecology, State of
Washington..................................................... 53
Prepared statement........................................... 55
Answers to submitted questions............................... 153
William J. Adams, Chairman, North American Metals Council........ 63
Prepared statement........................................... 65
Answers to submitted questions............................... 167
Submitted Material
Committee Memorandum............................................. 87
Letter of February 23, 2010, from Safer Chemicals Healthy
Families to Subcommittee....................................... 93
Letter of March 3, 2010, from Environmental Working Group to
Subcommittee................................................... 110
Letter of March 2, 2010, from the National Council of Churches to
Subcommittee................................................... 114
Letter of March 3, 2010, from Pesticide Action Network to
Subcommittee................................................... 116
Letter of February 18, 2010, from American Public Health
Association Subcommittee....................................... 118
Letter of March 3, 2010, from American Chemistry Council to
Subcommittee................................................... 120
Statement of National Petrochemical & Refiners Association....... 132
THE TOXIC SUBSTANCES CONTROL ACT AND PERSISTENT, BIOACCUMULATIVE, AND
TOXIC CHEMICALS: EXAMINING DOMESTIC AND INTERNATIONAL ACTIONS
----------
THURSDAY, MARCH 4, 2010
House of Representatives,
Subcommittee on Commerce, Trade,
and Consumer Protection,
Committee on Energy and Commerce,
Washington, DC.
The Subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 10:16 a.m., in
Room 2322 of the Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Bobby L.
Rush [Chairman of the Subcommittee] presiding.
Members present: Representatives Rush, Schakowsky,
Sarbanes, Sutton, Green, Barrow, DeGette, Dingell, Whitfield,
Radanovich, Pitts, Gingrey, Scalise, and Barton (ex officio).
Staff present: Michelle Ash, Chief Counsel; Rebecca Brown,
EPA Fellow; Will Cusey, Special Assistant; Daniel Hekier,
Intern; Angelle Kwemo, Counsel; Timothy Robinson, Counsel;
Lindsay Vidal, Special Assistant; Jerry Couri, Minority Senior
Professional Staff; Sam Costello, Minority Legislative Analyst;
Shannon Weinberg, Minority Counsel; Brian McCullough, Minority
Senior Professional Staff; Robert Frisby, Minority FTC
Detailee; and Will Carty, Minority Professional Staff.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. BOBBY L. RUSH, A REPRESENTATIVE IN
CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF ILLINOIS
Mr. Rush. The hearing is called to order. This hearing is
called for the purpose of discussing the matter of TSCA and the
hearing is entitled the Toxic Substances Control Act and
Persistent, Bio-Accumulative, and Toxic Chemicals: Examining
Domestic and International Actions, and the chair recognizes
himself for 5 minutes.
I want to welcome all of you who are here this morning to
participate in today's hearing on the Toxic Substances Control
Act and specific efforts that have been, or need to be, taken
to protect public health, and the environment, from a diverse
array of toxic substances.
Our focus today is on a special group of chemicals known as
PBTs that pose unique risks to human health and environment
safety. Even at a very low exposure and concentration levels in
our communities, our homes, our workplaces and the environment,
PBTs have been linked to adverse health effects in humans and
in animals. Some of the effects include cancers, and some
include genetic mutations, and some include the disruption of
normal biological, neurological and hormonal functions of our
bodies.
Examples of commonly known PBTs include unwanted wastes
like mercury and dioxins. The list also includes pesticides
like DDT and HCB. DDT, as most of you know, is a well-known
synthetic pesticide. Also included in this list of potential
toxins is HCB or hexachlorobenzene and other industrial
chemicals, such as PCBs and heavy metal including cadmium, and
mercury and lead.
The way I understand PBTs is to think of them in the
following way, and generally speaking the P, or persistence,
relates to environmental safety. Persistent pollutants or
toxins are not biodegradable. That means that these chemicals
do not break down easily in the environment. You can think of
them in the way you think of--I like to think of them as
unwelcome house guests who don't know when it is time to leave.
The B stands for bioaccumulative or bioaccumulation and it
relates to human health and to the environment. Following their
release into the environment, some of these substances
concentrate in rising proportions in soils, sediments, water
and in the air. Over time, these concentration levels rise
continually within, and to the top of, the human food chain.
And the T, which stands for toxic or toxins, relates to
human health. Toxic substances lead to adverse health effects,
such as the ones I described earlier.
What is also important to remember is that these are not
mutually exclusive categories. While it can be presumed that a
chemical substance which displays all three characteristics is
especially harmful, a chemical substance or a mixture can
display just one of the three characteristics, that is, it can
be persistent, bioaccumulative or toxic to human health. These
substances are capable of traveling great distances on air or
in oceanic currents.
Last year, I had the honor of receiving a delegation of
indigenous peoples from the Savoonga and Gambell nations. These
representatives were from two member tribes of the National
Congress of American Indians. They told my staff of serious
public health issues they are experiencing as a result of
pollutants, particularly legacy chemicals such as PBDEs
[polybromodiphenyl ethers] and PFCs [perflourinated compounds],
that have blown and crested onto St. John's Island.
At our last hearing on TSCA in November, 2009, we discussed
the need for including a prioritizing scheme in our soon-to-be-
introduced bill, which will make critical reforms to the
existing 33-year-old statute. Under this scheme, the
Environmental Protection Agency's chemical risk and safety
assessment responsibilities would be radically streamlined.
With this new authority, the EPA will be able to take much
swifter action to reduce the volume of especially threatening
substances that are already in the commercial stream, that are
in our bodies, and that are in our food and water sources.
I am pleased to welcome all six of our witnesses to this
subcommittee this morning. The common thread through all of
their testimonies is, obviously, PBTs. Today, each one of them
will talk about the PBT problem and how to go about addressing
it from their perspectives as government regulators, policy
makers, public interest and health advocates, and from the
perspective of the industry. Each of these witnesses is
prepared to testify and answer questions about PTC regulation
and remediation by assessing the regulatory lay of the land,
and meaning that the State and Federal levels are of concern to
them and, of course, the impact of these chemicals on our
planet. We have got just this one planet here and we got to be
concerned about it, and we got to protect it, and we got to
make sure that it will be around for a long, long, long time.
It is a gift to us and we have got our responsibility to be
able to pass it on a healthy path to generations to come.
And I want to thank you and I yield back the balance of my
time.
And now I will recognize the ranking member from this
subcommittee, my friend, the gentleman from Kentucky, Mr.
Whitfield, for 5 minutes.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. ED WHITFIELD, A REPRESENTATIVE IN
CONGRESS FROM THE COMMONWEALTH OF KENTUCKY
Mr. Whitfield. Chairman Rush, thank you very much for
holding this hearing on the Toxic Substances Control Act.
Today we will explore what many believe are the most
generous chemicals, PBTs. These are chemicals and substances
that are long-lasting and can build up in the food chain to
levels that present threats to humans and the environment. We
must take steps, obviously, the ensure Americans and the
environment are as safe from these hazardous chemicals as
possible but I also firmly believe that high-quality science,
that is science that is measurable, reliable, relevant and that
can be reproduced should lead the way for whatever reforms this
Congress makes to current law.
Mr. Chairman, I understand that at some point it is your
intention to move legislation to reform TSCA. I am pleased that
you are going to do that and I hope that we on this side of the
aisle have an opportunity to work with you and your staff as
you write this legislation.
With that said, it is my hope that any action we do take
does not have adverse consequences similar to those that the
toy bill has had. We need to recognize the nuances of the
science and give importance to exposure and risk data, not just
hazards.
When this committee applied a precautionary ethos to the
Consumer Product Safety Improvement Act, we closed down many
small businesses because they simply cannot meet the
requirements that we insisted upon. And I might also mention
that in an op-ed piece in the Wall Street Journal this past
Christmas season, a former colleague of ours now a commissioner
at the CPSC, Consumer Protection, said that the new law reduced
the Consumer Product Safety Commission's longstanding
discretion to act in response to genuine risks, substituting
instead the rigid broad brush and unscientific judgment of
Congress. As we have seen, good intentions do not always lead
to good results and I will simply urge that we continue to heed
the lessons learned from the particular law.
I do look forward to hearing today from our witnesses, all
of who are experts in their field, as we try to delineate
between organic and inorganic PBTs, as we look at how
widespread and effective are the States that are working in
this area. And then, of course, I think it is imperative that
we also explore our international leadership and the fact that
a number of important treaties that we are signatories have not
been affirmed or confirmed by the U.S. Senate.
Mr. Chairman, while it has been over 3 decades since this
law has been reformed, I again would like to stress the
importance that we examine the issues carefully before we make
sweeping changes that could adversely impact commerce,
innovation and, of course, public and environmental health. We
approach this subject with the very best of intentions and
particularly in today's economic downturn I think that it is
particularly important that we be mindful of the impact that
any actions we may take on the job market.
And I yield back the balance of my time. Thank you.
Mr. Rush. The chair now recognizes my friend, my colleague
from Illinois, the vice chairman of the subcommittee, Ms.
Schakowsky for 2 minutes for the purposes of opening
statements.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. JANICE D. SCHAKOWSKY, A
REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF ILLINOIS
Ms. Schakowsky. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for holding this
important hearing.
This is the third we have held in the 111th Congress on the
Toxic Substances Control Act and I look forward to working with
you and Chairman Waxman on reforming the law so that it
protects our community from harmful products, from harmful
pollutants. When Congress passed TSCA, it's intention was to
give EPA the tools it needed to protect the public from
exposure to toxic chemicals that cause serious harm, however,
more than 30 years later, as has already been stated, the
scientific evidence is overwhelming that chemicals continue to
persist in our environment, are a significant contributor to
the problems of many diseases. Leukemia, brain cancer, other
childhood cancers have increased by 20 percent since TSCA
became law. We know for certain that exposure to substances
like asbestos and mercury and many others pose lethal or
catastrophic results. What these startling facts tell us is
that TSCA in its current form is completely incapable of
protecting the public and that it is imperative for Congress to
amend the law so that it can safeguard the American people from
exposure to lethal chemicals.
Today we hear from our witnesses about a specific subset of
chemicals that meet the criteria for being labeled as
persistent, bioaccumulative and toxic, PBTs, and I appreciate
them. I appreciate our witnesses for being here today to shed
light on these especially devastating chemicals and, again, Mr.
Chairman, I thank you for holding the hearing.
