[Senate Hearing 111-1229]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
S. Hrg. 111-1229
BUSINESS PERSPECTIVES ON REFORMING
U.S. CHEMICAL SAFETY LAWS
=======================================================================
HEARING
BEFORE THE
SUBCOMMITTEE ON SUPERFUND, TOXICS
AND ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH
OF THE
COMMITTEE ON
ENVIRONMENT AND PUBLIC WORKS
UNITED STATES SENATE
ONE HUNDRED ELEVENTH CONGRESS
SECOND SESSION
__________
MARCH 9, 2010
__________
Printed for the use of the Committee on Environment and Public Works
[GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys
___________
U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE
21-632PDF WASHINGTON : 2016
________________________________________________________________________________________
For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Publishing Office,
http://bookstore.gpo.gov. For more information, contact the GPO Customer Contact Center,
U.S. Government Publishing Office. Phone 202-512-1800, or 866-512-1800 (toll-free).
E-mail, [email protected].
COMMITTEE ON ENVIRONMENT AND PUBLIC WORKS
ONE HUNDRED ELEVENTH CONGRESS
SECOND SESSION
BARBARA BOXER, California, Chairman
MAX BAUCUS, Montana JAMES M. INHOFE, Oklahoma
THOMAS R. CARPER, Delaware GEORGE V. VOINOVICH, Ohio
FRANK R. LAUTENBERG, New Jersey DAVID VITTER, Louisiana
BENJAMIN L. CARDIN, Maryland JOHN BARRASSO, Wyoming
BERNARD SANDERS, Vermont MIKE CRAPO, Idaho
AMY KLOBUCHAR, Minnesota CHRISTOPHER S. BOND, Missouri
SHELDON WHITEHOUSE, Rhode Island LAMAR ALEXANDER, Tennessee
TOM UDALL, New Mexico
JEFF MERKLEY, Oregon
KIRSTEN GILLIBRAND, New York
ARLEN SPECTER, Pennsylvania
Bettina Poirier, Staff Director
Ruth Van Mark, Minority Staff Director
----------
Subcommittee on Superfund, Toxics and Environmental Health
FRANK R. LAUTENBERG, New Jersey, Chairman
MAX BAUCUS, Montana JAMES M. INHOFE, Oklahoma
AMY KLOBUCHAR, Minnesota MIKE CRAPO, Idaho
SHELDON WHITEHOUSE, Rhode Island CHRISTOPHER S. BOND, Missouri
KIRSTEN GILLIBAND, New York
ARLEN SPECTER, Pennsylvania
BARBARA BOXER, California (ex
officio)
C O N T E N T S
----------
Page
MARCH 9, 2010
OPENING STATEMENTS
Lautenberg, Hon. Frank R., U.S. Senator from the State of New
Jersey......................................................... 1
Vitter, Hon. David, U.S. Senator from the State of Louisiana..... 8
Whitehouse, Hon. Sheldon, U.S. Senator from the State of Rhode
Island......................................................... 9
Inhofe, Hon. James M., U.S. Senator from the State of Oklahoma,
prepared statement............................................. 93
WITNESSES
Fisher, Linda J., Chief Sustainability Officer, DuPont........... 10
Prepared statement........................................... 12
Williams, Howard, Vice President, Construction Specialties, Inc.. 18
Prepared statement........................................... 20
Responses to additional questions from:
Senator Boxer............................................ 23
Senator Inhofe........................................... 24
Bosley, Beth D., Managing Director, Boron Specialties............ 27
Prepared statement........................................... 29
Response to an additional question from:
Senator Boxer............................................ 35
Senator Whitehouse....................................... 36
Responses to additional questions from Senator Inhofe........ 38
Response to an additional question from Senator Vitter....... 41
Hawkins, Neil C., Sc.D., Vice President, EH&S and Sustainability,
the Dow Chemical Company....................................... 42
Prepared statement........................................... 44
Responses to additional questions from Senator Boxer......... 51
Response to an additional question from Senator Whitehouse... 52
Responses to additional questions from Senator Inhofe........ 53
Drevna, Charlie, President, National Petrochemical and Refiners
Association.................................................... 56
Prepared statement........................................... 58
Response to an additional question from Senator Boxer........ 77
Responses to additional questions from:
Senator Inhofe........................................... 77
Senator Vitter........................................... 79
Gerwig, Kathy, Vice President, Workplace Safety and Environmental
Stewardship Officer, Kaiser Permanente......................... 81
Prepared statement........................................... 83
Responses to additional questions from Senator Boxer......... 85
Response to an additional question from Senator Inhofe....... 85
ADDITIONAL MATERIAL
Written testimony of iGPS Company, March 9, 2010................. 100
Letter to Senators Boxer, Lautenberg, and Inhofe and U.S.
Representatives Barton, Whitfield, Waxman, and Rush from the
Adhesive and Sealant Council, Inc., et al., March 8, 2010...... 105
BUSINESS PERSPECTIVES ON REFORMING U.S. CHEMICAL SAFETY LAWS
----------
TUESDAY, MARCH 9, 2010
U.S. Senate,
Committee on Environment and Public Works,
Subcommittee on Superfund, Toxics
and Environmental Health,
Washington, DC.
The Subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 10 a.m. in
room 406, Dirksen Senate Office Building, Hon. Frank R.
Lautenberg (chairman of the Subcommittee) presiding.
Present: Senators Lautenberg, Vitter, Carper, and
Whitehouse.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. FRANK R. LAUTENBERG,
U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF NEW JERSEY
Senator Lautenberg. Good morning, and welcome to the third
oversight hearing on the Toxic Substances Control Act in the
Subcommittee on Superfund, Toxics and Environmental Health.
We began this push to reform the toxic substances law a few
months ago after a review with EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson.
Ms. Jackson reminded us that the current law does not provide
her agency with the tools it needs to protect the public from
hazardous chemicals.
We also heard from the experts at the Centers for Disease
Control. They told us that most Americans are walking around
with hundreds of industrial chemicals coursing through their
bodies. We also learned that the Government Accountability
Office has identified the Toxic Substances Control Act as a
high risk area of the law. And I don't know whether we need any
reminders, but this law was originally written in 1976. A long
time has passed without a lot of action to support it.
Today as we cap off the hearings on this law, known as
TSCA, we will hear--I am pleased to say--from the business
community. What we hear might be a surprise. Executives at some
of the world's leading chemical companies have determined that
the status quo is not working for them, either. As a former CEO
I know that executives have two major duties: to do what is
right for your clients, your customers, while doing right for
your company and your country. Reforming this broken law is an
opportunity to do both.
The current law is not good for the environment, it is not
good for our health, and it is ultimately not good for
business. The reason is clear: the American people are more and
more concerned about chemicals ending up in their bodies.
Parents in particular are dismayed that the Government is
powerless to require testing of chemicals that are going into
our children's bodies.
