    [Senate Hearing 112-984]
    [From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]

                                                             S. Hrg. 112-984

                           LEGISLATIVE HEARING ON THE
                               SAFE CHEMICALS ACT

    =======================================================================

                                 JOINT HEARING

                                   BEFORE THE

                       SUBCOMMITTEE ON SUPERFUND, TOXICS
                            AND ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH

                                     OF THE

                                  COMMITTEE ON
                          ENVIRONMENT AND PUBLIC WORKS
                              UNITED STATES SENATE

                          ONE HUNDRED TWELFTH CONGRESS

                                 FIRST SESSION

                                   __________

                               NOVEMBER 17, 2011

                                   __________

      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.fdsys.gov

                                   __________

                       U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE
    24-968PDF                  WASHINGTON : 2017

    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    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, gpo@custhelp.com.

                   COMMITTEE ON ENVIRONMENT AND PUBLIC WORKS

                          ONE HUNDRED TWELFTH CONGRESS
                                 FIRST SESSION

                      BARBARA BOXER, California, Chairman
    MAX BAUCUS, Montana                  JAMES M. INHOFE, Oklahoma
    THOMAS R. CARPER, Delaware           DAVID VITTER, Louisiana
    FRANK R. LAUTENBERG, New Jersey      JOHN BARRASSO, Wyoming
    BENJAMIN L. CARDIN, Maryland         JEFF SESSIONS, Alabama
    BERNARD SANDERS, Vermont             MIKE CRAPO, Idaho
    SHELDON WHITEHOUSE, Rhode Island     LAMAR ALEXANDER, Tennessee
    TOM UDALL, New Mexico                MIKE JOHANNS, Nebraska
    JEFF MERKLEY, Oregon                 JOHN BOOZMAN, Arkansas
    KIRSTEN GILLIBRAND, New York

           Bettina Poirier, Majority Staff Director and Chief Counsel
                     Ruth Van Mark, Minority Staff Director

           Subcommittee on Superfund, Toxics and Environmental Health

                         FRANK R. LAUTENBERG, Chairman
    MAX BAUCUS, Montana                  MIKE CRAPO, Idaho
    THOMAS R. CARPER, Delaware           LAMAR ALEXANDER, Tennessee
    JEFF MERKLEY, Oregon                 MIKE JOHANNS, Nebraska
    KIRSTEN GILLIBAND, New York          JOHN BOOZMAN, Arkansas
    BARBARA BOXER, California, (ex       JAMES M. INHOFE, Oklahoma, (ex
        officio)                             officio)

                                C O N T E N T S

                                  ----------
                                                                       Page

                               NOVEMBER 17, 2011
                               OPENING STATEMENTS

    Lautenberg, Hon. Frank R., U.S. Senator from the State of New
      Jersey.........................................................     1
    Inhofe, Hon. James M., U.S. Senator from the State of Oklahoma...     3
    Carper, Hon. Thomas, U.S. Senator from the State of Delaware.....     5
    Gillibrand, Hon. Kristen, U.S. Senator from the State of New York     6
    Merkley, Hon. Jeff, U.S. Senator from the State of Oregon........     7
    Baucus, Hon. Max, U.S. Senator from the State of Montana,
      prepared statement.............................................

                                   WITNESSES

    Sturdevant, Ted, Director, Department Of Ecology, State Of
      Washington.....................................................     8
        Prepared statement...........................................    11
    Responses to additional questions from:
        Senator Boxer................................................    24
        Senator Carper...............................................    28
        Senator Inhofe...............................................    29
    Brody, Charlotte, Director Of Chemicals, Public Health And Green
      Chemistry, Bluegreen Alliance..................................    32
        Prepared statement...........................................    34
    Responses to additional questions from:
        Senator Boxer................................................    37
        Senator Carper...............................................    39
        Senator Inhofe...............................................    40
    Dooley, Cal, President and Ceo, American Chemistry Council.......    42
        Prepared statement...........................................    44
    Responses to additional questions from:
        Senator Carper...............................................    65
        Senator Inhofe...............................................    68
    Matthews, Robert, Counsel, Consumer Specialty Products
      Association....................................................    75
        Prepared statement...........................................    77
    Responses to additional questions from:
        Senator Carper...............................................    85
        Senator Inhofe...............................................    87
    Denison, Richard, Senior Scientist, Environmental Defense Fund;
      Safer Chemicals, Healthy Families Coalition....................    91
        Prepared statement...........................................    93
    Responses to additional questions from:
        Senator Boxer................................................   107
        Senator Carper...............................................   110
        Senator Inhofe...............................................   113

                              ADDITIONAL MATERIAL

    Statements:
        Business Alliance Committed to Finding the Right Approach to
          Updating TSCA..............................................   153
        American Cleaning Institite..................................   156
        Edison Electric Institute....................................   158
        National Council of Churches.................................   160
        National Petrochemical & Refiners Association (NPRA).........   161
        Society of Chemical Manufactures & Affiliates................   166
        Dr. Paul A. Locke; Associate Professor at John Hopkins
          Bloomberg School of Public Health..........................   170
        Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine................   175
        S.C. Johnson & Son, Inc......................................   182

       OVERSIGHT HEARING ON THE BROWNSFIELD'S PROGRAM - CLEANING UP AND
                             REBUILDONG COMMUNITIES

                                  ----------

                          WEDNESDAY, OCTOBER 19, 2011

                                   U.S. Senate,
             Committee on Environment and Public Works,
                        Subcommittee on Superfund, Toxics and
                                          Environmental Health,
                                                        Washington, DC.
        The committee and subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at
    10 a.m. in room 406, Dirksen Senate Office Building, Hon. Frank
    Lautenberg [chairman of the subcommittee, presiding.
        Present: Senators Lautenberg, Inhofe, Crapo, Carper,
    Cardin, Whitehouse, Barrasso, Udall, Merkley, and Gillibrand.

              OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. FRANK LAUTENBERG,
               U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF NEW JERSEY

        Senator Lautenberg. We welcome the witnesses. Obviously, I
    guess we all think that when we have an issue before the
    public, that we all think it is very important. Needless to
    say, I am not going to differ with the usual routine here.
        I will start off on what I hope will be a good setting for
    the birthday of my colleague and friend, Senator Inhofe. He is
    younger than I by a few years. It is not noticeable, I know,
    but take my word for it. There is a degree of envy, and we wish
    him happy birthday. We have had I won't say it is a unique
    relationship, but it is one that we don't agree necessarily on
    all the subjects, but we agree on respect for one another and
    it is always great to work with Senator Inhofe.
        During the past 2 years, this Committee and the
    Subcommittee have held five hearings that identified serious
    problems with the Toxic Substance Control Act, known as TSCA.
    And today, we are starting to look for our solutions to those
    problems and discuss them publicly.
        In our previous hearings, we uncovered dangerous and costly
    deficiencies in TSCA and this Committee heard from CDC
    officials who told us their scientists found 212 industrial
    chemicals, including six carcinogens coursing through America's
    bodies. Twice, we have heard from EPA Administrator Lisa
    Jackson, who told us under current law that her agency lacks
    the tools it needs to regulate high-risk chemicals.
        And we heard from others who shared their anxiety about
    having no system for determining which everyday chemicals might
    hurt them or their children.
        TSCA is so severely flawed that the nonpartisan Government
    Accountability Office testified that it is a ``high-risk area
    of the law.'` Our hearings also revealed the status quo does
    not work for the chemical industry either. In the hearing last
    February, executives from Dow and DuPont, two major chemical
    companies, testified in support of reform in part because of
    the difficulties their companies face operating under different
    rules and in different States.
        We heard similar messages earlier from the chemical maker
    BASF and S.C. Johnson, the global consumer product company. We
    heard from colleagues on both sides of the aisle who agree that
    TSCA must be revised to work better for businesses and the
    health of our citizens.
        Now, I first introduced legislation to address TSCA's
    shortcomings in 2005. Since then, my legislation has evolved
    through scientific advances and feedback from various other
    sources, including the chemical industry. At a hearing nearly 2
    years ago, I told this Committee the bill should be considered
    an invitation to all to play a part, and I meant it seriously.
    I invite colleagues with whom we might have some sharp
    differences, let's sit down and talk about it. This is
    important enough that we want to keep the door open and we will
    listen to ideas or views that others have.
        Many Members on our side offered ideas that are included in
    the newest version of my bill and I am pleased that most of the
    Committee's Democrats are now co-sponsored. We also heard from
    Senator Vitter, who said that TSCA reform legislation must be
    based on sound science and called for more input from the
    National Academy of Sciences on chemical risk assessment.
        So this year's version of the Safe Chemicals Act mandates
    that EPA use the best available science, as defined by the
    ongoing work of the National Academies. Last summer, Senators
    Inhofe and Barrasso raised concerns about inadvertently
    depriving our economy of chemicals that are essential to daily
    life. And I mentioned something here that was, as they say, up
    front and personal. When I had six courses of chemotherapy last
    year and I was mighty glad to meet the chemicals, I can tell
    you, and they treated me nicely.
        So we know that there is lots of value that comes from
    chemicals, and we want to be sure that we don't get in the way
    of availability of those products, but we do want to watch out
    for those that might bring harm instead.
        As a result, we have included provisions to ensure the
    continued availability of chemicals for critical or essential
    uses. Concerns were also raised about our proposal for
    prioritizing certain chemicals for safety review, so we
    completely overhauled that section of the bill.
        Earlier this year, Senator Inhofe and I met about trying to
    make this bill bipartisan. And he suggested a process for
    getting more ideas from industry and others on the table.
    Throughout the summer, our staffs held 10 meetings with
    representatives from industry, from labor and environmental
    groups on different sections of the Safe Chemicals Act. Those
    meetings increased understanding of the bill's strengths, as
    well as areas that could be improved.
        Today's hearing is an opportunity for the witnesses and
    Members of the Committee to take the next step toward a
    bipartisan bill. And if there are concerns with something in
    the Safe Chemicals Act, I hope that you will either offer a
    suggestion for improving it or commit to working through the
    details with us in the next 2 weeks.
        The bottom line is this: This legislation establishes a
    strong, but practical system for guaranteeing the safety of
    chemicals, many of which end up in our bodies and the bodies of
    our children and we remain open to other ways of achieving our
    shared goal of a system that improves safety and encourages
    continued innovation and growth in the chemical industry.
        But we have got to get going. We have to act soon. I plan
    to call for a vote in this Committee in the near future and I
    hope that we will be able to address any concerns that might be
    raised today so we can approve a bipartisan bill that
    encourages the use of chemicals that help and protect our
    children from the chemicals that harm.
        Senator Lautenberg. Is Senator Crapo going to be here
    shortly, do you know?
        Senator Inhofe. I am sitting in for him.
        Senator Lautenberg. Oh, OK, a birthday treat for Senator
    Inhofe. He can fill in.
        Senator Inhofe. Thank you. Thank you.
        As I understand it, Mr. Chairman, this is a joint full
    Committee and Subcommittee, so that would be appropriate.

                OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. JAMES INHOFE,
                U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF OKLAHOMA

        Senator Inhofe. I appreciate the comments you made, and I
    know that it isn't only on my birthday that I get those
    comments because it surprises a lot of people that Senator
    Lautenberg and I are very good friends. We have a mutual
    respect, and we know the areas where we disagree. And I think
    it is appropriate the way he is doing this.
        The stakeholders meetings were very thoughtful. We learned
    a lot from the participants as efforts to modernize TSCA
    continue in the future. These discussions will undoubtedly help
    to build a foundation for eventual reforms. The participants
    were candid and forthcoming with their unique viewpoints and I
    look forward to building an agreement around that. And I think
    that is a good start, bringing the people in to talk about
    these things.
        While we often heard very conflicting ideas from
    stakeholders on how TSCA should be modernized, we also
    identified a few areas of potential common ground and I think
    that that warrants further discussion. Although our hearing
    today is on S. 847, which is not incorporated in what we have
    learned from the stakeholders process, it is a starting point,
    I recognize that.
        It is a battle, given the unemployment rate hovering around
    9 percent and numerous costly new regulations coming from this
    Administration that we make sure that any toxic reforms help to
    not only protect human health, but jobs and the economy. That
    has got to be part of the consideration as we develop this
    thing.
        My interest in TSCA modernization, which I have said
    before, is in large part due to TSCA's broad reach over
    chemical manufacturing and its potential and real impacts on
    the economy. TSCA regulates the manufacturing, the
    distribution, use and disposal of chemicals, authority that
    covers thousands of transactions and decisions by thousands of
    people every day, and I have consistently said that TSCA must
    be accomplished with a broad base of support, including
    industry up and down the value chain. It also must take into
    account the small-and medium-size businesses that could be
    affected the most if the law is updated improperly.
        Our witnesses today represent a few of the stakeholders we
    heard from in the course of our meetings that we had. They
    possess a wide range of perspectives on TSCA modernization and
    its implementation, but we must not forget that there are
    plenty of other groups that have strong interest in this, other
    stakeholders as well.
        At this time, I would like to ask unanimous consent to
    place into the record the statements from the American Cleaning
    Institute, the Grocers Manufacturers Association, the Society
    of Chemical Manufacturers and affiliates, and the National
    Petrochemical and Refiners Association.
        Senator Lautenberg. Without objection.
        [The referenced documents follow:]
        Senator Inhofe. While I believe it is time to bring this 35
    year old statute into the 21st century, it is also important
    that we do it right, and I am sure that this is a good start in
    that, Mr. Chairman.
        Thank you.
        [The prepared statement of Senator Inhofe follows:]

                      Statement of Hon. James M. Inhofe,
                   U.S. Senator from the State of California

        I would like to begin by thanking Senator Lautenberg for
    scheduling a legislative hearing on S. 847 the Safe Chemicals
    Act of 2011. I would also like to thank him and his staff for
    inviting us to co-host a series of listening sessions, which
    included not only our staffs, but representatives from industry
    and the environmental community.
        The stakeholder meetings were very thoughtful and we
    learned a great deal from the participants. As efforts for
    modernizing TSCA continue in the future, these discussions will
    undoubtedly help to build a foundation for eventual reforms.
    The participants were candid and forthcoming with their unique
    viewpoints and I look forward to building agreement around some
    of the many challenges facing TSCA reform moving forward.
        While we often heard very conflicting ideas from
    stakeholders on how TSCA should be modernized, we also
    identified a few areas of potential common ground, and I think
    that warrants further discussions. Although our hearing today
    is on S. 847--which has not incorporated what we learned in the
    stakeholder process or addressed many longstanding concerns--I
    am encouraged that this bill helped begin a constructive dialog
    that may help lead to a workable bill which down the road could
    pass both the House and Senate and become law.
        It is vital--given an unemployment rate hovering around 9
    percent and numerous costly new regulations coming from this
    administration--that we make sure any TSCA reforms help to not
    only protect human health, but jobs and the economy. My
    interest in TSCA modernization--which I have said before--is in
    large part due to TSCA's broad reach over chemical
    manufacturing and its potential, and real, impacts on the
    economy. TSCA regulates the manufacturing, distribution, use,
    and disposal of chemicals--authority that covers thousands of
    transactions and decisions by thousands of people every day.
        I have consistently said that TSCA modernization must be
    accomplished with a broad base of support, including industry
    up and down the value chain. It also must take into account the
    small and medium size businesses that could be affected the
    most if the law is updated improperly. Our witnesses today
    represent a few of the stakeholders we heard from in our
    meetings. They possess a wide range of perspectives on TSCA
    modernization and its implementation but we must not forget
    that there are plenty of other groups that have a strong vested
    interest in this effort and need to be considered as well.
        At this time I would like to ask unanimous consent to have
    statements from the American Cleaning Institute, the Grocery
    Manufacturers Association, the Society of Chemical
    Manufacturers and Affiliates, and the National Petrochemical &
    Refiners Association--all of whom also participated in the
    stakeholder meetings--inserted into the record.
        While I believe it is time to bring this 35 year old
    statute into the 21st Century, it is equally as important that
    we do it the right way without harming American innovation or
    shipping jobs overseas.
        My principles for reform remain the same: any modernization
    of TSCA should be based on the best available science; use a
    risk-based standard for chemical reviews; include cost-benefit
    considerations; protect proprietary information; and must
    prioritize reviews for existing chemicals.
        These are principles I have stood by for many years and I
    think are vital to a successful TSCA modernization process that
    is appropriately protective, predictable, efficient, and
    revives confidence in our Federal chemical management system.
        Again, I appreciate Sen. Lautenberg's work on this issue
    and his willingness to gather information in a constructive,
    bipartisan nature. I look forward to hearing from the witnesses
    today.

        Senator Lautenberg. Thanks very much.
        Senator Carper.

               OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. THOMAS CARPER,
                U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF DELAWARE

        Senator Carper. Thank you, thank you. And I want to join
    all of our colleagues in wishing Jim happy birthday. It is a
    joy to here with you today. And I think a great gift that gets
    him out of the conversations between--of both our Chairman and
    Senator Inhofe on, and with your staffs, it would be a great
    gift for our Country.
        I just want to commend you for the time and energy that you
    and your staffs are putting into this. These are important
    issues that I care a lot about. I know others do as well.
        Every day in this Country, manufacturers use, as we know,
    various chemicals to make everything from carpets to cosmetics,
    cars, water bottles, dishwashing soap, and we need these
    chemicals to keep our manufacturing base strong. We also need
    to make sure that we are using and disposing of them safely.
        As others have said, it has been more than 30 years since
    we revisited the Toxic Substance Control Act, and that is far
    too long when we consider how much more we manufacture and use
    chemicals today and how much more we understand today about
    those chemicals.
        Industry, environmental and public health leaders, the
    Obama administration, several of our colleagues in Congress,
    including me, all agree that current law is not sufficient and
    it is time that the Toxic Substance Control Act is modernized.
        From what I understand, the principles for TSCA reform that
    have been outlined by the chemical industry, the NGO community
    and other stakeholders are remarkably similar, and that is
    encouraging. I believe that there is a path forward to
    reforming TSCA that we can address, that will enable us to
    address the needs of our diverse stakeholders on this issue,
    including our constituents.
        Senator Lautenberg has introduced, as we know, a bill to
    strengthen our chemical safety law that has gone through
    several iterations. I think it is not just a good start, but it
    is a good process that is underway. And I just want to say to
    Senator Inhofe that I look forward to working with both of you
    and with our colleagues here in the Senate in our efforts to
    try to pass strong chemical safety legislation.
        I look forward to hearing from our witnesses today,
    especially the guy in the middle, with whom I was pleased to
    serve in the House lo those many years ago. Cal, it is
    especially nice to see you. Welcome one and all.
        Thanks so much.
        Senator Lautenberg. Thanks very much, Senator Carper.
        We will proceed with the witnesses. Welcome. Each of you
    brings experience and obviously a point of view.
        Oh, my goodness, surprise.
        Senator Gillibrand I think was the next arrival and we look
    forward to hearing from you.

             OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. KRISTEN GILLIBRAND,
                U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF NEW YORK

        Senator Gillibrand. Thank you, Senator Lautenberg, for your
    leadership on such an important issue, one that very deeply
    affects our constituencies and the whole Country. I appreciate
    that the Committee is going to examine the Safe Chemicals Act
    which aims to modernize TSCA. And I, too, have read the studies
    and reports that have found toxic chemicals in everyday
    products.
        Since TSCA became law more than 30 years ago, we have seen
    an unacceptable rise in childhood cancers, learning
    disabilities, birth defects, allergies, asthma, autism and
    infertility. Our children are being exposed to hundreds of
    chemicals before they are even born. Umbilical cord blood
    samples show exposure to over 200 chemicals from BPA, which is
    found in plastic bottles, flame retardants which are used in
    electronics and in furniture, and PCBs, a known carcinogen that
    has remained in our soil and water decades after it has been
    banned.
        Congress can no longer afford to ignore the failures of
    TSCA to prevent public health any longer. The issue of the
    effectiveness of our Nation's chemical regulations is extremely
    important to all Americans and in particular to mothers like
    me. We must stand with parents across the Country who have
    joined together to demand better from their elected leaders.
        It is just not good enough for the Federal Government to
    sit on the sidelines while States are forced to fill in the
    void and take matters into their own hands. In my home State of
    New York, the State legislature passed critically needed
    reforms, like protecting babies from toxic chemicals, BPA in
    baby bottles and other cancer-causing chemicals found in
    nursing pillows and in baby carriers. In all, 25 States across
    the Country have passed 80 chemical safety laws in 9 years,
    with overwhelming majorities and strong bipartisan support.
        I applaud this action at the State level, but we need a
    national policy that ensures chemicals in products are safe in
    every State and for every family.
        The legislation we are examining today, the Safe Chemicals
    Act, changes the current paradigms to put the burden on proving
    a chemical is safe on industry and provides that our regulators
    need to finally allow this law to work as it was intended. As
    the legislation moves forward, it is essential that the final
    product make meaningful reforms that will give comfort to
    consumers that the products that they purchase for their
    families are safe.
        Mr. Chairman, earlier this year, I heard the story of Mira
    Brouwer, a young girl from Ithaca, New York, who at the age of
    just 4 years old passed away as the result of complications in
    the treatment for brain cancer. Faced with the loss of her
    young daughter, her mother, Chistine Brouwer, founded Mira's
    Movement. It is an organization to raise awareness of pediatric
    cancer.
        [Audience interruption.]
        Senator Gillibrand. I agree. I agree with you.
        [Laughter.]
        Senator Gillibrand. Mira's mother shared her story and her
    questions and concerns about what could have contributed to her
    daughter's cancer. She pored through study after study that
    identified the potential links between chemicals in our
    environment and such cancers, just like the one that took
    Mira's life. We owe it to Mira and thousands of the children
    who are facing similar ailments to ensure that the products
    that we produce in this Country and that we purchase for our
    families are safe.
        Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for looking at this important
    issue.
        Senator Lautenberg. Thank you very much.
        Senator Merkley.

                OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. JEFF MERKLEY,
                 U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF OREGON

        Senator Merkley. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Senator, your
    leadership on this issue has been extremely important, and your
    commitment to modernizing the Toxic Substance Control Act so we
    can protect our families from exposure to dangerous toxins is
    terrific. So thank you for doing that.
        Oregon has been a leader among the States in attempting to
    limit toxic chemicals, ranging from flame retardants to
    mercury, cyanide and so forth. But we are not satisfied. Our
    families are not satisfied with the protection from dangerous
    chemicals that exist currently.
        Oregon is among the top five in the Nation for adult asthma
    rates, the top 10 for breast cancer, near the top for autism,
    and these kinds of diseases are linked to toxic chemicals in
    our environment.
        The shocking part for me is that the Environmental
    Protection Agency has been unable to protect our families from
    exposure because the Toxic Substance Control Act does not
    provide EPA with the necessary tools to collect data on
    chemical risk and effectively regulate the most toxic
    chemicals.
        And who are most impacted by this? It is consumers and
    families across America who don't know if they are using
    products that could be harmful to their health.
        Reforming TSCA makes common sense. We know that many
    American companies currently have to prepare to abide by the
    REACH law in Europe, which requires much higher control of
    chemical toxins. We know that many States, as my colleague just
    referred to, have gone out on their own to try to pass laws, as
    New York has, as Oregon has, as so many have, because of the
    vacuum in Federal policy. It makes sense to have a Federal
    policy to regulate toxic substances that actually works.
        So I look forward to the hearing today and to doing all I
    can to help take this important bill forward to protect the
    health of Americans across this Nation.
        Senator Lautenberg. Thank you very much, Senator Merkley.
        And now we ask our witnesses to make their statements.
    Today, we are going to hear from a range of experts who have
    significant experience in chemical safety: Mr. Ted Sturdevant,
    Director of the Washington State Department of Ecology;
    Charlotte Brody, Director of Chemicals, Public Health and Green
    Chemistry for the BlueGreen Alliance, a national partnership of
    labor unions and environmental groups; and Mr. Cal Dooley,
    President and CEO of the American Chemistry Council; Mr. Robert
    Matthews, a partner in the law firm of McKenna Long & Aldridge,
    and counsel to the Consumer Specialty Products Association; and
    Dr. Richard Denison, Senior Scientist for the Environmental
    Defense Fund.
        And we welcome you.
        And Mr. Sturdevant, you are the first, and please give us
    your testimony.

     STATEMENT OF TED STURDEVANT, DIRECTOR, DEPARTMENT OF ECOLOGY,
                          STATE OF WASHINGTON

        Mr. Sturdevant. Thank you, Chairman Lautenberg, Ranking
    Member Inhofe and Members of the Committee for this opportunity
    to testify. I am Ted Sturdevant, the Director of the Washington
    State Department of Ecology.
        It is very significant that this Committee is willing to
    open the conversation on TSCA reform and I applaud you for the
    open and inclusive dialog that you have had to date. And I want
    to particularly recognize the leadership of Senator Lautenberg
    for offering this legislation, and to Senator Inhofe for
    supporting such an inclusive dialog.
        This is a critical issue for the States and I appreciate
    the chance to share our perspective.
        So today, what I would like to do is talk about why States
    care so much about TSCA reform; what we have had to do in the
    face of an outdated TSCA; and speak just a little bit about the
    preemption of States' authority in this arena.
        So why do States care about TSCA? As State environmental
    agencies around the Country, part of our job is to protect
    people and the environment from harmful exposure to toxic
    chemicals. When those chemicals come from a pipe or a
    smokestack, we know what to do. We have the tools to deal with
    that. But when they come from ubiquitous products like foam and
    furniture or the plastic casings of a television or toys, we
    don't have the tools to deal with those.
        We can't intercept chemicals that leave products and get
    into our public waterways via wastewater or stormwater runoff
    with potential human exposure along the way. We are just not
    good at that.
        So as we grow concerned about a particular chemical or
    chemicals in our States, we face a very difficult choice. And
    that is, do we tackle that chemical or chemicals with
    inadequate tools and resources or do we look the other way? And
    more and more, what you are seeing are States deciding to act
    and step up to this. So even with those inadequate tools, that
    is the pattern we are seeing in the States.
        But our preference is for a third option, and that is for a
    Federal system that works. So I want to share an example of
    what we face and really how ill-equipped we are to deal with
    this kind of thing. In Washington State, we are undertaking a
    massive effort to restore and protect Puget Sound, the Nation's
    second-largest estuary. And in the city of Tacoma, which sits
    on Commencement Bay in the Sound, we have spent over $100
    million cleaning up contaminated sediments in the bay. And last
    year, for the first time, we started to see improved health in
    those sediments, which was great news.
        But at the same time, we are seeing phthalates come in via
    stormwater runoff and settle on top of those sediments.
    Phthalates are plasticizer chemicals that are used in a wide
    variety of consumer products. And they are endocrine disrupters
    which can have harmful reproductive and development effects.
        So I don't mean to open the debate about the science of
    phthalates, but we are concerned about these things getting
    into the food chain in Puget Sound and concerned about impacts
    on people that harvest food from Puget Sound.
        So the problem here is that we don't know what to do about
    it. We don't have the tools. We don't have any means of really
    doing anything about that particular source of pollution. And
    we don't have any means of protecting that investment that we
    have made in the bay. And I think that this is exactly the kind
    of problem that should be addressed by TSCA and don't have
    confidence that it will be.
        So even without the right tools, as I said, States are
    tackling these challenges more and more. In the last 8 years,
    18 States have passed chemical policy legislation and I think
    it is fair that we will continue to see those kinds of efforts
    in the upcoming legislative session.
        And it is important to note that this has not been a
    partisan issue at the State level. The votes on these things
    have been strongly bipartisan because it is a public health
    issue.
        Now, before I conclude, I want to speak briefly to the
    issue of preemption of States' authority. Given the patchwork
    of regulations that is taking hold across the Country in
    States, some people believe that absolute preemption of States'
    authority is necessary. I understand the concern, sympathize
    with the concern, but disagree with that approach for two
    reasons.
        First, as you said, TSCA has not been reformed for 35
    years, so the States have been the folks that have filled that
    gap in the meantime and we need to have the authority to do our
    job, to deal with the unanticipated challenges of the future
    that TSCA may not address, even a reformed TSCA may not
    address.
        And second, we are not doing this because we don't have
    anything better to do. We are doing this because we think we
    have to, because these challenges exist that are not getting
    addressed.
        So I believe that if there is a national solution to this
    problem, preemption of States' authority really becomes a non-
    issue because we will then direct, I think, our scant resources
    elsewhere. And we appreciate that the proposed bill preserves
    States' authority.
        We also appreciate the sensible approach of requiring
    minimum data-sets on chemicals and showing that they meet
    safety standards. The bill's provisions for sharing data with
    States, while maintaining confidentiality and enabling EPA to
    deal with the highest-risk chemicals are also appreciated.
        So TSCA reform is a big deal for the States. Last year, the
    Environmental Council of the States unanimously passed a
    resolution calling for TSCA reform, and that represents the
    environmental agencies of all the States across the Country. I
    don't believe we have ever seen such broad agreement that TSCA
    needs to be fixed, whether your aim is to protect public health
    or the environment, or to have a more consistent, predictable
    playing field for businesses across the States. The solution to
    all these things I think is modernizing TSCA.
        Senator Lautenberg. Your full statement will be included in
    the record, so please forgive me because we want to move
    quickly.
        Mr. Sturdevant. I was done and I appreciate the
    opportunity.
        Senator Lautenberg. Your testimony was excellent to this
    point. We look forward to having it in the record.
        [The prepared statement of Mr. Sturdevant follows:]
        [GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        Senator Lautenberg. Ms. Brody, welcome.