And I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. Rush. The chair now recognizes the ranking member of
the full committee and the gentleman from Texas, Mr. Barton,
for 5 minutes.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. JOE BARTON, A REPRESENTATIVE IN
CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF TEXAS
Mr. Barton. We thank you, Chairman Rush.
Before I give my opening statement, I want to say some
words about our newest ranking member of this subcommittee, my
good friend from Kentucky, Mr. Whitfield. I specifically asked
him to take over for Congressman Radanovich because of Mr.
Radanovich's situation with the death of his wife and the
requirements that he take care of his young son. He didn't have
the capability or the time to give the ranking membership his
full attention and I understand that.
I specifically asked Mr. Whitfield to take on the duties of
this subcommittee's ranking membership because it is my
expectation, Mr. Chairman, that at some point in time you and
Chairman Waxman intend to move legislation reforming TSCA, and
I wanted my very best, senior, experienced person at the helm
and that is Ed Whitfield. He has worked in both the majority
and the minority on this subcommittee and he knows the issues
well. He knows also the personalities well and he has the
confidence of both sides of the aisle so it was not serendipity
that Ed Whitfield got asked to take this ranking membership and
I think it speaks to his capabilities that he has already hit
the ground running.
I might also say, Mr. Chairman, that this is an important
hearing and I think if you just look out in the audience you
see former general counsels for the committee, and chiefs of
staff for the committee and they don't come cheap, Mr.
Chairman. They are here because this is a big deal and it is an
important deal and it speaks to your leadership that you are
taking this complex subject.
On the issue at hand, we understand that PBTs are extremely
toxic and can be hazardous. We understand that they need to be
regulated closely and monitored continuously.
We do have a witness from the Pellston Working Group here
that has done some groundbreaking research and if their
research is correct, Mr. Chairman, there is a possibility that
we can adopt a more flexible regulatory approach based on not
only the definition of what is hazardous but what the risk is
of that hazard. So I am looking forward to their testimony,
plus obviously the testimony of the other witnesses here.
Congress does not normally do complex, technical issues
well. As Mr. Whitfield has pointed out, in the Consumer
Protection Act reauthorization last year, I don't think it was
intentional but we adopted a regulatory approach for lead which
is basically zero tolerance and because of that there are many
products that are no longer on the marketplace today that
really didn't have any potential harm to the population. So in
this case, I hope that we do listen to our panels and we do
work together in a bipartisan fashion to move a bill if that is
the wish of the chairman and yourself, Mr. Chairman at the
subcommittee level, that encompasses the latest science, the
latest data and so that we get this one right.
And with that, Mr. Chairman, I yield back.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Barton follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Mr. Rush. The chair thanks the ranking member.
The chair is proud now to introduce the gentleman from
Michigan, the chairman emeritus for the entire committee, who
has provided leadership for this committee and on this
particular issue for many years, and he should have been
introduced earlier but somehow the chairman did not see him
over there which is attributed to my bad eyesight. And so now
the chair recognizes Mr. Dingell for 5 minutes for opening
statements.
Mr. Dingell. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
First, I want to express my gratitude to you for your kind
words and second, I would like to observe this meeting and this
hearing as very, very important and useful. And I know under
your leadership, we will begin a process of reviewing carefully
TSCA of what it is doing, what it is not doing, how the changes
of technology and other things over the past years, some 30 of
which have passed since we have done this legislation in the
first place, and how those things have changed the
circumstances. We are also going to need to know what changes
we have to make in the legislation and it is my hope that these
things will be done carefully under your leadership, and I know
that you will do this wisely and I think that the information
to be achieved will be very valuable.
Mr. Chairman, with that I ask unanimous consent to revise
and extend my remarks and I thank you for your courtesy.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Dingell follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Mr. Rush. The chair now recognizes the gentleman from
Pennsylvania, Mr. Pitts, for 2 minutes.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. JOSEPH R. PITTS, A REPRESENTATIVE IN
CONGRESS FROM THE COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA
Mr. Pitts. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you for holding
this important hearing on the Toxic Substance Control Act and
the subset of chemicals that meet the criteria for being
labeled as persistent, bioaccumulative and toxic.
PBTs are considered to be particularly harmful because they
are long-lasting chemical substances and mixtures that can
build up in the food chain to levels that are harmful to human
and ecosystem health. PBTs can transfer easily and linger for a
long time in people and the environment, and they are
associated with adverse human health effects.
We should take this subject very seriously. None of us want
these substances negatively impacting humans or the environment
however we must prudently go about regulating these chemicals.
There are some that argue that the appearance of a PBT in the
environment is not enough to warrant regulation but rather body
or tissue residues showing a direct causal link to adverse
responses are necessary to justify regulatory management.
Additionally, some experts make a case that regulatory
action should be based on complete information in order to
avoid negative, unintended consequences. For example, PBT
screening criteria assesses only hazard and not risk. Something
may be hazardous and not pose a risk if its exposure is
controlled and hazard assessment only provides information on
the properties of the substance not the likelihood of the
facts. This is comparable to problems that have resulted from
taking a similar approach to lead contents limits in the
Consumer Product Safety Improvement Act which has led to the
elimination of products that have not demonstrated a risk of
lead poisoning.
Our committee should move forward with this example in
mind. Yet I urge us to continue to place safety as the highest
goal.
I appreciate the witnesses being here today. I look forward
to listening to your testimony.
I thank you and I yield back.
Mr. Rush. The chair now recognizes the gentleman from
Georgia. He is no longer here.
The chair recognizes the gentlelady from Colorado, a
leading voice on these and other matters, Ms. DeGette, for 2
minutes.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. DIANA DeGETTE, A REPRESENTATIVE IN
CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF COLORADO
Ms. DeGette. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Chairman, ever since Rachel Carson's landmark book,
Silent Spring, we have known the dangers of chemicals like DDT
that persist in the environment, bioaccumulate and are highly
toxic. When these chemicals move up the food chain, they
increase in concentration and their effects can linger for
decades. So as the species at the very top of the food chain,
this should worry us. DDT was banned in 1972 but its effects
are felt today. Now, DDT is a pesticide covered under FIFRA
that many harmful PBT chemicals are covered under the much
weaker regime of TSCA.
One of those chemicals is mercury. In 2004, my State of
Colorado initiated a 5-year study to assess the levels of
mercury in fish in the State. Two lakes just outside of Denver
were found to have fish with high levels of mercury and local
residents are now advised not to eat fish from these lakes.
Colorado's lakes are not unique, unfortunately and it just
shows why TSCA reform is badly needed. TSCA was enacted over 30
years ago and it is our only major environmental law that has
not been reauthorized.
Now, one of the most important considerations in TSCA
reform as some of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle
have mentioned this is how to characterize the risk posed by
various chemicals. Focusing on those chemicals that persist in
the environment and are highly toxic make sense and I want to
point out also, I agree 100 percent with Mr. Whitfield and
others who say that we should use science as the basis of our
consideration as we look towards reauthorizing this bill. And I
will also point out to our credit in this committee, when we
reauthorized the Consumer Product Safety Act last year, we may
have had some issues with lead and other substances but due to
some very good conversations with me and others on this
committee, we worked out what to do with phthalates in a
bipartisan way and also in a bicameral way that is science-
based and that we were all very pleased with. So, Mr. Chairman,
I look forward to working with you and everyone on this
committee to make sure that not just we are safe from these PBT
chemicals but that our grandchildren are also safe as these
chemicals move up the food chain.
Mr. Rush. The chair recognizes the gentleman from
Louisiana, Mr. Scalise, for 2 minutes.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. STEVE SCALISE, A REPRESENTATIVE IN
CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF LOUISIANA
Mr. Scalise. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and Ranking Member
Whitfield, for having this hearing today. I also want to thank
our witnesses for taking the time to be with us.
I believe we can all agree that the issue of persistent,
bioaccumulative and toxic chemicals, otherwise known as PBTs,
is an important one that we must continue to examine. I am
pleased that this subcommittee is once again taking up the
issue of toxic substances and the laws governing their use in
commerce.
The use and regulation of toxic substances and of chemicals
in general is an issue that we all must take very seriously.
First, because of the effects certain chemicals can have on our
health and the environment. I know from hearing from the
statements of my colleagues made today that they share these
concerns but we also want to make sure that the chemicals that
are produced, used and imported into our country are safe. But
this issue is also important to be because of the chemical
industry's presence in my home State of Louisiana and because
of its importance to our national economy.
According to the American Chemistry Council, over 96
percent of all manufactured goods are directly touched by the
business of chemistry, making this industry a vital part of
every aspect of our economy. In Louisiana, the chemical
industry directly employs over 22,000 people and for every
chemistry industry job in Louisiana, an additional 4.5 jobs are
created in our State, and one thing that must be pointed out is
this chemical industry, these jobs are high-paying. The average
wage of a chemistry industry employee in Louisiana is over
$82,000, which is 53 percent higher than the average
manufacturing wage in the State. During these tough economic
times, these are the kind of jobs we need to be creating more
of.
As this committee continues to consider legislation, we
must make our decisions based on real science that is
measurable, reliable and reproducible. We must also consider
the unintended consequences of actions that might well be well-
intentioned but don't fix the problems yet produce devastating
consequences as was the case in the last Congress when changes
to the Consumer Product Safety Improvement Act shut down small
businesses in America.
Again, it is clear that there are harmful chemicals like
PBTs out there that can have harmful effects if not used
properly, and the proper safeguards need to be put in place,
and we know that the EPA has been taking steps to ensure that
is the case. I think the key finding is the appropriate balance
between protecting our health and environment, and protecting a
vital sector of our economy and the jobs in this industry. I
believe these goals are not mutually exclusive.
I look forward to hearing from our panelists today on
actions that have been taken in other States and other
countries to put protections in place. And I am interested in
our panelists' thoughts on the use of exposure and risk data,
things that in my opinion should be based on sound science and
should be used along with data on the hazards that chemicals
may pose.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I yield back.
Mr. Rush. Mr. Barrow is recognized for 2 minutes. The chair
thanks the gentleman.
Mr. Green is recognized for 2 minutes.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. GENE GREEN, A REPRESENTATIVE IN
CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF TEXAS
Mr. Green. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for holding this
hearing on continued looking at the modernization of the Toxic
Substance Control Act. I also want to welcome and congratulate
our new ranking member, Congressman Whitfield, and look forward
to working with him as we move forward on TSCA modernization
and other matters before the subcommittee.