Many of the chemicals we use in our daily lives, perhaps
even most--are safe. But our current law does not allow the EPA
to draw a bright line between chemicals that are safe and
chemicals that are toxic. So consumers are left confused and
worried. This uncertainty hurts businesses all the way down the
supply chain.
It hurts the chemical industry, which is critical to our
economy. This industry is a major part of the American
manufacturing base. It sustains jobs across the country, and it
creates products that save lives.
In my home State of New Jersey the chemical industry
employs more than 70,000 people. Nearly 1,500 New Jerseyeans
work for DuPont, the company that is represented at the witness
table today. The current law also harms major companies that
use chemicals in their products, and they are joining the drum
beat for reform also.
I want to insert a letter into the record from the trade
association that represents companies like Procter and Gamble,
S.C. Johnson and Honeywell. These companies ``support the
development and implementation of a gold standard in the United
States for chemical management policy.''
[The referenced letter follows:]
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Senator Lautenberg. I look forward to hearing from our
witnesses about why reforming our chemical laws is good for
business.
Now I speak to my colleagues on the Committee. Throughout
these hearings, I have noted the constructive comments of
Republican friends. They have said that my bill to reform TSCA
must set up a system that assesses chemicals based on risk, not
just hazard, and it will. And you have said the bill must
encourage innovation, and it will. And you have said that the
bill must be based on good science, and it will.
And after taking into account the testimony we hear today I
intend to introduce a bill that lays out a vision for strong,
effective and pragmatic regulation of chemicals. But the
introduced bill will be an invitation for all to play a part--
friends on the Republican side, as well, obviously, as those on
the Democrat side. I look forward to working with Senators on
both sides of the aisle to refine the bill so it makes our
environment cleaner, our children healthier and our economy
stronger.
So now, before we hear from this important panel, I will
turn to other members for any opening statements.
Senator Vitter.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. DAVID VITTER,
U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF LOUISIANA
Senator Vitter. Yes, thank you, Mr. Chairman. It is great
to see you back, and thank you for this hearing.
As we move forward with this discussion, I want to stress a
point you mentioned, which is the absolute critical importance
of sound science. All being focused on sound science is
important to, first, achieve maximum protection for U.S.
citizens, achieving the overarching goals of ensuring human
health and a safe environment, and also preserving
competitiveness in the chemical industry in the global
marketplace. We must work to ensure that our legislative
efforts are paired with the appropriate resources also needed
to update our chemical risk management framework and that
scientists at EPA are getting those resources and getting the
science right.
I am really glad the industry is interested in seeing TSCA
reformed. Over the last several months numerous industry
leaders have come into my office to discuss this need for
reform, doing it in a way that protects health and
competitiveness. It is important to note in that regard that
more than half of the patents issued for chemical industry
innovation over the last 5 years were authored by U.S.
entities.
I want to quickly reiterate for the record what I have said
before in this Committee about the five overarching principles
that I think are important in this work. No. 1, I think EPA has
to redo their inventory of chemicals in commerce. There aren't
80,000 chemicals in significant commerce, as we often hear. The
number may be closer to one-quarter of that. And we need to
know what it is and what they are, and then focus on them.
No. 2, a European registration evaluation authorization of
chemical substances, a REACH-style program, I think would
likely kill innovation in the U.S. and is a real recipe for ham
stringing small and medium sized manufacturers in particular.
No. 3, assuming REACH is the wave of the future is entirely
premature and could actually impair human safety by preventing
critical products, helpful products in terms of safety from
entering the marketplace.
No. 4, if the EPA decides to use any given study as a
reason for limiting of terminating the use of a certain
chemical, the results of that study need to be repeatable and
proven in further supporting studies.
And No. 5, if the EPA is going to decide to utilize
resources to re-review a chemical prior to the necessary
mandated review period, that review sure as heck should be
based on sound science and not just a New York Times article
that uses politicized science from an environmental group. I am
particularly talking about the atrazine episode. I think what I
just said is a fair characterization of that, trying to scare
the public.
So I look forward to this discussion. I will be keeping
those principles in mind as we have the discussion and work on
the bill, and thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Lautenberg. Thank you, Senator Vitter.
Senator Whitehouse, welcome.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. SHELDON WHITEHOUSE,
U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF RHODE ISLAND
Senator Whitehouse. Thank you, Chairman.
First of all, let me thank you for holding this hearing and
for your continuing and determined interest in protecting
Americans from the onslaught of new chemicals that are turned
out year after year after year after year, and whose use in our
food supply and in our medications and in products that
children and seniors and all Americans have access to is poorly
enforced. We are way, way, way, way behind. We have a chemical
safety deficit in this country, and we need to catch up. You
are one of the most determined leaders in this, and I am
delighted to join you at this hearing.
Senator Lautenberg. Thank you very much for being with us.
I now would like to start hearing from our witnesses. I
will tell you in advance that votes are scheduled on the floor
of the Senate. We are going to have to defer at some point. So
we will try to move things along. If we do have to recess, I
would ask your patience and your participation. It is not a
scheme to keep us from being heard, I can tell you that.
So I would like to call first on Ms. Fisher. Ms. Fisher is
Vice President for Safety, Health and Environment for DuPont;
Mr. Williams, Vice President, Construction Specialties; Ms.
Bosley, Managing Director of Boron Specialties, testifying on
behalf of the Society of Chemical Manufacturers and Affiliates;
Dr. Hawkins, Vice President for Environment, Health and Safety
at Dow Chemical; Charles Drevna, President of the National
Petrochemical and Refiners Association; and Ms. Kathy Gerwig,
Vice President for Workplace Safety with the Kaiser Foundation
Health Plan.
We ask you to present your testimony within 5 minutes. If
it breaks the rule a little bit, we will be kind. Otherwise,
the punishment is too difficult to discuss in public here. But
please try to keep your remarks to 5 minutes.
Ms. Fisher, we invite you to speak first.
STATEMENT OF LINDA J. FISHER, CHIEF SUSTAINABILITY OFFICER,
DUPONT
Ms. Fisher. Thank you, Senator Lautenberg.
My name is Linda Fisher, and I am currently Chief
Sustainability Officer for DuPont. As you know, I spent many
years at EPA, including managing the Office of Pesticides and
Toxic Substances.
I have had the opportunity recently to be very involved
with the American Chemistry Council's review of TSCA, and I
fully support the recommendations that they have put forward.
DuPont is a diverse, 208-year-old company. We use a wide
variety of chemicals to make products for markets that include
agriculture, buildings, transportation, electronic goods and
consumer products. We believe it is time to update TSCA.
Now, this is a shift in the position that industry has
taken over the past several years, and there are a few reasons
for that change. I bring these reasons to the Committee because
they really have started to shape how industry feels about TSCA
reform.
First of all, there is a growing awareness in the public,
as you mentioned, Mr. Chairman, about the exposure to chemicals
through products. That concern is being felt in the marketplace
as consumers exercise their own buying decisions.
Second, chemical regulation is rapidly moving across the
globe to countries including China and Canada and the European
Union. Some of these regulatory schemes are imposing
significant administrative burdens on companies. They will soon
result in the generation of substantial amounts of data and
risk management decisions that will have global impacts.