      STATEMENT OF CHARLOTTE BRODY, DIRECTOR OF CHEMICALS, PUBLIC
             HEALTH AND GREEN CHEMISTRY, BLUEGREEN ALLIANCE

        Ms. Brody. Chairman Lautenberg, Ranking Member Inhofe and
    Members of the Committee, thank you for the opportunity to
    appear before you. I am Charlotte Brody, a registered nurse, a
    mother, and the Director Chemicals, Public Health and Green
    Chemistry for the BlueGreen Alliance, a unique partnership of
    11 labor unions and four environmental organizations.
        We bring together 15 million Americans in pursuit of good
    jobs, a clean environment, and a green economy. We support the
    passage of the Safe Chemicals Act because it can create some of
    the middle-class manufacturing jobs that our Country so
    desperately needs. Between 1992 and 2010, more than 300,000
    chemical manufacturing jobs disappeared in the United States.
    Employment feel 38 percent in the chemical industry at a time
    when all manufacturing declined by 24 percent.
        Among the union partners of the BlueGreen Alliance, the
    steelworkers represent the majority of organized workers in the
    chemical industry. Two other BlueGreen Alliance union partners
    also include some chemicals workers in their ranks. These
    unions and their members depend upon the existence of an
    American chemical industry. We need more Americans making
    chemicals and more people using chemicals made in America.
        We support the Safe Chemicals Act because we believe it
    will spur innovation and the invention of a new generation of
    safer chemicals that can be produced in the United States.
        I started practicing as a registered nurse around the time
    that TSCA became law. If I had practiced nursing the way I did
    then, I would be in prison for gross negligence and
    malpractice. That is how much as have learned about disease and
    treatment since then.
        What have we learned about human disease and chemicals? Let
    me just use the example of Agent Orange. Decades ago, I worked
    with young soldiers coming back from Vietnam. Those who had
    been exposed to Agent Orange were informed that their skin
    rash, core acne, was the only problem they would have from
    their exposure. That is what the science told us then. But over
    the last 40 years, new knowledge keeps showing us how wrong we
    were.
        Now, Vietnam veterans who were exposed to Agent Orange,
    even those who didn't have the skin rash, can be compensated
    for one kind of leukemia, two kinds of lymphoma, four other
    kinds of cancer, as well as diabetes, a type of heart disease
    and Parkinson's disease. The V.A. also recognizes as
    compensable spina bifida, a defect of the developing fetus that
    results in incomplete closure of the spine in the children of
    Vietnam veterans born decades later. One chemical; so many
    diseases, including in children born decades later.
        Forty years ago, we simply didn't understand that chemicals
    could do that. Allowing our Nation's chemical management system
    to remain lost in the 1970's is its own form of negligence. The
    punishment for this negligence is cancer, birth defects,
    infertility, asthma, and nervous system disorders. But the
    sentence is being doled our indiscriminately to workers, babies
    in utero, the people who live at the fence-line of chemical
    plants, and millions of other chronically ill Americans,
    including people each of you were sent here to represent.
        The Safe Chemicals Act would modernize TSCA to reflect what
    we have learned about chemicals and human health since the
    1970's. The bill's safety standard of reasonable certainty of
    no harm from aggregate exposure captures the way good science
    works and underscores the legislation's intent to make
    chemicals safe.
        Especially important for the members of the BlueGreen
    Alliance is that workers are identified as part of the
    vulnerable populations protected under that standard. The
    prioritization system and tiered use of data do a good job of
    tackling the huge problems created by decades of unregulated
    chemicals and starting to solve that problem with a worst-first
    approach.
        I represented the BlueGreen Alliance in the stakeholder
    process that Senators Inhofe and Lautenberg co-hosted this year
    and I comment both of you and your staffs for creating a
    careful, reasoned and reasonable dialog.
        I was trained as an OB/GYN nurse and I still think like a
    nurse. I know that the Senate has become a deeply partisan
    place and the proposal that would give the EPA more power to
    protect are not popular in every office. But the Safe Chemicals
    Act is fundamentally not about politics. It is about mercury in
    breast milk. It is about phthalates in newborn babies cord
    blood. And it is about the creation of new set of American
    manufacturing jobs making chemicals that are 21st century safe.
    Doing nothing is a negligent act.
        Thank you.
        [The prepared statement of Ms. Brody follows:]
        [GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        Senator Lautenberg. Thanks very much.
        Mr. Dooley, we look forward to hearing your testimony.