The issue we are looking at today, persistent,
bioaccumulative and toxic chemicals, or PBTs, are widely agreed
to be a small but potentially dangerous class of chemicals.
Their ability to build up in the food chain and persist over
long periods of time pose a significant danger to human health
and the environment, a fact that the EPA has recognized as they
have taken action to implement more rigorous screenings for
chemicals that display characters of PBTs. These actions
include lower reporting thresholds for PBTs on the toxic
release inventory, the development of prioritization of tool
for the waste streams containing PBTs and reviewing TSCA pre-
manufacturing notices for substances that meet PBT-related
criteria.
I look forward to our witnesses today and what further
steps we can take to domestically further protect human health
and environment but also the important international area.
Transboundary migration of pollutants is an important issue and
one this committee has worked on for some time through efforts
to implement the Stockholm Convention on Persistent Organic
Pollutants to Long-Range Transboundary Air Pollution, POPs
protocol in the Rotterdam Convention on the Prior Informed
Consent. Passing legislation of these treaties should be a
priority in any TSCA modernization legislation this committee
takes up.
Mr. Chairman, I know I am almost through with my time but I
would like to ask unanimous consent to place a letter into the
record from the American Chemistry Council in today's hearing.
ACC has long supported implementing the international treaties
and it sees U.S. leadership in this area as critical action in
the international area, and I would encourage if we haven't
started it to establish a working group of all the interested
parties of such major legislation and I would hope we could
pass it through this Congress.
Mr. Rush. The chairman thanks the gentleman and without
hearing no objection, the letter will be included into the
record.
[The information appears at the conclusion of the hearing.]
Mr. Rush. We recognize Dr. Gingrey for 2 minutes for the
purposes of opening statements.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. PHIL GINGREY, A REPRESENTATIVE IN
CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF GEORGIA
Mr. Gingrey. Mr. Chairman, thank you for calling this third
hearing on the Toxic Substance Control Act of 1976. I am happy
that we have once again delved into this complex issue and I
appreciate the diligence of Commerce, Trade, and Consumer
Protection Subcommittee to continue to examine this important
issue.
TSCA directs the Environmental Protection Agency to
regulate all phases of manufacturing of chemicals and to
identify unreasonable risk of injury from new or existing
chemicals. When regulating these chemicals, TSCA directs the
EPA to use the least burdensome option to reduce the risk of
harm while balancing the benefits provided by the chemical. As
a risk-based law, TSCA relies on the presence of sound science
promote the chemical produces and the EPA in order to properly
implement the law.
Mr. Chairman, while there are many laudable elements of
TSCA, that does not mean that this law is anywhere close to
perfect. Since its enactment, chemical manufacturers and
processes have advanced and so has technology. Accordingly,
TSCA needs to best reflect the science that is currently being
utilized. As we heard during our previous two hearings on this
matter, TSCA reform is needed because we need to ensure the
safety of chemicals used in all products, however, while there
is that consensus, the way to accomplish the reform is
certainly subject to debate and, indeed, some disagreement.
Today's hearing looks at a different aspect of TSCA, and
its domestic and international implications for health and
environmental factors of persistent, bioaccumulative and toxic
chemicals, PBT. Subsequently, today's panel of witnesses will
discuss the efforts taken by TSCA to maintain the safe use of
chemicals both at home and abroad, however, I hope that we do
not use this hearing as a vehicle to fundamentally overhaul
TSCA because if we do, my fear is that we will jeopardize the
long term viability of the chemical industry which will have
lingering ramifications for other industries and subsequently,
of course, our economy.
Mr. Chairman, I would suggest that as we hear from our
distinguished panel of witnesses today we keep in mind the
underlying risk-based principles that guide the current
implementation of TSCA for health and environment. I look
forward to their testimonies.
And I yield back.
Mr. Rush. The chair recognizes the gentlelady from Ohio,
Ms. Sutton, for 2 minutes.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. BETTY SUTTON, A REPRESENTATIVE IN
CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF OHIO
Ms. Sutton. Thank you, Chairman Rush, for holding today's
important hearing on TSCA and the persistent, bioaccumulative
and toxic chemicals also known as PBTs.
This is a very serious issue. Our health, the environment
and the public's confidence are at issue and chemicals that are
considered to be persistent, bioaccumulative and toxic have
been associated with severe health risks and results, and these
types of chemicals have been found in human bodies and that
they can build up in our food chain and last for long periods
of time in our environment. In fact, PBTs accounted for 97
percent of all fish consumption advisories in 2008, and my
congressional district includes part of Lake Erie's shoreline.
In 1997, the U.S. and Canada launched the Great Lakes Bi-
National Toxics Strategy to eliminate PBTs and according to the
state of the Great Lakes 2009 report produced jointly by the
U.S. EPA and Environment Canada, releases of targeted
bioaccumulative toxic chemicals have declined significantly
from their peak period in past decades. The report continues to
state that ``For the most part, bioaccumulative toxic chemicals
no longer limit the reproduction of fish, birds and mammals.''
And while this sounds like good news, there is still much work
to be done. With funding from the Great Lakes Restoration
Initiative, Ohio is investing $4.21 million in five projects to
address toxic substances and reduce contamination.
I have met with health care professionals in my
congressional district who have expressed concern about health
consequences that they have seen from chemical exposure in
patients, as well. And I am interested to hear from today's
witnesses how the Toxic Substances Control Act can be
modernized to more effectively address these very real health
concerns. Industry and a variety of environmental, animal
welfare, and health and safety groups have all stated that they
support modernizing TSCA, and as we move forward, we need to
ensure the public's trust, and protect the public and future
generations from health and environmental harm while providing
industry with a clear direction to ensure that our workers keep
working. It must not be a question of jobs versus the
environment. We can and we must effectively tend to both.
And I yield back.
Mr. Rush. The chair now recognizes the gentleman from
Maryland, Mr. Sarbanes, for 2 minutes.
Mr. Sarbanes. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate your
holding this third hearing on the Toxic Substances Control Act.
My continuing perspective on this is that few Americans
would imagine how thin the protections are when it comes to
some of these chemicals and so it is really incumbent on us to
try to modernize this oversight. I am going to be particularly
interested to hear about how we can sort of get a head start
based on the fact that it has been 30-plus years since this was
modernized and science has certainly advanced significantly. So
even if we are now going to come armed with a stronger set of
standards for how we judge the toxicity of these various
chemicals, I imagine there is a whole set of them that we
already know are sinister enough that they ought to be put in a
category right at the outset so that we can sort of start on
the 30-yardline or the 40-yardline instead of on the 10-
yardline, and I am looking forward to the testimony of the
panel in that respect and otherwise on this important issue.
And I yield back my time. Thanks.
Mr. Rush. The chair thanks all of the members for their
opening statements.
And it is now my pleasure and honor to introduce our
witnesses. We have nine esteemed witnesses from both far and
near and I want to really express to each and every one of you
how grateful we are that you would take, you will take, the
time out from your busy schedules to appear before this
subcommittee and to give us your best in helping us and direct
us as we travel down this path to modernizing and reauthorizing
TSCA.
I want to introduce now Mr. James Jones who serves as the
deputy assistant administrator for the Office of Prevention,
Pesticides and Toxic Substances for the Environmental
Protection Agency. And seated next to Mr. Jones is Dr. John
Thompson and he is the division director for the Office of
Environmental Policy, Bureau of Oceans, Environment and Science
at the Department of State and next to Dr. Thompson is Mr. Ted
Sturdevant. Mr. Sturdevant is the director of the Department of
Ecology for the great State of Washington. And seated next to
Mr. Sturdevant is Dr. Linda Greer who is director of the Health
and Environmental Program for the Natural Resources Defense
Council. And to her left is Dr. Christina Cowan-Ellsberry and
she is from CE2 Consulting, former principal scientist of the
Environmental Sciences Department at Procter and Gamble. And
lastly, we have with us this morning Dr. William J. Adams who
is the chairman of the North American Metals Council.
And I again want to welcome each and every one of you to
this hearing. And it is the practice of this subcommittee to
swear-in all of our witnesses, and so I want to ask that each
one of you stand and raise your right hand and respond to this
question. Do you solemnly swear to tell the truth, the whole
truth and nothing but the truth? Let the record reflect that
the witnesses have all answered in the affirmative.
And before we hear the opening statements of the witnesses,
I must inform each and every one of you who are present that
there are votes occurring. I don't know how much time we have
left on the votes right now. Less than 10 minutes so we will
try to get to two or three and then we will have to see how
many votes are there? Three? We have three votes so it will
take us about a half-an-hour to get over there and get back so
we ask that you just be patient with us while we go and vote.
Dr. Sturdevant, we are going to try to finish you up before
we have to go over there. Is that okay? Yes, thank you very
much.
Now, the chair recognizes Mr. Jones for 5 minutes.
STATEMENTS OF JIM JONES, DEPUTY ASSISTANT ADMINISTRATOR, OFFICE
OF PREVENTION, PESTICIDES AND TOXIC SUBSTANCES, ENVIRONMENTAL
PROTECTION AGENCY; JOHN THOMPSON, DIVISION DIRECTOR, OFFICE OF
ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY, BUREAU OF OCEANS, ENVIRONMENT AND
SCIENCE, DEPARTMENT OF STATE; TED STURDEVANT, DIRECTOR,
DEPARTMENT OF ECOLOGY, STATE OF WASHINGTON; LINDA GREER,
DIRECTOR, HEALTH AND ENVIRONMENT PROGRAM, NATURAL RESOURCES
DEFENSE COUNCIL; CHRISTINA COWAN-ELLSBERRY, CE2 CONSULTING,
FORMER PRINCIPAL SCIENTIST, ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES DEPARTMENT,
PROCTER AND GAMBLE; AND WILLIAM J. ADAMS, CHAIRMAN, NORTH
AMERICAN METALS COUNCIL
STATEMENT OF JAMES J. JONES
Mr. Jones. Good morning, Chairman Rush and members of the
subcommittee.
I am Jim Jones, Deputy Assistant Administrator for
Prevention, Pesticides and Toxic Substances at EPA. I am here
today to talk about chemicals that are persistent,
bioaccumulative and toxic, otherwise known as PBTs, and EPA's
domestic and international actions related to such chemicals. I
appreciate the opportunity to be here today.