We should not cede to the European Union or China or any
other country the responsibility to set global chemical policy.
The U.S. should lead on sensible, risk based and cost effective
environmental policymaking.
Third, in the absence of reforms to TSCA we are seeing
evolving State programs and chemical-specific actions that are
quite honestly creating a lot of uncertainty in our
marketplace. As with every environmental legislation, I am sure
we will have a big debate over preemption. But I think we all
know that if there is a strong, Federal regulatory review of
chemicals, the kind that will build confidence in the public,
there will be much less incentive for the States to act in this
important area.
In a reauthorized TSCA we need a regulatory program that
provides greater public and market confidence in the safety of
our chemicals with more timely, predictable and transparent
decisions by EPA. Modernizing TSCA will be difficult and
complex. It is important that we get it right with a
deliberative stakeholder process.
And Mr. Chairman, I do want to compliment you and your
staff for reaching out to those of us in industry and listening
to our concerns.
Let me highlight some of the key elements of modernizing
TSCA. Data gathering under TSCA is currently cumbersome and
time consuming. A modernized TSCA should allow EPA to get the
data they need when they need it. We hope that they would
leverage the data that we have generated from industry and the
data that will be generated through the REACH program. Then if
there are data gaps we would ask that EPA have the authority to
collect that authority as quickly as they need to.
We also would like a statute and regulatory program that
minimizes animal testing and again makes data available to the
public.
EPA should be directed, under new language, to
systematically assess existing chemicals on a prioritized basis
to evaluate the safety of exposures associated with those uses
and to make risk based decisions, integrating both hazard and
exposure. But what should happen after EPA completes its safety
assessment? Under TSCA section 6, it has proven quite difficult
for the agency to address exposures to specific chemicals where
it is warranted. EPA should have a range of risk management
tools that would allow them to reduce exposures to appropriate
levels in the most cost effective manner. That would include
reducing exposures from plants, improve manufacturing controls
as well as restrictions on particular chemical uses.
In doing so, EPA could reduce unacceptable levels of
exposure by those actions that are most cost effective and that
best preserve the beneficial uses of chemicals.
We hope that Congress will avoid presumptive bans and
rigid, prescribed legislative phase-outs of chemicals. We think
that that ignores risk and most importantly, ignores the
realities of transitioning to new products to receiving needed
consumer and regulatory approvals and modifying manufacturing
facilities to bring new chemicals to the market. Such actions
could lead to unnecessarily disrupting markets and reducing
public access to important products in the marketplace.
The agency should focus on, again, the most effective ways
to reduce exposures and to target areas of concern to the
public. Along with changes to the PMN program and the CBI
provisions of TSCA, which I talk about in my testimony, we
think these measures would constitute a significant change in
how EPA regulates chemicals and will build confidence in the
public in the safety of the products that they use every day.
I thank you for the opportunity to speak with you this
morning. Many in industry again recognize the need to reform
TSCA. The time has come to bring our statutes in the U.S. more
on par with what is going on in the rest of the world. It will
be challenging. It is going to be difficult process for both
industry and the Government. But we do look forward to working
with you as you amend the statute and with EPA as they move to
implement the program.
I thank you.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Fisher follows:]
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Senator Lautenberg. Thank you.
Mr. Williams.
STATEMENT OF HOWARD WILLIAMS, VICE PRESIDENT, CONSTRUCTION
SPECIALTIES, INC.
Mr. Williams. Thank you, Chairman Lautenberg, Senators,
staff, Committee.
I am Howard Williams, Vice President and General Manager of
Construction Specialties, Pennsylvania division. We are a small
multi-national. We are about $300 million a year, 1,600 staff
across the world, operate from 25 sites in 19 countries. So
being able to compete from all of those sites is very important
to us.
Equally important, too, is that we are in the construction
market that is 14 percent of our gross domestic product. Within
this marketplace, TSCA reform has an opportunity to inform and
to enlarge the architectural building product market.
Elimination of persistent and bioaccumulative toxins is at
the forefront of our built environment purchasing programs,
building construction programs, for both private as well as
what is going on within the Government sector. Federally
mandated environmental preferable purchasing looks at PBTs, as
do the LEED green building standards by which most of our
Federal buildings, State and private buildings are constructed.
Broad based adoption of these green building standards has
resulted in really very well documented and unprecedented
benefits to the economy, to human health, as well as our
environment. The same engine, this construction market engine
that produced these results has an opportunity to greatly
benefit human health as we go forward with a new chemical
program.
A side note example is that in 2003 Kaiser Permanente, one
of our very largest customers, came to us and said, if you
would like to continue to sell product to us--and they are a
major customer--then you need to develop a product that has no
polyvinyl chloride in it, or risk losing our business. Within a
year's time, we managed to do that. It is a product that the
health care product as a whole embraced.
Now here we are 7 years later, we have been able to develop
a PBT-free product that coincides with where the marketplace is
at this time.
So awareness and materials chemistry within the
construction market are rapidly expanding. For almost every
building product with perhaps the exception of a two by four,
chemistry is involved within that building product. The
consumer awareness of what is going on with chemistry, they are
making their decisions of what is going on, where they are
buying off the shelf. But they really don't have a lot of
opportunity to make the decision as to what is in the chemistry
in their homes or in the hospital rooms or in their children's
schools. That chemical effect, or that chemical question, is
now embedded in a number of building standards, LEED green
building products, Green Guide for Health Care, the
Collaborative for High Performance Schools, and Practice Green
Health.
The consensus based programs that answer these questions
started off looking at off gassing and then made a rapid move
to looking at, let's eliminate what is off gassing. They reject
some of the toxic effects. The best practices that they have
developed are in harmony with executive orders. They are also
in harmony with Federal purchasing standards. It is a time of
people benefit environmentalism, and TSCA reform has an
opportunity to weigh in very heavily on that.
Just within the green building product market, the green
building product market is about a $10 billion per year
marketplace. So we do need a clear identification of chemicals
of high and low concern. We need--as manufacturers, we need
reliability of that information. We need greater disclosure of
chemicals of high concern so that we can make our product
development questions, we can answer them and we can take that
information to our specifiers.
I know that there are, certainly, within everyone's paths,
some non-chemical hazards here. From a business standpoint, I
think easing some of us into reform by giving us an opportunity
to disclose things to perhaps a third party that we don't want
to show to our competitors. This confidential business
information I know is at the forefront of a question mark here.
But I think the reality is, manufacturers need to have that
opportunity to either disclose it or disclose it to a third
party so they can product their information.
The NGOs that are involved--the NGOs are the voices of
those of all of us, if we had the time to study and to
personalize this information. The NGOs are saying the same
things that we would be saying: it affects our lives, it
affects our children.
The other part is, as a taxpayer, I would really prefer
that, as a taxpayer, I not have to pay for this, that it be a
part of--we in industry have the profit opportunity; we in
industry should bear the expense and let the consumers make the
decisions.