    STATEMENT OF CAL DOOLEY, PRESIDENT AND CEO, AMERICAN CHEMISTRY
                                COUNCIL

        Mr. Dooley. Thank you for the opportunity to testify on
    behalf of the American Chemistry Council, our member companies
    and their nearly 800,000 employees about the need to modernize
    the Federal system that regulates chemicals. We appreciate the
    efforts of Senators Lautenberg, Inhofe and other Members of
    this Committee, and we appreciate the chance to discuss our
    views about the Safe Chemicals Act.
        As I told this Committee in February, ACC strongly supports
    efforts to reform the 35 year old Toxic Substance Control Act.
    Over the years, public confidence in TSCA has diminished,
    contributing to misperceptions about the safety of chemicals,
    ill-conceived State laws, unnecessary product de-selections,
    and baseless litigation. Safety is a top priority of our Member
    companies. We need an effective and reliable chemical
    regulatory system that will instill in policymakers, our
    business partners, and the public the same level of confidence
    in the products that we have.
        Over 2 years ago, ACC released 10 principles for
    modernizing TSCA. These principles created a road map to a
    modern chemical regulatory system that will protect public
    health and the environment, while preserving the ability of
    American chemicals companies to drive innovation, grow jobs,
    and compete in the global marketplace.
        In recent months, ACC and other stakeholders have engaged
    with bipartisan Committee staff to discuss our respective
    positions about legislation to update TSCA. We appreciate and
    would like to commend Ben Dunham from Senator Lautenberg's
    staff, and Dimitri Karakitsos from Senator Inhofe's staff for
    their professional management of these discussions.
        Unfortunately, though, today we are discussing a bill that
    remains very similar to the bill that was introduced in 2010,
    which we consider unworkable. As we discussed during that
    process, there are several fundamental flaws in the
    legislation.
        No. 1, the safety standard. The bill's standard for
    reasonable certainty of no harm from aggregate exposure for all
    chemicals would be virtually impossible to meet. If EPA were
    required by TSCA to consider the aggregate exposure to
    substances from every industrial, commercial and consumer
    product use of a chemical substance, regulatory paralysis would
    ensue.
        No. 2, new chemicals. There is a broad consensus even among
    TSCA critics that the program to evaluate new chemicals is
    working. In spite of this, the legislation would prescribe
    significant new data requirements for all new chemicals before
    they could come to market. It would also extend EPA's time to
    evaluate this data, keeping these chemistries in a State of
    limbo.
        If EPA is unable to complete its work in a timely manner,
    and this is an agency that is known to struggle with deadlines,
    the chemical would effectively be barred from entering the
    market. Manufacturers are certain to seek more manageable
    regulatory environments and produce new chemicals, including
    green chemistry developments and other potentially
    revolutionary new products, in other countries to avoid
    prohibitive costs and uncertainty.
        No. 3, minimum data-sets. The bill would create an enormous
    burden on EPA and on the manufacturers, with little benefit, by
    requiring a minimum data-set for all chemicals. Instead, EPA
    should collect data that is needed on specific types and
    classes of chemicals, as well as to take advantage of the
    massive amount of data that the agency already has access to.
        No. 4, prioritization. The bill's prioritization proposal
    lacks rigorous criteria and makes no mention of integrating
    current knowledge about hazards, risk and exposure, three
    factors that are critical to informed regulatory decisions. ACC
    recently proposed a transparent and scientifically sound
    prioritization process to determine which chemicals should
    receive full safety assessments, so EPA can focus its resources
    where they are most needed. We believe our prioritization
    proposal would be more effective than what has been proposed in
    S. 847 and have the details in our written statement.
        Reform of TSCA is an important priority, but one that must
    be done right. Chemistry will be the source of clean energy,
    improved infrastructure, efficient transportation, medical
    advancement, and a strong defense, among a lot of other
    applications. An ill-conceived regulatory system such as that
    which would be created by S. 847 would undermine America's
    ability to develop and produce these transformational
    technologies and would put the jobs of today and tomorrow at
    risk.
        Even though S. 847 is not the answer, ACC and the industry
    remain fully committed to TSCA reform. We believe we can
    develop legislation that will give consumers confidence, that
    learns from the success and mis-steps of reforms undertaken by
    other countries, and that fosters innovation and job creation.
        Thank you for the chance to express our views on this
    critical subject and we look forward to continued collaboration
    on this issue.
        [The prepared statement of Mr. Dooley follows:]
        [GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        Senator Lautenberg. Thanks very much, Mr. Dooley.
        Mr. Matthews, I'd like to hear from you.