As this committee knows, EPA's mission is to protect public
health and the environment. Ensuring that our citizens, and
especially our children, are protected from exposure to unsafe
levels of toxic chemicals and pollution by continually
strengthening our chemical management regime is not only
central to EPA's work but it is an area that EPA Administrator
Jackson identified as one of her priorities for the agency.
You have asked me here today to talk about PBTs in
particular. PBTs are long-lasting substances that build up in
the food chain and at certain exposure levels may be harmful to
human health and the environment. Their persistent property
means that when they are released into the environment they
remain essentially unaltered for months or years. With
continued use and release, they build up in sediments and soil
and their concentrations increase as they go up the food chain.
It is this concentration in the food chain which, under certain
circumstances, can cause adverse effects in humans or wildlife.
Some PBTs are also susceptible to long range transport such
that adverse effects can be found far removed from their site
of production or use. Combined, these properties are what make
EPA concerned not only with historical PBT chemicals, such as
DDT and PCBs, but also with chemicals with similar properties
entering commerce today or in the future. And so I would like
to take a few minutes to just touch on a few of the relevant
domestic and international actions we have taken with respect
to PBTs.
On September 29 of 2009, EPA Administrator Jackson
announced that EPA is putting in place a comprehensive approach
to enhance the agency's current chemicals management program
under TSCA. On December 30 of 2009, EPA posted action plans on
phthalates, perfluorinated chemicals, polybrominated diphenyl
ethers and products, and short-chained chlorinated paraffins.
The latter three are PBTs. These action plans summarize
available hazard exposure and use information, outline the
risks that each chemical may present and identify the specific
steps the agency has taken to address those concerns.
The initial chemicals selected for action plan development
were chosen on the basis of multiple factors including
chemicals identified as persistent, bioaccumulative and toxic
as well as other factors. But while we are moving forward to
implement the actions in those plans, we know that the very
nature of PBTs means that stand-alone action by any one country
is not enough.
The global nature of many of these substances is why the
Obama Administration identified the Stockholm Convention on
Persistent Organic Pollutants, known as the POPs Convention,
along with the Rotterdam Convention on Prior Informed Consent,
known as the PIC Convention, as a priority treaty for U.S.
ratification and why joining the POPs Protocol to the
Convention on Long Range Transboundary Air Pollution, known as
the LRTAP POPs Protocol, is in our interest. By joining with
the rest of the world to phase out or reduce the use and
release of these PBTs, we protect both human health and the
environment, and not only for ourselves but for the rest of the
world.
At EPA we take the risks posed by these substances to our
environment and public health very seriously but we are
hampered by our lack of implementing legislation. As your
committee considers the issue of PBTs, I would stress the
importance of implementing legislation that would allow the
United States to join the Stockholm Convention, the Rotterdam
Convention and the LRTAP POPs Protocol. The Obama
Administration thinks it is time to become parties to these
agreements.
Among our efforts to strengthen the agency's chemical
management regime, we have released a set of administration
principles to help guide legislative reform and outline a
series of activities to enhance our programs. Much of that work
will encompass PBT substances and could provide an opportunity
for the consideration of implementing legislation for the POPs
Convention, the PIC Convention and the LRTAP POPs Protocol. We
look forward to working with Congress, our domestic
stakeholders and the international community to strengthen both
our domestic and international actions with respect to PBT
substances.
Thank you for having me here today and I will be happy to
respond to any questions that you may have.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Jones follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Mr. Rush. The chair now recognizes Dr. Thompson for 5
minutes.
STATEMENT OF JOHN E. THOMPSON
Mr. Thompson. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and my thanks to the
members of the subcommittee for holding this hearing on
domestic and international actions on PBTs.
I have a written statement I would like to submit for the
record with your permission.
Mr. Rush. Hearing no objection.
Mr. Thompson. Thank you.
The advances in the discovery and application of chemicals
have led to many benefits enjoyed by society. At the same time,
certain chemicals impose significant risks to human health and
the environment. Production and use of such chemicals is
increasing outside of the United States. That is important
because of the potential for local harm and also because some
chemicals are capable of having impacts far from where they are
used and released.
Indigenous people in Alaska and elsewhere in the United
States, though often remote from such sources, may be
particularly at risk to exposure because of their reliance on a
subsistence diet. Of particular interest, are those PBTs which
are organic and capable of transporting over long distances,
these chemicals are referred to persistent, organic pollutants
or POPs. We focus on these chemicals internationally because
they can pose risks far from their source of release. The role
of the State Department is to facilitate international
cooperation aimed at mitigating these risks and we do so
working closely with our colleagues from the Environmental
Protection Agency. In that regard, I would like to describe
three key international agreements aimed at controlling these
types of chemicals, the Stockholm Convention on POPs, the
Protocol on POPs on the Convention on Long Range Transboundary
Air Pollution and the Rotterdam Convention on the Prior
Informed Consent Procedure for Certain Hazardous Chemicals and
Pesticides in International Trade.
The Stockholm Convention aims to protect human health and
the environment from exposure to POPs. It has been ratified by
169 countries including nearly all of our major trading
partners and allies. The Convention calls upon parties to
prohibit or restrict production in use of POPs such PCBs, and
to reduce byproduct emissions of substances such as dioxins and
furans. It includes a science-based procedure to govern the
addition of chemicals and allows a party to decide whether to
join amendments adding a substance to the Convention.
The second agreement I would like to mention is the POPs
Protocol to the Convention on Long Range Transboundary Air
Pollution. This agreement is broadly similar to the global
Stockholm Convention, but it is regional in nature,
encompassing the United States, Canada, Europe and the former
Soviet Republics.
A third important agreement is the Rotterdam Convention
which promotes shared responsibility between exporting and
importing countries in the trade of certain chemicals. For
international shipments of such chemicals, it stipulates that
consent of the importing country must be obtained before the
chemical can be exported. The Convention helps to ensure
countries have information to make decisions on sound chemicals
management which means less likelihood of health and
environmental risks in those countries and in the United
States.
These agreements have the support of this Administration
and the business and environmental communities but we are a
nonparty because we need legislation to fully implement their
provisions. We are therefore unable as a nonparty to
participate fully in their proceedings. Only by joining these
agreements, can we use them effectively to pursue public health
protection in the United States. What is of paramount interest
to the Department of State is enabling full U.S. participation
in the deliberation of these agreements as soon as possible so
we can pursue U.S. interests, especially protecting public
health and the environment.
I also note that EPA recently announced the development of
action plans to address certain classes of chemicals as
potential priorities. Some of these chemicals are under
consideration or are already included in the agreements that I
have described. The best way for the United States to lead
internationally is to do so based on a strong domestic approach
that is consistent with our international obligations. By
taking action at home, we can use these agreements to ensure
chemicals are managed more responsibly abroad.
In summary, Mr. Chairman, there are some chemicals whose
use anywhere in the world may present a public health and
environmental threat to the United States because they are
persistent, bioaccumulative, toxic and are transported over
long distances. We are most effective leading abroad when we
have been diligent and effective in addressing chemicals
management at home. We have the tools to promote better
management of these chemicals on a global basis through these
agreements but we need to join them to do that most
effectively.
Thank you for having me here today and I would be pleased
to answer any questions.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Thompson follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Mr. Rush. Thank you, Dr. Thompson.
Mr. Sturdevant, will you please hold your testimony until
we return? The committee stands in recess until 11:30.
[Recess]
Mr. Rush. Dr. Greer, are you prepared with your opening
statement?
Ms. Greer. Yes, sir.
Mr. Rush. All right, well, the chair recognizes Dr. Greer
for 5 minutes for the purposes of an opening statement.
STATEMENT OF LINDA E. GREER
Ms. Greer. Thank you for the opportunity to testify today.
I am Linda Greer and I am the director of the Health
Program at NRDC, the Natural Resources Defense Council. I have
a Ph.D. in environmental toxicology and a masters degree in
public health. Since 1981, I have worked on a wide range of
environmental health issues, and have focused on numerous
persistent, bioaccumulative and toxic chemicals including
mercury, dioxin and PCBs, among others.
Commonsense tells us that chemicals with a PBT profile are
bad actors and that laws designed to protect people from
dangerous environmental contaminants should prioritize the
phase-out of chemicals with this alarming profile. Society
should rely upon safer chemicals that will degrade and be
metabolized easily in the body back into harmless chemicals
after use, not those that will take shelter in our bones, in
our blood and in our fat for the rest of eternity.
Remarkably, however, PBTs are not a thing of the past.
Despite the notoriety of this class and all that scientists
have learned about them over the past 30 years, there are still
many such chemicals that continue to be used in commerce today
and sometimes in very large quantities. Three of EPA's four
recently announced chemical action plans, for example, are from
the PBT class.
The polybrominated diphenyl ethers, the PBDEs, are still
used today as flame-retardants in plastics, polyurethane foams
and textiles, even though safer alternatives are available.
They remain in products in millions of homes. This, despite the
evidence that their chemical structure is extraordinarily
similar to the PCBs banned decades ago that they share
structural characteristics of the dioxins.
Despite the toxicological evidence that shows that PBDEs
are thyroid hormone disrupters, that they are neurotoxic to the
developing brain, and that they have immunotoxic properties
similar to PCBs; despite the doubling of their concentration
milk samples every 5 years; despite their detection globally,
including in the arctic where they have never been used, PBDEs
are still in use in 2010. And other PBDEs are similarly still
in the market and used in high volume despite all that we know
about the hazards they pose, defying commonsense.
So how can this be? It is truly a tribute to the utter
impotence of TSCA that chemicals with such notorious profiles
remain on the market allowing the public to be endlessly
exposed while analysis after analysis lumbers on. TSCA
constraints make it very difficult for EPA to fully assess new
chemicals or require the testing of chemicals in use, and the
hurdles for EPA to actually restrict use of an existing
chemical are even higher. It is almost impossible for EPA to
take regulatory action against PBTs and other dangerous
chemicals, even those like asbestos that are well-known to
cause cancer or other serious health effects. And although some
in industry see the problems and agree that we need reform,
many others are comfortable with the culture or study and delay
that have kept EPA from taking action on chemicals they have
marketed without safety data for more than a generation.
This head-in-the-sand mentality is not good for business in
the long run. Europe is far ahead of us and will prohibit the
export of these chemicals to their markets. Safety problems
will plague these companies eventually as the latest story from
Toyota shows us.