So reform, again, just making data available to us,
identifying the chemicals of high concern and low concern, so
that we all know what is safe and what is good. I would say
that the buildings industry is really in a position today to
partner with Federal Government and to help make this happen.
Standards are being developed and emerging every day that work
toward this, a high identification and a high level of change.
So I thank you for inviting me to testify today.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Williams follows:]
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Senator Lautenberg. Thank you very much, Mr. Williams.
Ms. Bosley, we will hear from you, please.
STATEMENT OF BETH D. BOSLEY, MANAGING DIRECTOR, BORON
SPECIALTIES
Ms. Bosley. Good morning, Chairman Lautenberg and members
of the Subcommittee. I am pleased to testify before you today
on behalf of the Society of Chemical Manufacturers and
Affiliates.
Since 1921 SOCMA has served the batch chemical industry
with over 300 member companies. Those companies are usually
small or medium sized businesses. We make a $60 billion impact
to the U.S. economy, and we contribute to the chemical
industry's position as one of the Nation's largest exporters.
First, I need to state that no one in the chemical industry
wants a chemical that they manufacture or produce to cause harm
to human health or the environment. Our families live in the
communities near our plants, and we use the thousands of
products that are made possible by modern chemistry.
Chemical innovations benefit many U.S. industries and
enhance American competitiveness in global markets. Without
U.S. based innovations, advantages such as lightweight
transportation components, low emission paints and detergents
that work in cold water would not be possible today. Our
Nation's ability to reduce its carbon footprint will also
depend heavily on the technology and innovation from a vibrant
chemical industry.
The United States leads chemical innovation and is a leader
in research and development, improved manufacturing techniques
and process safety advances that are designed to reduce the
impact of chemicals on human health and the environment. Our
position as exporter and innovator is threatened by sharply
increased competition from countries with lower resource costs,
lower wage standards and lax regulations. This is more than an
economic threat. Losing our manufacturing base to these
developing countries does not make the American public safer.
We need only read the headlines to find examples where foreign
manufacturing has increased risk to U.S. individuals and
decreased public confidence.
Modernized chemical regulation must take into account
American industrial competitiveness not only to avoid losing
jobs but also so that production is not pushed beyond the reach
of U.S. law.
Many TSCA critics point to REACH legislation as a model for
TSCA reform in the United States. But REACH is fundamentally
flawed in that it does not prioritize by risk. Therefore, a low
risk chemical will be screened with the same priority as a high
risk chemical in the same volume threshold.
In contrast, Canada, through its use of a categorization
and prioritization process, was able to demonstrate that over
80 percent of the chemicals in commerce in Canada did not
present undue risk to human health or the environment. This
approach allowed Canada to then systematically assign to the
remaining chemical substances a priority for more in depth
review.
Two principles are essential to a sustainable chemical
management law that won't eliminate jobs or deter economic
growth. TSCA priorities should be established based on risk,
and emphasis should be placed on existing authority.
Basing priorities and regulatory criteria on scientific
evaluation of hazard and exposure factors is critical. If a
chemical is highly toxic but used only in strictly controlled
industrial environments, then the risk to public health is
readily manageable.
One mechanism needed first is an inventory reset, which was
part of EPA's ChAMP program. Of the over 80,000 chemicals now
listed on the inventory, EPA estimates that only about 20,000
of these are presently in commerce.
Another TSCA mechanism that has worked is EPA's New
Chemicals program. They have successfully reviewed 35,000
chemicals without impeding innovation that is crucial to
American competitiveness. Through this program, manufacturers
submit pre-manufacture notices, and these chemicals undergo a
risk based review by EPA. The fact that limited data is
available during the PMN process can be expected given the
early stage of development during which the PMN must be filed.
This does not mean that the manufacturer has stopped testing,
or it is selling products with inadequate health and safety
data.
EPA has pioneered efforts using modeling and Structure
Activity Relationships to help inform agency decisions. The
scientists at EPA are extremely knowledgeable, and they make
regulatory decisions based on conservative interpretation of
their model data. Studies show that EPA's extensive modeling
capabilities align closely with or are more conservative than
measured test data.
It is important to emphasize that EPA is not limited to
existing data and models when reviewing new chemicals. They
have the authority to require companies submitting PMNs to
generate and submit specific health data, and they have done so
when they felt information was needed.
SOCMA members are proud of our track record in protecting
our workers and communities. We favor a regulatory model that
builds on the effective public-private relationship between EPA
and industry to assess and manage chemical safety.
In summary, this model should involve risk based
prioritization, proven regulatory mechanisms and existing
authority. EPA should not be burdened with the determination
that each chemical is safe for its intended use, and above all
EPA needs adequate funding. The biggest weakness in the TSCA
program today is lack of resources, not lack of authority.
I would like to thank you for the opportunity to discuss
this pragmatic approach, and I look forward to your questions.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Bosley follows:]
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Senator Lautenberg. Thank you very much, Ms. Bosley.
Dr. Hawkins, we would like to hear from you now, please.
STATEMENT OF NEIL C. HAWKINS, SC.D., VICE PRESIDENT, EH&S AND
SUSTAINABILITY, THE DOW CHEMICAL COMPANY
Mr. Hawkins. Thank you. Chairman Lautenberg and members of
the Subcommittee.
I am pleased to testify today on an issue that is
critically important to the Dow Chemical Company and to me
personally, product safety. I am responsible for Dow's product
safety programs and compliance with chemical product safety
laws in the U.S. and around the world.
Dow is a leading global manufacturer of advanced materials.
We supply customers in over 160 countries. Our diverse
chemistry can be found in applications that range from food
ingredients to electronics to water purification, alternative
energy including wind and solar, and personal care products.
As a global company, Dow goes well beyond compliance. Dow's
2015 sustainability goals include a progressive product safety
leadership goal for which we publicly report our progress. We
also have product stewardship management systems in place to
ensure our products are safe for their intended uses.
Despite our collective efforts key stakeholders seem to
lack confidence in the Federal regulatory system. For example,
we continue to see an uptick in legislative proposals at the
State and local level to ban specific chemical applications.
Often these fixate on chemicals that have been in commerce for
decades and are relatively well studied. It seems ineffective
to take an ad hoc chemical by chemical approach to product
safety under the assumption that data rich chemicals are risky
and that alternatives must be safe.
Contrast that with the approach of other countries which in
the last few years have required a comprehensive look at all
chemicals in commerce to determine those uses that deserve
special regulatory scrutiny.
We believe the U.S. law responsible for ensuring the safety
of chemicals in commerce, TSCA, is in need of reform. We are
not alone in our view. Dow has worked side by side with members
of the American Chemistry Council, the value chain and with NGO
stakeholders to call for modernization of the statute. ACC has
developed comprehensive principles for TSCA reform, which we
fully support.
First and foremost, we believe the Federal program ought to
screen all chemicals in commerce to identify those chemicals
and their uses that should be evaluated against a minimum
safety standard. This type of screening process would help
focus Government resources on priority chemicals and uses
believed to pose the greatest risk.
An ideal chemical safety program would base safety
decisions on the weight of scientific evidence. Research would
be judged on the basis of scientific merit and quality without
regard for funding source or where studies were conducted. At
Dow, for example, we have hundreds of scientists with expert
knowledge of the products we manufacture. Our analytical tools
are considered the best in the world, and our toxicology
laboratory has been operating for more than 70 years, well
before testing was required by any government.
Quality research must be used, and everyone, not just the
industry, should be held to common quality standards.
Finally, reform should not only ensure that chemicals are
safe for their intended uses, it should also provide incentives
for sustainable chemistry--carrots, not just sticks. At Dow
sustainable chemistry refers to a cradle to cradle approach--
that drives all of us to use resources more efficiently and
safely and minimize our total footprint. It builds on well
established principles for green chemistry which are recognized
by EPA.
As we consider changes to TSCA, we should explore
incentives for sustainable chemistry, such as a collaborative
Federal R&D program and development of tools to advance
improvements in all aspects of a product's life cycle. The
sustainable solutions for tomorrow are in our laboratories
today. Let's find ways to bring them to market sooner through
incentives.
We recognize that it is much easier to agree on general
principles than specific legislative language, and the details
are very important in this case. As Congress takes a hard look
at TSCA, multi-stakeholder dialogue will speed us to meaningful
reform. Collaboration is the quickest path to our common goal,
a stronger and more effective chemicals regulatory program in
the United States.
Thank you for the opportunity to testify today.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Hawkins follows:]
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Senator Lautenberg. Thank you very much.
Mr. Drevna, we welcome your testimony.
STATEMENT OF CHARLIE DREVNA, PRESIDENT, NATIONAL PETROCHEMICAL
AND REFINERS ASSOCIATION
Mr. Drevna. Thank you and good morning, Chairman
Lautenberg. It is really good to see you, sir. And Senators
Whitehouse and Vitter, thank you for having us here today.
I am Charlie Drevna, President of NPRA, the National
Petrochemical and Refiners Association. We are a national trade
association representing virtually all U.S. refiners and the
vast majority of domestic petrochemical manufacturers, who
produce the chemicals that serve as the building blocks for
everything from clothing and medicine to plastics and
computers.
Again, I appreciate the opportunity to appear before you
here today.
NPRA considers the current Federal chemical regulatory
framework to be a solid foundation for protection of human
health and the environment. NPRA also understands the
Subcommittee's and others desires to example TSCA
implementation and where needed consider the modifications to
the statute. We support reasonable modernization of our
Nation's chemical risk management policies.
However, we believe that a wholesale rewrite of TSCA is
neither necessary nor desirable. In support of my views my
written statement goes into great detail on a number of these
things. Rather than simply summarize that information, I would
like this morning to focus on several items that NPRA supports
regarding the modernization of TSCA.
A strong legislative framework is critical to creating a
successful chemicals management regulatory program and requires
deliberate and careful consideration due to the complexity of
the issues and their broad impacts on all parts of the American
economy. To that end, NPRA supports an open and transparent
process of updating our chemical risk management laws so that
all stakeholders, including EPA and other relevant Federal
officials, NGOs, the affected business community and Members of
Congress and their staff can work together to update this
statute. Only through such an open and inclusive dialogue can
we be assured that steps toward modernization remain
constructive. The end result will be a more effective chemicals
policy management.
To ensure that kind of open and inclusive discussion needed
to make TSCA modernization a success I strongly believe that
any initial proposal should begin in the form of a discussion
draft rather than a formally introduced bill. I fear that
premature introduction of legislation may result in political
lines being drawn in the sand which would ultimately impede
meaningful discussion and potentially even negate progress. A
discussion draft will enable a constructive dialogue among all
stakeholders and allow the best ideas and principles to be
brought forward.
NPRA also believes that all stakeholders should have a
clear idea of what EPA has in terms of information and tools
and what the agency needs. Although some claim that EPA is not
able to effectively collect information on the risk of
chemicals, the agency has in fact obtained a wealth of valuable
chemical hazard and exposure information over the years through
its new chemicals program, consent agreements, voluntary
programs like the HPV Challenge and data call-ins. The HPV
Challenge alone resulted in the collection of hazard
information for more than 2,100 high production volume
chemicals, which represent 95 percent of all chemicals in
commerce by volume.
Additionally, NPRA supports a TSCA dialogue focused on
risks and not just the hazards a chemical may have. Hazards
only speak to the intrinsic properties of a substance, while
risk involves the likelihood of a substance to cause harm. As
an everyday example of this, consider the automobile. By their
very nature, cars are hazardous. They are large, heavy objects
propelled by a highly flammable fuel. Yet when operated
properly and in a safe manner the risk posed by automobiles is
far outweighed by the benefits provided by modern
transportation.
By the same token while many of the chemicals used to make
products that enhance and improve our lives may have hazardous
properties, the risks posed by those substances have been
minimized by controls employed by the manufacturing community.
Finally, as we take steps to modernize our Nation's
chemicals management policy care must be taken to ensure that
TSCA continues to achieve its overarching goals of protecting
human health and the environment while at the same time
promoting innovation and economic growth of the United States.
Here, Senator, in your opening remarks, we agree 100 percent.
NPRA believes that these goals are complementary and not
mutually exclusive.
There are also those who would like to see the United
States adopt a program similar to that approach used in Europe
under REACH. In reality, REACH is an unproven program that is
already so much of a burden that the French government has set
aside 600,000 Euros to help small businesses deal with it.
Mr. Chairman and members of the Subcommittee, we are a
Nation of innovators. When it comes to crafting sound,
effective, responsible chemical risk management policy, we as a
Nation can do better than REACH.
Thank you for your time. I look forward to your questions.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Drevna follows:]
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Senator Lautenberg. Thank you very much, Mr. Drevna.
Ms. Gerwig, we look forward to hearing from you.
STATEMENT OF KATHY GERWIG, VICE PRESIDENT, WORKPLACE SAFETY AND
ENVIRONMENTAL STEWARDSHIP OFFICER, KAISER PERMANENTE
Ms. Gerwig. I would very much like to thank Chairman
Lautenberg and members of the Subcommittee for inviting me to
testify before you today.
My name is Kathy Gerwig. I am Vice President of Workplace
Safety and the Environmental Stewardship Officer for Kaiser
Permanente, the Nation's largest integrated health care
delivery system. Our mission is to provide high quality,
affordable health care services and to improve the health of
members that we serve. Our commitment to the issues the
Subcommittee is exploring today is an important and integral
part of this mission.
At Kaiser Permanente we understand that healthy communities
and a healthy environment are critical to the health and
wellness of every person. We are dedicated to environmental
sustainability because it has direct, positive effects on
individual and community health. Since the organization was
founded in 1945, we have worked to curb our overall impact on
the environment by using safer chemicals, building greener
hospitals, reducing waste, purchasing locally grown food and
using sustainable energy. We believe that through our practices
we can promote the creation and adoption of safer chemicals and
sustainable materials in a way that supports a healthy economy,
healthy environment and healthy people.