The consequence of such delay in getting PBTS and other
dangerous chemicals off the market may well have had a personal
impact on me. Three years ago as I continued my career to
reduce toxic chemical pollution, I got a call from my doctor
about an abnormality in my mammogram. Soon afterwards, I was
struggling to come to terms with the diagnosis every woman
dreads, breast cancer. Despite my Ph.D., I found myself
thinking what everyone thinks in a situation like this, why did
this happen to me, and not just why me but why so many
colleagues and friends. The president of NRDC, Frances
Beinecke, was diagnosed with breast cancer about 8 years ago.
So was the executive assistant of John Adams, our former
president. She died of that disease before the age of 45, a
woman in our finance department, another in communications, one
of our senior analysts, an office manager, a young temporary
secretary, my sister-in-law. Most or all of these women did not
have known risk factors and all of them contracted this disease
when they were very young.
I suspect many of the members of this committee, and their
staff, have had similar experiences. Friends, family and
colleagues who have been diagnosed with cancer, or who have
children with infertility issues, or grandchildren with
development or learning disabilities, or elderly parents with
Alzheimer's or Parkinson's disease.
I tell my story to inspire you, this committee, this
Congress and this Administration to seriously consider what it
will take to get action on hazardous chemicals still being used
in commerce today, known PBTs and others. Not just testing. Not
just information. Not more analysis, action. Well known PBTs,
such as dioxin, DDT and PCBs have been associated with the
risks of breast cancer for many, many years. A survey of peer
review literature found more than 200 chemicals has been
associated with mammary tumors in animals. Chlorinated
solvents, polynuclear aromatics and others, yet EPA has taken
action on only four of 80,000 chemicals in commerce in the 35
years of TSCA.
The public is rightfully alarmed and wants to see action
and results not just more years of studies that lead nowhere.
Many retailers have themselves taken action to remove products
from shelves where they fear harm to their customers in light
of government stagnation. Even certain segments of industry
itself, the personal products manufacturers, for example, who
manufacture our lotions and shampoos, have begun to speak out
for the need for reform fearing problems in the ingredients
that they buy for their formulation.
For this reason, we recommend Congress and this committee,
mandate the phase-out of at least the handful of best known
PBTs and bad actors in a reauthorized TSCA and put our country
on a path forward for the use of safer chemicals. We have spent
literally decades quantifying the risks of these chemicals and
exposed an entire generation in the meantime, unable to turn to
the more practical questions of how these PBTs are used, how
they can be reduced, how they can be phased out. It is time for
EPA to parse the uses, identify the critical uses, identify the
unnecessary uses, and move forward on these chemicals.
I was one of the lucky ones. My breast cancer has been
caught early and I am doing well but as I do my work every day,
I think of my daughter who was dosed with every contaminant in
my breast milk four or more times a day for the first year of
her life and of her generation. My efforts here today and back
at the desk to reduce or eliminate toxic chemicals are for her,
and you too should take action to protect your children and
grandchildren.
Thank you very much for this opportunity to testify.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Greer follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Mr. Rush. The chair now recognizes Dr. Cowan-Ellsberry.
STATEMENT OF CHRISTINA COWAN-ELLSBERRY
Ms. Cowan-Ellsberry. First, I would like to thank the
chairman and the ranking member and the members of the
subcommittee for inviting me to testify before you today.
My name is Christina Cowan-Ellsberry and I have worked in
the field of environmental and human safety and risk assessment
of chemicals for over 30 years. I am here of my own volition
and represent only myself. My testimony is based on my
scientific training and expertise and my experience with the
PBT issue. There are two reasons I decided to come on my own.
First, as a consumer and citizen of the United States, I am as
concerned as you are about chemicals that may be in commerce
and that could cause adverse impacts on me, my family and the
environment.
Secondly, I have worked since the 1990s, and actually
earlier, on the development of the PBT criteria and methods for
identifying and evaluating the safety of organic PBTs in
several national and international fora, including the United
States, Canada, Europe and the United Nations. I have seen how
using the established criteria, and science and risk-based
assessment process has resulted in effective PBT identification
and assessment programs, and has resulted in prioritization of
resources toward PBT management on national and global scales.
As successful as these initiatives have been in illustrating it
is possible to identify, assess and manage PBTs, these
initiatives have also illustrated that the process can be
scientifically challenging, and require the active involvement
of the best scientists and the use of the most reliable and
relevant data.
At the recent SETAC Pellston Workshop, one common
frustration voiced by participants was that many of the current
national and international regulations accept only a limited
set of test data. While this may be appropriate for screening
and prioritization, it fails to recognize the incredible
evolution of the science which has produced new insights into
PBT chemical and an array of new methods to identify and assess
PBT chemicals. As a result, the scientists are frustrated when
they bring forward these new data and insights only to find
that they are rejected, not because of scientific reasons but
rather because the regulatory framework does not allow for its
consideration. Given the rapid improvement in these test
methods and guidance, it is critically important for U.S. EPA
scientists to contribute to and incorporate the most current
science and scientific understanding into their assessments.
Through all my years of work on PBTs, I have greatly valued
the scientific expertise and interaction with my colleagues in
the U.S. EPA, and commend them for their role in promoting the
risk-based and science-based underpinnings of the PBT
identification and assessment process. My concern is, and as
voiced by several here, is that although the U.S. publicly
committed in the 1990s to working within the international
community to address chemicals of international concern, the
U.S. has not become a full party to either the LRTAP POPs
Protocol or the Stockholm POPs Protocol. Unfortunately, the
risk-based and science-based underpinning of these two
conventions, which the United States promoted are being eroded
without this active U.S. involvement. I strongly urge you to
make sure that the U.S. becomes a full party to these
conventions so that the U.S. government scientists can once
again bring their knowledge and expertise forward in leadership
internationally.
Finally, I believe it is also important that EPA develop a
stronger Federal PBT program so that the States do not have to
take separate, and potentially conflicting, actions to identify
and manage these substances. Many States don't have the depth
in scientific expertise nor the number of staff to effectively
conduct these scientifically challenging assessments on their
own. To ensure a technically strong and coordinated process for
identification, assessment and management of PBTs, this program
should include a scientific, multi-stakeholder fora, that
includes representatives from these States, as well as
potentially other scientific advisory panel members.
Ultimately, I believe that a reform of TSCA that contains a
strong commitment to and adequate funding for this Federal
program of PBT identification, assessment and management, and
U.S. leadership internationally in PBT conventions, will
benefit U.S. citizens as it will contribute to improving global
public health and the environment through managing existing PBT
chemicals, and provide assurance that new chemicals that have
PBT properties will not enter commerce.
And once again, I thank you for this opportunity to testify
today and I look forward to answering your questions.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Cowan-Ellsberry follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Mr. Rush. The chair now recognizes Mr. Sturdevant for 5
minutes.
STATEMENT OF TED STURDEVANT
Mr. Sturdevant. Thank you, Mr. Chair, members of the
subcommittee for holding this hearing and for having me.
My name is Ted Sturdevant. I am the director of the
Washington State Department of Ecology.
Citizens in Washington State, like elsewhere, I imagine,
expect from government basic health protections from things
like toxic exposures. In recent years, we in Washington were
seeing rising levels of concern around toxic chemicals and so a
few years ago we made an agency priority the reduction of toxic
threats in our State, and we started with starting the nation's
first PBT program. That seemed like a very logical place to
start for reasons that you have heard. It is very clear that we
should be very careful with PBTs and it is also very clear that
we are not very careful with PBTs.
I had a real ah-ha moment when we were writing our PBT
regulation. I was at home one morning, shaving, and I looked at
the ingredients in the shaving cream and Nonylphenol was on
there and the only reason that I knew what the heck that was is
that we were considering inclusion of that chemical in our PBT
list. It was right on the bubble and, you know, nothing on the
can indicated it was anything I should be worried about and it
just and, you know, I was rubbing this stuff on my face every
day, and it just left me with this sense that no one was really
watching and certainly not watching as closely as we should be.
I think that only prevention works with PBTs. Once you let
the PBT genie out of the bottle, you can't get it back in. PCBs
are a great example of that. They were banned 34 years ago but
today PCBs are flowing into Puget Sound all the time. We are
spending millions of dollars on cleanup and we are still seeing
fish and wildlife impacts from PCBs.
A good and more recent example of both the challenge and I
think the solution is found in the PBDE flame retardants you
have heard about. They have been around since the '70s. In
2003, we were seeing rising levels of PBDEs in Washington's
environment and citizens. We didn't really know much about
them. They were appearing in women's breast milk, in house dust
that babies crawl around in, in polar bears in the artic. So we
decided to take a look at them as part of our PBT program. We
spent 3 years working on a chemical action plan for those flame
retardants and the more we looked, the more concerned we grew.
Levels kept rising. Studies kept showing more health concerns.
In the meanwhile, industry was applying pressure saying
they are safe, that we need to protect fire safety standards.
We need to keep studying them and basically that everything was
fine but we reached a very different conclusion. We decided
that if there were better ways, if there were safer ways to
flame-retard products in our homes, like TVs, computers,
mattresses, furniture, then we should stop using PBDEs and use
those safer alternatives, and we found ourselves in the middle
of quite a fight. Some very sophisticated folks showed up in
Olympia and fought us pretty hard on that and it took awhile
but we did finally get there and we passed the nation's first
ban on the deca-form of PBDEs but that was only one State. The
other States, several other States had to then go through the
same fight, take different approaches and the good news is that
enough States did that, that there was a recent announcement of
a voluntary phase-out of deca production in the United States.
The bad news is that is not a very good system. It takes
too long. It costs too much. It creates this patchwork of
regulatory approaches across the country and it lets far too
much unnecessary toxic contamination happen in the meantime.
I don't think at the root of this that the problem or the
solution is terribly complicated. We need a Federal system that
works based on a few commonsense principles. First, before
allowing a substance to be put out there into widespread
commerce, we should make every reasonable effort to make sure
that it is safe. I think that it is fair that that burden rest
on industry rather than on EPA and the taxpayers. Second, if we
know that there are chemicals out there that are causing
environmental or human health problems, government should be
able to step in, protect citizens and ban those chemicals.
Third, if we know with reasonable certainty that a substance
poses problems and there are safer alternatives, we should stop
using that and switch to the safer alternative.
With PBTs I think we already know enough that we should be
very careful and make every effort to phase-out those uses that
we can do without and prevent new uses. These seem to me to be
sound, fair principles for a reasonable chemicals policy but it
is not the one we have today. I would urge you to fashion such
a policy. This isn't about being anti-chemical. It is about
being pro-safer-chemical whenever you can and should.