Kaiser Permanente spends $14 billion annually on products
and services. Despite this leverage we have experienced
limitations in achieving our goal of using products and
materials that are environmentally sustainable. To address the
lack of chemical safety information our procurement and supply
staff developed a supplier disclosure process that is used for
major medical product purchases across our entire system. This
disclosure is unique because we require information on a
product specific basis. The information to be disclosed
includes whether the product contains heavy metals, halogenated
flame retardants, polyvinyl chloride, or PVC, diethylhexyl
phthalate or DEHP, or ingredients contained on California's
Proposition 65 list of chemicals that cause cancer or
reproductive harm.
We also ask for information on the supplier's safer
alternatives. The process requires comprehensive vendor
education and aggressive demands for safety and ingredient
information. Another challenge we face is that many products
that are labeled green are made from chemicals without adequate
or any safety testing. A truly green product is one that is
environmentally and biologically benign throughout its life
cycle.
Kaiser Permanente was the first health system in the U.S.
to contract for patient controlled analgesia sets that are
totally free of PVC and DEHP. This is significant because we
purchase the equivalent of 18 miles of tubing annually. While
the cost of this change reflected a savings over our prior
contract, it would have been even less expensive to buy tubing
that was made from PVC and DEHP. Balancing pricing with
environmental and public health considerations is always a
challenge.
To address chemicals found in fabrics, we created a
sustainable fabric alliance program to embed environmental
considerations into choosing fabric and fabric vendors. The
considerable time and resources committed to this work was
justified because there was no other way for us to ensure that
our fabrics were free of chemicals of concern.
We also support safer chemicals through research. Our
division of research conducted the first study to look at the
effect of high levels of workplace exposure to bisphenol-A, or
BPA, on the male reproductive system in humans. This recent
study adds to the body of evidence questioning the safety of
BPA, a chemical used in the production of polycarbonate
plastics and epoxy resins found in baby bottles, plastic
containers, the lining of cans used for food and beverages, and
in dental sealants. Kaiser Permanente purchases baby bottles
that are free of BPA, and we continue to push for safer
alternatives to products that contain BPA.
As we strive to advance an economy where the production and
use of chemicals are not harmful for humans and the environment
Kaiser Permanente invests significant time and resources. That
degree of investment is simply not feasible for most products
and materials we buy, nor is it possible for most organizations
that don't have the resources and skills that we have developed
over the decades. Mechanisms are needed to support downstream
users in procuring the safest products and materials for our
needs.
Mr. Chairman and distinguished members of the Committee,
thank you for the invitation to testify here today. I look
forward to answering any questions you may have.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Gerwig follows:]
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Senator Lautenberg. Thank you very much, Ms. Gerwig.
I want to say that your testimony, the testimony from each
one of you was worth hearing. I assure you, we listened
carefully.
I also want to say if I was to play the role of the school
teacher, the class was excellent; timing was wonderful. You did
a great job in meeting the rigid standards of our time
requirements.
Ms. Fisher, in our oversight hearings, two main problems
have arisen over and over. First, that EPA cannot get all of
the data it needs on chemical safety, and second, EPA cannot
adequately regulate risks from chemicals. Are you in agreement
that EPA should be able to acquire more safety data on
chemicals and restrict the use of high risk chemicals?
Ms. Fisher. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I think the way TSCA
is currently drafted it requires a lot of process and
rulemaking for EPA to gather the data it might need to assess
chemicals. Similarly, when the agency moves to take risk
management decisions the tools are there but the way they are
currently drafted, they become very time consuming. I think
that has led to the frustration that the public feels and
sometimes, quite honestly, industry feels, in getting them to
make a decision.
Senator Lautenberg. Under current law, EPA bears the burden
of proving that a chemical is unreasonably dangerous before the
agency can restrict it to protect public health. Even EPA's
effort to ban asbestos failed to meet this heavy burden. Should
the chemical companies have the responsibility to prove that
their products are safe before us, Ms. Fisher?
Ms. Fisher. Absolutely. I think the industry should have
the burden to show that the products they are bringing to the
market are safe.
Senator Lautenberg. Dr. Hawkins, how do you feel about
that?
Mr. Hawkins. I think the burden of proof should rest with
the private sector, with industry. So that I definitely agree
with.
But I do also believe that EPA needs to have the authority
and power when there is a use of a chemical that they believe
creates risk that needs to be regulated and stopped that they
have the authority to act. And so it is really two-pronged. We
have the responsibility to provide the information and the
substantiation of the safety. But we do need decisions on the
tail end as well.
Senator Lautenberg. The one thing that I gleaned from the
testimony overall is to be careful about the way a TSCA reform
should be developed. I assure you that casual carelessness is
not the place we want to be. Sound science, we want that to be
the top indicator as to what it is we should proceed with.
So the cautionary notes that we get, I hear those as well.
But I assure you that we don't want to produce a product that
is just a product. We want to produce a product that has value.
We want to produce a product that will prevent lots of diseases
that children seem to be acquiring, whether it is cancer,
neuro-behavioral, asthma, et cetera. We know that there is a
significant influence on materials in human development. We
want to make sure we do whatever we can to protect our
children, including my 10 grandchildren and everybody else's
grandchildren across this country.
Ms. Gerwig, because the Government is not adequately
reviewing the safety of chemicals your company has spent an
enormous amount of money trying to ensure that you are not
exposing patients to dangerous chemicals. I note that the
material in gloves was changed. I wasn't aware of that. It
sounds simple when you have done the right thing, I must say.
Would requiring chemicals to be reviewed by EPA scientists
reduce costs and do you think improve profitability for
companies like yours?
Ms. Gerwig. Shifting the burden away from downstream users,
such as us, and pushing it toward the EPA and toward chemical
manufacturers would certainly allow us to allocate our
resources to providing health care as opposed to looking at the
substances that are in the products that we use.
Senator Lautenberg. Ms. Fisher, I am not picking on you,
but we do want to hear from you further. Chemicals that we call
PBTs buildup in our bodies, fail to break down over time and
are known to be toxic. Other governments have taken action to
restrict most uses of these PBTs without putting these
chemicals through a traditional risk assessment process. Should
we provide a way to reduce the use of PBTs quickly, without
waiting for the risk assessment process to run the course? Are
they so dangerous?
Ms. Fisher. First of all, Mr. Chairman, EPA has done a lot
to regulate many of the PBTs that have historically been in
commerce under a number of different statutes. I think that we
have to be careful how we construct TSCA. You want EPA to make
prompt decisions based on good science. But to make the proper
risk management decisions they are going to have to understand
where the exposures are coming from.
We really do want them to comment on where people are being
most exposed. So they need to have enough information to make
those calls.
Senator Lautenberg. Thank you.