As you look at TSCA, I would ask you to keep in mind the
role that the States have played in advancing protections from
PBTs and other toxic chemicals. Even with TSCA reform, if
another 30 years go by before we revisit it, we are going to
need the States to fill in the gaps and be the laboratories of
reform, and I would ask you to preserve our ability to do that.
And because we at the State level need a strong Federal system,
Washington and 12 other States in December issued our
principles for reform of TSCA and those were provided to you
with my written testimony.
Finally, one other priority that we have in the State of
Washington is restoring our Puget Sound to health by 2020. That
problem with the Sound is not just about toxic pollution but
toxic chemicals are entering the Sound everyday. Now, fixing
TSCA won't fix Puget Sound but if we don't fix TSCA, and
prevent a lot of that toxic contamination that could be
prevented, we are not going to fix Puget Sound, and I don't
think we are going to fix a lot of our other waterways, either,
and we will continue to experience toxic exposures that just
don't need to happen.
So with that, I would like to express my very sincere
gratitude for your looking at this issue and I respectfully
urge you to craft a strong chemicals management policy that
this country very much needs and deserves. Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Sturdevant follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Mr. Rush. Thank you very much.
Now, the chair recognizes Dr. Adams for 5 minutes.
STATEMENT OF WILLIAM ADAMS
Mr. Adams. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. It is my pleasure this
morning to testify and talk about Toxic Substance Control Act
and PBT particularly as it applies to metals.
I am the chairman of the North American Metals Council. I
am also a scientist and I have worked in the area of PBTs since
the late '70s, and specifically, in the 1990s, and more
recently on the REACH legislation in Europe. And over the
course of time, I have published some hundred papers and I have
published a book on PBT, so let me begin.
I would like to give you some details about why PBT, some
of the criteria of PBT are not applicable to metals. I would
also like to give you some information as to how I think the
hazard of metals and inorganic substances should be determined.
Regarding persistence, persistence is problematic for
metals because all metals and elements on the Periodic Table
are conserved, and hence, they are persistent. The form and
availability of the metal can change depending on the
environmental conditions. They are also different for each
metal element on the Periodic Table and this should be
considered. Thus, setting a criterion say of example of removal
of 70 percent in 28 days in the water automatically includes
all the metals, and this includes the ones that are essential
such as copper, zinc and iron, which are essential for life. As
a result, applying criteria that were designed for organic
substances to the metals then creates problems that are not
necessarily needed.
Regarding bioaccumulation, unlike organic substances,
bioaccumulation potential of metals cannot be estimated using
octanol-water partition coefficients. This is a common approach
to estimate the amount of substance will accumulate in the fat
of an organism. Bioconcentration and bioaccumulation factors
are inversely related to exposure for metals. This is not the
case for organics. The consequence of this is that in the most
cleanest environments we have, let's take Lake Superior. What
we find in that situation is that we have the biggest
bioaccumulation factors. PBT criteria used, for example, use a
bioaccumulation factor of 1,000 to decide whether a substance
is bioaccumulative. All the metals pass that criteria for Lake
Superior so, in fact, the whole approach is counterintuitive.
The cleanest environments give you the biggest bioconcentration
factors. In short, that B does not work for inorganic
substances.
Regarding toxicity, metals are generally not soluble.
Toxicity results are almost always based on soluble metal salt
that has been used in some toxicity tests for some organism.
However, those are not the products that are put in the
marketplace. By and large, the massive metals, the powders, the
oxides, the sulfites are insoluble substances. I would like to
point out in our recent discussions with the European
Commission, we had this same discussion and after a long period
of time and many testimonies the REACH regulations now
acknowledge that PBT criteria do not apply to metals, and you
can find this in the text of the Annex XIII of the REACH
regulation.
Now, I would like to take a moment or two then to propose
an alternative. If we argue that P and B are not applicable to
metals then let's look at what I think might work.
In 2003, I chaired a SETAC, environmental toxicology and
chemistry, sorry, Society of Environmental Toxicology and
Chemistry workshop. We invited some 40 scientists from around
the world to participate in this and the specific issue at hand
was, how do we assess the hazard of metals. At this workshop
PBT issues were discussed at length and reported out in a book
which I edited.
Consensus was reached at the workshop that the individual
criteria, P, B and T, are limited in their ability to assess
hazard or to prioritize metal substances. The criteria are not
linked or integrated, and they attempt to identify or predict
hazards using bioaccumulation and persistence as modifiers of
toxicity but without fully incorporating other important fate
characteristics, which for metals can include speciation,
complexation, precipitation, dissolution, transformation, and
sedimentation, and the approach does not consider exposure or
release rate so we are essentially assessing hazard but no
effort to assess risk.
The science community recommended that a more comprehensive
approach be taken for both metals and organics in which a
generic hazard ranking could be determined using a model which
simulates natural receiving water such as a lake. The model is
termed a Unit World Model. The aim is to incorporate
partitioning, transport, reactivity, bioavailability, and
exposure route to give a single, transparent metric of hazard.
It is essentially a critical load approach in which an estimate
is made at the rate of which a chemical must be introduced into
a common defined environment to achieve a concentration that
becomes toxic, and the output of this model then is a
calculation of the rate and the amount that has to be released
to cause a problem. This allows then a ranking of both metals
and organic substances so that you now not only just have
criteria that says yes, it is PBT, but you have a ranking of
the substances. Following the workshop, efforts have been
ongoing to develop and validate this model and we worked on
this now for 6 years. This model is now available and it can be
downloaded and you can find it at www.unitworldmodel.net.
In conclusion, attempts to universally and indiscriminately
apply PBT criteria to all chemical substances and, for example,
including metals, would be of concern, and would not
necessarily reflect good science. Similarly, PBT information,
by itself, cannot determine risk and such criteria should not
be used in isolation as a basis for requiring regulatory
action. It is important, and I summarize, to understand that
persistence and bioaccumulation factors are not particularly
useful for assessing metals. I believe the state of the science
has moved beyond PBT and we have an opportunity to use more
integrated, and a more reliable approach that not only
considers the hazard but also considers release rates and
processes that occur in nature, and this approach is now
available.
I thank you for this opportunity and I would be pleased to
take any questions.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Adams follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Mr. Rush. The chair thanks the witnesses again.
And the chair recognizes himself now for 5 minutes of
questioning of the witnesses.
And, Dr. Greer, it is my understanding that if we know a
given chemical is toxic and there is exposure and then we can
determine the risk as defined by the national academics in
their 1983 so-called Red Book they laid out the Federal risk
assessment process. Risk assessment is ``the characterization
of the potential adverse health effects of human exposure to
environmental hazards.'' From that, Dr. Greer, can we assume
that if a chemical is persistent, bioaccumulative and toxic
that it is a PBT and there are known exposures so therefore
there is a high risk? I have a couple of other questions that
go along with that. When we know that there are PBTs and
evidence of exposure, I understand that exposure can be
important based on the geographic areas of specific
populations, how should we address this concern? Can you answer
both of those questions?
Ms. Greer. Sure, let me clarify that it is not my position
that risk assessment is not a valuable tool or that it is not
important to look at both hazard and exposure, not at all but
there are certain chemicals out there that meet the PBT
criteria for which we already have evidence of exposure through
biomonitoring of human blood or through looking at animals at
the top of the food chain. And that combination, in my mind, is
definitely sufficient to identify those chemicals for fast
action so that the agency does not spend years and years
deciding what level is dangerous but start asking questions
about use reduction instead. What are do we have critical uses
that we have to keep on the market? Do we have, you know,
really the opposite, stupid uses that we could get rid of
quickly and to start asking reduction questions rather than
risk question. So I think that the real problem here is not so
much the debate about risk assessment and exposure but really
how to get, how to change TSCA so that it is not just about
study, study, study but is about taking action instead. Asking
the set of use production questions and exposure reduction
questions instead of the questions just about hazard which is
what the agency has, unfortunately, spent most of its 35 years
doing.
And when we look at the uses of these chemicals, we have to
look at the patterns of exposure and the patterns of use. We
know from experience that there are many communities with
hotspots of exposure where certain chemicals have been used in
large quantities and have accumulated. Certain patterns in
diets that have hotspots of human exposure, et cetera. It is
very hard to make a general safety determination that it is
going to be okay here and not okay there because we usually
lack the information about the widespread and spotty uses of
these chemicals combines. I hope that answers your two
questions.
Mr. Rush. Dr. Jones, I have about another minute and a
half. Do you generally have a response to the questions?
Mr. Jones. The same questions?
Mr. Rush. Yes.
Mr. Jones. The agency believes that ultimately we need to
evaluate chemicals based on their hazard, their exposure and
their risk, and that the reason for that is that by addressing
chemicals and uses that have the highest risk, we are going to
get the best protection for the country, and not spending our
energies on exposure routes that may pose little or not risk
but instead on those exposure routes that are going to present
the highest risk.
Mr. Rush. Okay. The chair recognizes now Mr. Whitfield.
Mr. Whitfield. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you all
for your testimony. We appreciate it very much.
Mr. Jones, back in 1991, there was a lawsuit, Corrosion
Proof Fittings v. EPA, which evidently in the TSCA Act when you
came up with the measure to correct the problem you use the
least burdensome standard and evidently in that particular
case, the EPA did not use the least burdensome standard. What
is the difference in the standards in this in TSCA and in say
the Clean Air Act?
Mr. Jones. Unfortunately, I am not particularly expert at
the Clean Air Act but I have a high degree of expertise in the
pesticide regulatory framework, FIFRA.
Mr. Whitfield. FIFRA, okay, let's say FIFRA.
Mr. Jones. Well, I am sorry. My expertise is in pesticides
and in TSCA.
Mr. Whitfield. Oh, okay.
Mr. Jones. The pesticides program which is sort of similar,
it is chemicals.
Mr. Whitfield. Yeah.
Mr. Jones. Thus the regular standard is a reasonable
certainty of no harm for chemicals used on food and it is a
basic risk benefit standard for chemicals that are not used on
food. There isn't a least burdensome requirement in those
statutes.
Mr. Whitfield. Okay, well, under TSCA when we talk about
unreasonable risk, how do you define unreasonable risk? How do
you determine something has unreasonable risk?
Mr. Jones. Unreasonable risk under TSCA as it exists right
now has been interpreted to be a risk benefit standard and that
so if the risk of the use outweighs the benefits, it is
determined to be an unreasonable risk.
Mr. Whitfield. Okay, so it is a risk versus benefit. Now,
and that is not always the standard in some other environmental
laws, is it?
Mr. Jones. That is correct.
Mr. Whitfield. Okay and I would assume that Dr. Greer and
Mr. Sturdevant and maybe Dr. Thompson would agree that the more
stringent standard would be the best standard and would I be
correct in that?
Ms. Greer. I would agree that the track record shows that
this standard has not been good for us. For example, in the
case that you cite, it kept the agency from taking action
against asbestos which I think is widely regarded as a, you
know, a dangerous carcinogen.
Mr. Whitfield. Yeah.
Ms. Greer. It is not to say though that we don't think that
there are critical uses of toxic chemicals that will need to
remain on the market.
Mr. Whitfield. Right.
Ms. Greer. And so, you know, there needs to be an exit ramp
for those uses so that we don't jam ourselves into something
unreasonable, in the common language, not in the legal
language.
Mr. Whitfield. Okay, all right, and I think we all agree on
that, I mean, hopefully, that there are chemicals that are
quite valuable and yet there is some dangers to most chemicals
and, hopefully, we could when we rewrite this Act can come up
with a balanced approach that would benefit everyone.
Another question I had for you, maybe, Mr. Jones, or anyone
else who wants to talk about it. The Toxic Release Inventory
Program which I guess came about because of the Community Right
To Know Act, and it is my understanding that EPA in the Toxic
Release Inventory Program right now has something like 600 and
some chemicals that are on that list. How are those chemicals
selected?
Mr. Jones. Largely, based on their toxicity, although there
is a special way in which PBTs can be identified and actually
have a lower reporting threshold then chemicals that are not
PBTs.
Mr. Whitfield. Yeah and who actually makes that decision?
Mr. Jones. They are made by the administrator of the
Environmental Protection Agency, and over the last 15 years
multiple, at multiple points in time different administrators
have made that determination.
Mr. Whitfield. Yeah but you do have some lab somewhere
doing some testing on animals to decide, is that correct?
Mr. Jones. There is a wide range of toxicity information
and sources of information. Some of it is generated by
manufacturers. Some of it is generated by universities and some
of it is generated at EPA laboratories.
Mr. Whitfield. Yeah, well, you know, I am no expert in this
but last night I was sitting around and I was looking at this
inventory list, and I just looked down this list of 600
chemicals and I came across one called metiran, m-e-t-i-r-a-n,
which maybe you call are familiar with but I wasn't. And it is
on the list of Communities Right to Know and yet when I read
that toxicity part of the study, it says when rats were fed a
thousand milligrams diet of metiran for 2 weeks, 5 days per
week, no symptoms of illness were produced. No ill effect was
observed in dogs that received 45 milligrams daily of this
fungicide for 90 days, or 7.5 milligrams daily for almost 2
years. There were no negative effects. So I was just curious,
how is it determined that this will be on the list of something
that communities need to know about?
Mr. Jones. I would need to go back and get some more
information around that. I know metiran is a registered
pesticide active ingredient so there would be a wide number of
toxicity studies that have been generated to support its
registration so I should be able to answer that question.
Mr. Whitfield. Yeah, well, then do any--Dr. Greer, do you
have any comment about that or you, Mr. Sturdevant? I mean,
like I said, I am not a scientist and but it seems to me that
if you give this particular substance--most of the decisions
are made based on the animal studies is my understanding, and
if you give animals that much and yet you decide to put it on
there, I just wonder what is the real standard for deciding?
What is the precise standard to make that decision?
Ms. Greer. I also don't happen to know about that chemical
but like Mr. Jones, I mean I know the criteria that the agency
uses to get those chemicals on the list so there is something
here that doesn't meet the eye, and I would have to go back and
then submit for the record what I think is the rationale for
having that chemical on the Toxic Release Inventory.
Mr. Whitfield. Yeah, well, is there--if you were at a
Rotary Club in your hometown and you were explaining the
criteria for placing a chemical on this inventory list, how
would you in layman's term explain it to them?
Ms. Greer. Would you like me to?
Mr. Whitfield. Yes.
Ms. Greer. I would--in layman's terms I would say they are
chemicals that can harm human health or the environment.
Mr. Whitfield. They can. Now, that is pretty vague it would
seem but that is what you would say, is that correct?
Okay, I am sorry.
Mr. Rush. I am going to recognize the gentleman from
Maryland, Mr. Sarbanes, for 5 minutes.
Mr. Sarbanes. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
And thank you, Dr. Greer, for your answer just then because
I am actually speaking to a Rotary Club this evening. If I get
any questions like that, I will know what to say.
Ms. Greer. I will come up with a second verb for you.
Mr. Sarbanes. I wanted to go right to this discussion you
have been having about sort of rapid action versus study
because I imagine that will be an important part of our
discussion on the reauthorization and will probably lead to
some tension of perspectives, as well. What do you have in mind
when you talk about rapid action, and maybe you could speak to
a category of chemicals that we could view as already having
been sort of research tested and understood ad nauseam in terms
of the toxic impact they have, using whatever combination of
standards is appropriate, that we could really just get moving
on in terms of this rapid action? So talk about the category
and even some of the particular chemicals that you would
identify for that rapid action and then what the rapid action
would be that you envision?
Ms. Greer. Well, in our opinion, there are several dozen
chemicals, maybe two or three dozen chemicals, not hundreds or
thousands or chemicals, but a relatively speaking handful of
chemicals that have been extremely well-studied. They have been
studied, many of these chemicals, literally for decades. In the
case of a chemical like dioxin, you know, there are file
cabinet rooms full of studies on these chemicals. It is not
most chemicals, Mr. Sarbanes, I mean most chemicals we don't
have that amount of study, and so there are really two
categories in my mind. The ones that have been extremely well
studied, I would put a chemical like TCE on that, a chemical
like formaldehyde on that, you know, that we have quite a bit
of information. And then the second category would be some of
the PBTs, some of the chemicals that we have known for years
are, as one of the other testifiers said, you know, the genie
is out of the bottle and they have come out and we are now in a
legacy mode of trying to do the cleanup. And for those two
categories of chemicals, I would submit that we really don't
need more study. What we really need is an action plan to look
at what the uses are and to phase-out or reduce the uses and
exposures to those chemicals because one more study is not
going to make the difference and we already have enough
evidence to know that at certain concentrations they will cause
problems. So would be the relative minority of chemicals
relatively short list but ones that I think are very ripe for
action given how long they have been already studied.
Mr. Sarbanes. Would you imagine identifying those
explicitly in a reauthorized statute?
Ms. Greer. Based on my experience of watching EPA over the
years, we learned in other statutes then when that we made
lists of chemicals it led to much faster action because the
agency took a much, much longer time left to their own devices
to do it. So based on experience with implementation really, I
would strongly recommend that we put the list into the statute,
yes.
Mr. Sarbanes. When you look internationally at some of
these other conventions and protocols and regulatory regimes
that exist, do you see that approach in place?
Ms. Greer. Yes, that is right. When you look, for example,
at the Stockholm Treaty, at the POPs Treaty, those chemicals
were named and continue to be named in an ongoing process of
adding more chemicals to the list.
Mr. Sarbanes. And then, Mr. Sturdevant, I was just
intrigued by the approach you took. What was the pushback you
were getting? Who, you know, you described various parties
showing up in the State capitol. Describe a little bit why they
were so resistant and where they are now in that you have taken
steps. I mean it doesn't appear that the economy of Washington
State has collapsed due to the measures you have taken so maybe
you could just talk about that a little bit.
Mr. Sturdevant. Yeah, well, the, you know, in fact, the
when we identified an alternative to this flame retardant and
some of the same companies that made the PBDE flame retardants
also made the alternatives so there wasn't anything really in
terms of an economic impact in terms of jobs. There wasn't any
impact in terms of flame retardants. It was very interesting
and, you know, it felt a little bit like a David and Goliath
fight really with the resources that came to bear, very
sophisticated resources there. And, you know, as the evidence
continued to sort of go our way, the arguments changed and, you
know, in the end it there was an attempt to put a deal together
where okay, so if we are going to go ahead and take action on
PBDEs, let us exchange that for greater fire safety standards
in the State on other products basically sort of driving a new
market. So, you know, I think that it was so about money, and
it was about also I think setting a precedent, you know, that
the first, this. It was a hard fight because it was the first
ban on that product in the country and others followed and it
was all about whether that first domino was going to topple or
not.
Mr. Sarbanes. Thank you.
Mr. Rush. I would like to ask before you respond we are
going to take an additional 3 minutes for additional questions.
As you can see, we know that the great gulf that we are
going to have to cross for TSCA reauthorization is the bulk of
chemicals on that, you know, either abandon or come up with
another process of identifying that would include a ban in the
legislation.
And I would like to get your response, first of all, do you
think that these chemicals should be banned in the next,
chemicals specifically banned in the next and if you would take
a moment or two to support your answer, your rationale and we
will start with Mr. Jones.
Mr. Jones. Well, the agency and the Administration has
articulated a number of principles. There are five principles
in all. The first principle is the chemical should be reviewed
against the safety standard that are based on sound science and
reflect risk-based criteria protection of human health and the
environment. That is probably the principle that most is
relevant to the question of should the statute itself ban
chemicals. If it is done in a risk-based manner I think that
might be consistent with the principle. If it is just a it just
names them and bans them with any risk-based criteria related
to that it would seem to be inconsistent with that principle.
Mr. Rush. Dr. Thompson, same question.
Mr. Thompson. I think I would just echo those comments and
just I would note that internationally under the Stockholm
Convention, we do have a scientific review committee that
really looks, you know, at these issues very closely, analyzes
it, looks at the risks associated with the chemicals and they
come forward with recommendations to the countries that
participate in the agreements in terms of whether a chemical
should, in fact, be banned or should it be restricted in some
way, and whether exemptions should exist. So just to echo the
comments from my colleague from EPA and note that I do think a
very, there is sort of a very similar type of a procedure that
we have internationally to actualize quite a similar outcome, I
think. Thank you.
Mr. Rush. Mr. Sturdevant.
Mr. Sturdevant. I certainly don't have the expertise to say
what chemicals should be on that early action list but I would
say that you need to look at a couple things. One is so how bad
is it and if it is bad enough then I think bans are justified.