Senator Whitehouse, you have acquired 7 minutes' worth of
time to balance our discussion here.
Senator Whitehouse. Thank you.
I thank all the witnesses for their testimony. I was
particularly struck by the testimony of the representatives
from DuPont and Dow, the great chemical companies of our
country, who both said, Ms. Fisher from DuPont, the time to
modernize TSCA has come, and Dr. Hawkins for Dow, Congress
should reform TSCA; there is an emerging consensus that reform
is necessary. So I think that puts us in a good position to
move forward.
I have a number of questions. The first has to do with
protections from foreign competition. Whenever heightened
environmental and safety standards are proposed for American
companies, we very often hear back that, well, we really
shouldn't do that because it puts us at a competitive
disadvantage with other countries.
I would rather solve that problem with protections at the
border to make sure that harmful products are not imported to
our country than I would by continuing to allow American
industry to make unsafe products in a sort of international
race to the bottom of product safety. I would love to have your
advice, and I would be delighted to take this as a question for
the record, if you wanted to have a moment to think about it,
and to write down what your specific recommendations would be,
what we should be doing to assure that our products that are
imported meet our safety standards.
In that context, I would also like to ask each of you--each
of your organizations, anyway--to take a look at the Foreign
Manufacturers Legal Accountability Act, which is a bipartisan
piece of legislation proposed by me and Senator Sessions of
Alabama, that would require foreign competitors of American
companies that import their products into our country to do
something as simple as to file an agent for service of process
so that as one of the witnesses mentioned--I think it was you,
Ms. Bosley--when the sulfide contaminated wall board or the
lead painted toys come into our country, and somebody is
injured as a result, they can find relief and a remedy from the
importing company.
We had an Alabama contractor here reporting that to protect
his own reputation he had to make good on the sulfide damage
that was caused by the Chinese defective sulfide contaminated
wall board. But there was no way he could find anybody to get
any compensation from. In many cases there are very arcane
laws; you have to translate the complaint into the foreign
nation's language. We should require a simple agent for service
of process here. We do it for American corporations; we should
require it for foreign corporations.
If there are other steps you think we should take, I would
be very interested in those. I think it really is important
that we not allow international competition to degrade into a
race to the bottom of safety.
Ms. Gerwig, thank you for what Kaiser is doing. I hope that
we can use the Kaiser process as a benchmark for where TSCA
could and should go. Clearly, a great number of the chemicals
that you require notification of through your supplier
disclosure process are ones that are not presently restricted
through EPA's chemical analysis review, correct?
Ms. Gerwig. Correct.
Senator Whitehouse. So you are ahead of them. And you have
based your decisions, presumably, on sound science, correct?
Ms. Gerwig. Sound science, credible evidence that is
available to us that shows their connections between those
chemicals and disease.
Senator Whitehouse. And in particular, thank you for your
work on latex gloves. You mentioned that in your testimony. As
somebody who has seen a child standing outside of an emergency
room bleeding in the rain because they had not yet cleared a
latex-safe pathway for that child through the emergency room, I
think for families who have latex sensitivity around the
country, that was a wonderful thing for you to help lead on.
Ms. Bosley, you said in your testimony something that I was
interested to read. I just want to highlight it. Let me know if
it is in fact what you meant. ``Because of the vast number of
chemicals and applications we do not think that EPA should be
burdened with a determination that each chemical is safe for
its intended use.'' Did you really mean to say that?
Ms. Bosley. I do. I believe that industry should be
responsible for knowing the uses. EPA should certainly provide
the regulatory authority and the guidance and the oversight.
But it is industry who should determine whether a chemical is
safe for its intended use.
Senator Whitehouse. We should rely on the manufacturer to
determine the safety of the product? How well did that work out
with tobacco? How well did that work out with lead?
Ms. Bosley. There are certainly chemicals that are due for
more scrutiny than are industrial chemicals. I think that is
where the risk prioritization comes into play. If you have a
chemical that has a very high risk potential EPA can take more
time and do much more due diligence on the safety of that
chemical for its intended use.
But for the vast majority of industrial chemicals that are
used in a strict industrial environment, that level of
authority would not be necessary. I think it would just seize
up EPA, frankly.
Senator Whitehouse. I am a little bit surprised. I assumed
that there was, I don't know, some mistake here. Because there
are so many chemicals, we don't think EPA should be responsible
for determining whether a chemical is safe for--isn't that the
purpose of environmental regulation, is to assure that a
chemical is safe for its intended use?
Ms. Bosley. That is the purpose of things like FDA,
certainly for food, and for food contact items and for drugs.
It is the position of EPA through its program for pesticides.
That universe of chemicals is much smaller. And once again the
risk is much higher. These are chemicals that are meant to be
ingested, that are meant to be injected and the risk for human
exposure is much higher.
If you consider a chemical that is used to manufacture,
perhaps a certain industrial polymer that will never be used in
a consumer product, that type of use is where the vast majority
of industrial chemicals are.
Senator Whitehouse. So to put a limiter on that sentence,
we do not think that EPA should be burdened with the
determination that each chemical is safe for its intended use,
where its use is not intended to expose that chemical to the
public, is really what you mean to say?
Ms. Bosley. That is right. It is all about that risk
prioritization and risk determination. That is--looking at the
hazard of the chemical in association with its exposure
potential.
Senator Whitehouse. In terms of a reasonable new chemicals
fee that would go to EPA to support this, do you have a
proposal in mind on that or any vehicle that would actually
assure that those funds ended up at EPA?
Ms. Bosley. At this point, I think the PMN fee, the pre-
manufacture notice fee is $2,500. It goes to the Treasury, not
EPA. That is, I think, a fundamental flaw in the situation.
There are certainly other fees that EPA could assess. I know
confidential business information is a difficult premise for
EPA to maintain. It is very burdensome for EPA to maintain
confidential business information. Perhaps they would like to
charge for that service.
Senator Whitehouse. My time has expired, Chairman.
Senator Lautenberg. If you have another question, we have
time. I have a couple.
Senator Whitehouse. Let me just ask one more about the
question of the confidential business information. There has
been a lot of static about that. I am told that 16,000
chemicals in the TSCA inventory are classified as confidential
business information, which has the effect of restricting
information on the toxicity of those chemicals even with State
and local public health officials, which really doesn't seem to
make a lot of sense. Clearly, if somebody wished to stall and
create additional cost and bureaucratic burden on the regulator
there is a strong incentive to upgrade the confidential
business information claim and make that a point of dispute.
Is anybody comfortable with the confidential business
information standard as it presently exists, and what
suggestion do you have for repairing it so that it more
prudently reflects chemical risks and the access for
particularly State and local public health officials to that
information?
Ms. Bosley. The public face of any chemical is really its
material safety data sheet. Those are public documents that are
available on most manufacturers' Web sites; if not on their Web
sites then certainly from a call to the manufacturer. That
toxicity data is not confidential with respect to OSHA. It is
on every material safety data sheet. The entire study is
certainly not there; it would be too cumbersome to put it
there. But the results of that study are there; all available
toxicity data is required by OSHA to be public information.