The other question is are there alternatives and as Dr. Greer
said is that use really important or necessary. So I think it
is you have to look at both what it is providing and are there
alternatives and if there are alternatives that are easily
available, and I think it makes that decision a lot easier to
make.
Mr. Rush. Dr. Greer.
Ms. Greer. And I will be quick since I have sort of already
answered this question.
Mr. Rush. Right.
Ms. Greer. I do think that there are a number of chemicals
that have a mature docket, so to speak, a Texas new docket that
is quite complete and that statutory list would be helpful to
get fast action on those chemicals as we reauthorize TSCA.
Mr. Rush. Dr. Cowan-Ellsberry.
Ms. Cowan-Ellsberry. When I worked within the UN on the
protocol, that was one of the things that we did emphasize is
that it needed to be risk-based, and I think I would also
emphasize that any alternatives also need to be assessed
because we don't want to move in precipitously to something
that could be worse. And having multiple management options and
phasing them in as Dr. Greer said, getting rid of alternatives
where they are maybe not necessary, would probably be an easy
way to go.
Mr. Rush. Dr. Adams.
Mr. Adams. Yes, thank you.
Let me draw upon the experiences currently in progress in
Europe at the moment under the REACH legislation. Under that
process, chemicals such as Dr. Greer has mentioned and ones
that are well-known have been identified and put on a list for
further review, not further study. The point being is that the
studies are done. They have looked at the toxicology. They have
determined them to be hazardous and potentially causing risk
but there is then a careful review of the use of the substance,
its release to the environment and the cost benefit. So I would
favor rather that kind of approach rather than just
prescriptively writing substances into the legislation.
Mr. Rush. Thank you.
The chair now recognizes Mr. Whitfield for 3 minutes.
Mr. Whitfield. Yeah, I would ask Dr. Greer what do you say
to what Dr. Adams just said there? Do you agree with him or
not?
Ms. Greer. I think, well, you know, it is interesting. I
think that what the question really comes down to who is in the
best position to make some of those evaluations and decisions?
Are there some chemicals that the Congress can take a look at
and in discussion with effected parties and with EPA say, you
know, okay this is a list. This is the chemicals. I think that
we can do that and that given how long it has taken the agency
which I might add really every time they can tentative
decision, you know, is plagued by comments and delay, et
cetera, et cetera, I think we could make faster work for them
by looking at some of those chemicals so I don't think I have a
disagreement at all in concept. I think the question on the
table for us as we move forward for TSCA reauthorization is
where are those conversations taking place and lets keep an eye
on how can we really make this system work. What would be the
best solution to make the system work?
Mr. Whitfield. Now, Dr. Adams, I know in your testimony you
said that a hard and fast PBT criteria would ignore scientific
nuances like how a chemical or metal reacts in a particular
environment or based upon climate or hydrology and other
factors. So you would not want to just see a list to be banned
by Congress, I am assuming?
Mr. Adams. Well, I think there are a few chemicals. If you
consider the POPs Treaty or the POPs Convention, for example,
you will see some substances in there that are identified as
being extremely hazardous and not to be traded in commerce.
Mr. Whitfield. So there are some things we could easily
mention.
Mr. Adams. There are a few things out there that are kind
of no-brainers, if you will, okay and why not. I mean and many
of them are PCBs that are not manufactured anymore so it is an
easy one.
Mr. Whitfield. Right.
Mr. Adams. But there are some others that could be an easy
choice but by and large, I think we want to consider the uses
and we want to consider the risk of substances.
Mr. Whitfield. Right, now, could you give me a couple of
examples that there would be universal agreement on?
Mr. Adams. Well, if you look at many of the chlorinated
pesticides that were used in the '60s and '70s, so that is
Lindane, Aldrin, Methoxychlor, DDT, DDE, so a number of those
kinds of compounds are recognized internationally as being
unacceptable.
Mr. Whitfield. Now, let me just ask one other question that
maybe someone could respond to. We have heard a lot of
discussion today about implementation legislation in order to
abide by some of these treaties. Can someone just give me a
quick synopsis of what we are talking about there? Mr. Jones,
do you want to do that or Dr. Thompson?
Mr. Thompson. I could give you maybe some brief highlights
I think of what is needed. I think in particular there are a
number of provisions in the agreements that call for parties to
do specific things. Under the Stockholm Convention, for
example, we would have difficulties preventing the manufacture
or production of chemicals for export and use in other
countries. There are a number of other provisions that are
related to both export controls and import controls for the
different agreements that current domestic authorities don't
really cover. And finally, there are some waste-related
provisions to prevent the reuse and recycle of persistent,
organic pollutants that we would need some tidying up
domestically to implement those obligations.
Mr. Whitfield. Okay and how many PBTs have actually been
banned under TSCA since its inception? Have any?
Mr. Jones. The most notable one is the PCBs were banned by
statute.
Mr. Whitfield. By statute, yeah.
Mr. Jones. The agency has only taken five other sort of
major regulatory bans since the statute was implemented and I
am not sure if any of them are PBTs.
Mr. Whitfield. Okay, thank you.
Thank you.
Mr. Rush. The Chair recognizes Mr. Sarbanes for an
additional 3 minutes.
Mr. Sarbanes. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I am just thinking about the different standards by which
one could judge our efforts to limit some of these toxic
chemicals and their use and our exposure to them and so forth,
and there are all kinds of standards. I mean there is the legal
standard that would be used in a tort case, for example. There
is the standard that the agency sets which can sometimes
interfere with or enhance the legal standard where we use to
protect or create a higher legal standard. And I guess there is
an industry burden standard that operates in our thinking but
the one that I am thinking about the most is what I would just
call the kind of member of public consumer commonsense
standard.
There are a lot of situations in which these other
standards I mentioned from the standpoint of the consumer, if
they are more aggressive, they are seen as unreasonable, in
other words consumers will say well, you know, that is going a
little bit too far. But in this context, it is hard for me to
imagine that a member of the public understanding some of the
risks that are involved here would not want to adopt the most
aggressive standard relative to all these others that was
available. And, you know, I imagine people looking back on a
hearing like this, we are on a reauthorization of TSCA that
doesn't take this step of identifying obviously dangerous
chemicals out of the gate, and putting in place a rapid action
strategy. I imagine the reaction of the public would be to say,
you know, excuse me, what didn't you understand? What more did
you need to know to take aggressive steps to address this
problem? So going forward, I am going to be pretty strong on
the notion that we need to get out of the gate quickly with
respect to those chemicals, that category of chemicals where we
have a lot of knowledge at our fingertips.
My question was this, describe what you think will happen
and it sounds like it may already have begun when our standards
fall further and further behind the standards that are being
imposed other places. Do we become a dumping ground? I mean,
what that gap has got to produce some significant and harmful
consequences to it and if anybody would like to speak to that,
I would welcome it.
Yes, Dr. Greer.
Ms. Greer. Yeah, I think there are three things that you
see and we have actually already seen all three of them. The
first is that we could become a dumping ground. We used to
worry about when the United States took action on a chemical
that was unsafe that maybe that chemical would end up in the
Third World, in the developing world and that that would be,
you know, something that we would feel morally responsible for
because we had decided it wasn't safe enough for us but it
could go to Africa or some place where that government was not
up-to-speed on that. Well, now we face the real prospect that
Europe will ban certain things from products and they will be
okay here in the United States because Europe is ahead of our
system and that we, the United States of America could become a
dumping ground for things that are not safe enough for Europe.
The other two things that you will see, I think and have
already seen is that States will start to take action where
they have problems, either because they have hotspots or
problems in certain rivers or in certain communities, or
because their citizens are particularly upset and sensitized to
this. And we will get the sort of patchwork regulation that is
not really good for industry because different States have
different systems and it all gets very confusing.
And the third that you will see, which I think we are
already seeing, is what we call retail regulation which is that
some in the private sector will say we don't want to sell this.
This is what happened with BPA and plastic bottles in baby
bottles where they didn't want to wait for the government to
take action because their market was being threatened by the
fact that customers didn't want BPA in their baby bottles, and
so they took action without the government for their own
purposes, for their own business purposes so that they could
say to their customers, we have our own systems in place to
make things safe for you, and you can feel happy to come shop
here and buy those things, and that is sort of random. It is a
chemical of the weak system that we think if we had a well-
functioning government system it could be more orderly, more
systematic, et cetera, et cetera. So I think those are the
three consequences that jump to my mind immediately and I
actually think we are seeing all three of them already because,
of course, the system has been broken for some time now.
Mr. Sarbanes. Thank you.
Mr. Rush. The chair thanks the gentleman.
The chair wants to make sure that you care about our
purposes and our continuing work, and the focus of our
continuing work, and this will be on reforming TSCA, and not
necessarily reauthorizing TSCA. We want to make sure we are
clear about that. We want to reform TSCA and it means a lot,
you know, and we don't have the right idea of how we are
working on it and we might wind up someplace else and we
certainly can't afford to wind up someplace else. We need to
reform TSCA.
With that said, I want to again thank the witnesses for
sacrificing your invaluable time with us. You have been very
informative and very enlightening toward this committee,
subcommittee, and I for one, feel much more empowered and
enlightened because of your comments and your answers to the
questions. I want to thank you again for being here with us.
And that said, without objection, I would like to submit
into the record some supporting action on PBTs from the Safer
Chemicals Healthy Families, they sent letters. The
Environmental Working Group has sent letters. The National
Council of Churches has sent letters. The Pesticide Action
Network of North America, we heard from them in the form of
letters and other communications, and the American Public
Health Association. It has already been ordered that the
American Chemistry Council letter be included, and we have a
letter also from the National Petrochemical and Refiners
Association. And lastly the chairman of the full committee,
Chairman Waxman, has an opening statement that we would also
enter into the record without objection. And so without
objection, so ordered and these and other associated matters be
entered into the record.
[The information appears at the conclusion of the hearing.]
Mr. Rush. The chairman would also like to keep the record
open for another 2 weeks and would ask the witnesses if there
are any members of the subcommittee who want to ask questions
in writing, if you would get to you and if you would in a
timely manner as promptly as you can, respond to those
questions in writing. It would certainly be an enormous help to
this subcommittee. Thank you very much.
And the subcommittee now stands adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 12:54 p.m., the Subcommittee was adjourned.]
[Material submitted for inclusion in the record follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]