That information is available to anybody who would like it.
Senator Whitehouse. So it is your position that no further
disclosure of confidential business information, no change in
that process at EPA is justified at this stage?
Ms. Bosley. No. As I said, I think it is extraordinarily
burdensome for EPA to maintain confidential business
information. I think it is important that they do where it is
necessary. But I think, for instance, that there may be a
sunsetting of confidential business information that would be
appropriate.
Senator Whitehouse. So you don't think the where it is
necessary the line is being drawn correctly at the moment, that
needs to be adjusted?
Ms. Bosley. That is correct.
Senator Whitehouse. You had your hand up? Same answer. Very
good.
Senator Lautenberg. Thanks very much, Senator Whitehouse.
I just have a couple of things here. Dr. Hawkins, new
techniques for testing chemicals are being developed so that
scientists can obtain faster and more accurate results without
relying on animal testing. These techniques will also be far
less expensive than existing animal testing. How will these
techniques affect the volume and the quality of safety data
that you can provide to EPA?
Mr. Hawkins. Actually, we are very excited and test and
prototype many of these advanced approaches you are describing
as well as other approaches like structure activity
relationships and looking at mechanisms of how chemicals work.
But it is very important that you brought that up because this
whole issue of animal welfare is very important. We work with
many stakeholders from the animal welfare community relative to
our tox lab.
So as TSCA is reformed we need to be careful that we are
only calling for tests with animals that uniquely need to be
done with animals. At the same time we need to make sure that
the non-animal testing yields valuable information and are
validated. We work on that with suppliers and are aggressively
pursuing those.
Senator Lautenberg. You mentioned also, Dr. Hawkins, in
your testimony that American companies should not be
disadvantaged by competition from outside the country. Is there
a disadvantage now to American companies as a result of our
lack of testing or verification of the quality and safety of
the products?
Mr. Hawkins. I think we are heading into a period here with
REACH being implemented. That is still an experiment. It is a
big experiment. But it is ongoing. As to how that might change
the global chemical marketplace, American chemical industry and
related industries are big exporters. So as you get into these
elaborate regulatory systems in a place like Europe or Canada
or elsewhere I think there is a potential for us being
disadvantaged if our system is not cognizant of the receiving
end. We are big exporters, all of us. So we need to be
cognizant of that.
Senator Lautenberg. Mr. Williams, current law allows
chemical makers to hide health and safety data from the public
and companies like yours by making broad claims of confidential
business information. How would limiting these claims to
legitimate business secrets help companies like yours?
Mr. Williams. It is a great question, because I have a good
example. We use McDonough Braungart Design Chemistry, cradle to
cradle certifications. We have particular material, an
adhesive, that is used in our products. We approached the
adhesives manufacturer and said, we want to know what is in
there. And they absolutely refused. We offered a non-disclosure
agreement, no, we are not going to give it.
They did sign a non-disclosure agreement with McDonough
Braungart Design Chemistry, because they were willing to reveal
to someone that wasn't about to--they thought we were going to
copy their material, they thought we were going to give their
information to someone else and create a competitor against
them. So I think the need for businesses to be able to
disclose, in perhaps a safe environment, is highly important.
But we need to know that information. We absolutely must
have that information in order to make the environmental and
health claims that we make. We have gone through businesses
that have required us to sign non-disclosure agreements before
we get in the door, and they have all said, what we do here is
confidential; no one else does it; it is proprietary. Well, we
have walked through 43 other businesses that are doing the very
same thing.
Some of our proprietary claims in business are as much in
our own thinking and our own pride in authorship, and then
there are the real ones that are relative to simply not wanting
to tell our competitors what we are doing. So I believe reform
needs to take that into consideration because various
manufacturers think they are going to need to be eased across
that threshold and understand that doing this is very
important. It is essential. And yet doing it in a safe way of
protecting that competitive information, there has to be a
means of doing that.
Senator Lautenberg. Thank you. Thank you all, each of you,
for your testimony.
What we are discussing here today is essential to at least
warrant to the public that we are trying to do whatever we can
to protect them. The anxiety that now accompanies pregnancy is
quite a different condition than some time ago when we counted
fingers and toes and things of that nature and said, OK, there
is a healthy baby. And we must do whatever we can to assure
those who would bear children, to assure those children's
development, that we have done everything possible. We know
there is a presence of materials in almost everybody across our
Nation. We must do whatever can to protect that development of
that child, to protect the health and well-being of people
across our country.
There is no secret that things like diabetes and asthma
have shown growth. And I am not suggesting here that it is a
chemical product. But nor can we say that no, and I think
Senator Whitehouse's commentary about the things that have been
left over the years to industry, and I salute the industry, I
think it is a wholesome, necessary industry in our society, the
chemical industry. But when we talk about things like asbestos
and the kinds of fights that we had to establish the fact that
asbestos is so lethal. And we saw it in the State of New
Jersey, where we have a huge industrial presence.
So my thanks to each one of you. This hearing is concluded.
It is of great value to us in trying to develop a process, a
way to get things done without enough of a benefit to add some
more burden to the business of doing business. Thank you all.
[Whereupon, at 11:13 a.m., the Subcommittee was adjourned.]
[An additional statement submitted for the record follows:]
Statement of Hon. James M. Inhofe,
U.S. Senator from the State of Oklahoma
Chairman Lautenberg, I am very pleased to see you here
today and am glad to know you are feeling well.
As we consider legislation aimed at modernizing the Toxic
Substances Control Act (TSCA), Congress must avoid creating new
burdens that hurt consumers and the economy. This principle is
especially important today as the economy continues to struggle
and unemployment remains near 10 percent. So, thank you for
having this hearing, Mr. Chairman. It is critical that we
listen to private sector concerns and consider ideas from the
business community. I'd like to request that the written
statement of the American Chemical Council be entered into the
record.
TSCA regulates thousands of basic chemicals and compounds--
chemicals that are the foundation of our way of life and on
which our economy, health and welfare depend. I believe that
TSCA is a fundamentally sound statute. But it is 30 years old,
and the science of chemical risk assessment has evolved. As
you've heard me say before, I am open to the idea of
modernizing the Act.
The chemical industry has set out principles for reform.
And in previous hearings I also laid out principles. Let me say
this again: in order for me to accept changes to TSCA, the
revisions must be based on risk assessment using the best
available science, must include cost-benefit considerations,
must protect proprietary information, and must prioritize
reviews for existing chemicals.
I have high expectations that the perspectives we hear
today will focus on sound science, risk based decisionmaking
and prioritization of review. Let it be known, however, that I
do not want to hear suggestions that create artificial
advantages favoring one sector over another--in other words,
please do not give us ideas that create an uneven playing field
among companies or products or cause economic harm to
consumers.
I look forward to hearing from the witnesses on their
productive and constructive ideas for reforming TSCA. Welcome
to the Committee.
[The referenced statement follows:]
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
[all]