       STATEMENT OF ROBERT MATTHEWS, COUNSEL, CONSUMER SPECIALTY
                          PRODUCTS ASSOCIATION

        Mr. Matthews. Thank you, Senator. My name is Bob Matthews.
    I am with McKenna Long & Aldridge, where I have the privilege
    to serve as counsel for CSPA. Indeed, it is a privilege to
    testify on their behalf before this Committee.
        I want to make it clear, I think it already is, that CSPA
    supports TSCA modernization and it does so for several reasons.
    I will list three of them.
        First, as has been echoed by several of the Senators in
    their comments, there is an erosion of public confidence, and
    that comes back to CSPA more than most industries because we
    are the branded companies. It is our products that are on
    retail shelves. It is our products which are in all of our
    homes, in our kitchens in our bathrooms and so on. And so when
    consumers are not confident about chemicals in their products,
    we feel that directly.
        Second, we think that the Federal Government should
    reestablish its role as the primary source of chemical
    management regulation in this Country. I echo comments
    previously stated in that regard.
        Third, we think there is an opportunity for the United
    States to reestablish its global leadership in chemical
    management. A chemical management system should be based on
    risk-based analysis of chemicals and establishing standards on
    the basis of risk should not be limited to considerations only
    of hazard, as we have seen in other jurisdictions.
        I do want to say a word about the process that we have been
    involved in, and we have been involved in multiple stakeholder
    discussions, including not the least of which is the process
    that Senators Lautenberg and Inhofe have led and directed. We
    appreciate that. We think those discussions have been positive
    and constructive. We salute your staffs who have done an
    excellent job in moving that process along. They are very good
    at what they do.
        And we have had similar processes with the NGO's. Richard
    Denison to my left and others from the NGO community have
    reached out to us and we to them and productive discussions are
    going on there as well.
        We aren't there, Senator, I must say. We are trying hard.
    We have moved. They have moved. And the key to those
    discussions has been, and I think it is a word, I apologize if
    I forgot who used it, but one of the Senators used it this
    morning. The key is to find solutions. And to do that, we have
    to understand what is the Safe Chemicals Act? What are its
    goals? And are there, where we have problems or we have
    concerns about the way it is written, are there alternative
    approaches that can solve those same problems and achieve those
    same goals?
        In that spirit, those discussions have been productive and
    I believe we have made progress. We still have a ways to go,
    and that is clear.
        I want to talk about two issues that our trade association,
    our member companies have focused on in particular. And the
    first falls directly out of the notion that this should be a
    risk-based system. Well, if you are going to do risk analysis,
    you need more than just hazard data. You need to understand how
    those chemicals are being used, where they are being used, and
    what exposures are being created by those uses. That
    information comes right back to our industry because we are the
    companies who are placing those products with those substances
    on the marketplace.
        So the issue of use and exposure information is one that
    CSPA understands must be part of a modern TSCA, and indeed, we
    have for several years promoted the idea that this industry
    should come forward with additional information. And we have
    said so in our position papers and in the discussions with the
    stakeholders and with Senate Staff, we made clear that we are
    prepared to step forward under new legislation. And indeed, we
    have very specific proposals in that regard that we have placed
    on the table.
        And the last issue I want to briefly address, Senators, is
    sort of the natural fallout from that last point, which is we
    understand we need to come forward with substantial additional
    information under a modern TSCA. Inevitably, however, when we
    do that, some of that information will be confidential. And the
    protection of confidential information is critical to this
    industry.
        The examples we typically throw around, I am not smarter
    than these examples, so I will just use them: Coke and its
    formula; WD-40; PostIt Notes. Those formulas have been held
    proprietary by those companies who developed those formulas for
    decades. In the case of Coke, I think it is probably a century
    by now. It is just as important to those companies today as it
    was then to protect those interests.
        So we are concerned that there are not enough rigorous
    protections in the proposed legislation. Here again, however,
    we think there are ways to come at that issue where we can find
    solutions and provide the right balance on both the submission
    of information to the agency and the protection of that
    information to protect the interests of our member companies.
        I will be pleased to discuss any of those issues further
    during question and answer.
        Thank you.
        [The prepared statement of Mr. Matthews follows:]
        [GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        Senator Lautenberg. Thanks very much.
        Mr. Denison, we look forward to hearing from you now.

     STATEMENT OF RICHARD DENISON, SENIOR SCIENTIST, ENVIRONMENTAL
       DEFENSE FUND; SAFER CHEMICALS, HEALTHY FAMILIES COALITION

        Mr. Denison. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member
    Inhofe. I am testifying today on behalf of both Environmental
    Defense Fund and the Safer Chemicals Healthy Families
    Coalition, a broad coalition of over 300 health, environmental
    and environmental justice organizations and leading businesses
    that represent more than 11 million Americans, including the
    very young voices you heard in the back of the room a bit
    earlier.
        Mounting evidence of problems calls into question the
    safety of thousands of chemicals that we encounter in our
    everyday lives. Here are but a few examples of these problems.
        Scientific researchers increasingly link chemical exposures
    to serious diseases that are become more prevalent, including
    childhood leukemia and brain cancers, which have risen more
    than 20 percent since 1975; and fertility problems, which now
    affect 40 percent more women than they did in 1982.
        Eighty percent of all new chemicals reviewed by EPA are
    reviewed without access to any health or environmental
    information. That is because the U.S. is virtually the only
    developed Country in the world that does not require a minimum
    set of safety information to accompany a new chemical.
        Residents in low-income communities and communities of
    color like Mossville, Louisiana, which is surrounded by 14
    different chemicals plants, are routinely exposed to far higher
    levels of deadly chemicals like dioxin, vinyl chloride and
    benzine than is the general population. And yet such
    disproportionate impacts are not required to be accounted for
    when the government assesses the risks of those chemicals.
        These problems can be ascribed to the failures of TSCA.
    They would also be ameliorated by the adoption of the Safe
    Chemicals Act. It provides a framework for a systematic
    solution to a set of problems that will only be addressed, if
    at all, through piecemeal actions. We support the legislation
    because it strike a balance between the need to fully protect
    public health, including the most vulnerable among us, with the
    need to encourage innovation and safer chemicals, and the needs
    of the chemicals marketplace and consumers and the public for
    better information, with the need to protect legitimate
    confidential information.
        Since the Act was first introduced in 2010, it has evolved
    substantially to reflect input from a variety of stakeholders.
    Changes have been made that both boost its health protections
    and make it more workable and ease its implementation. I give a
    number of examples of those positive changes in my written
    testimony. I also detail how the reforms of the Safe Chemicals
    Act would fix the major flaws of TSCA.
        But let me now turn and emphasize in my oral statement the
    opportunity we see to capitalize on what is a truly remarkable
    consensus among a broad array of stakeholders that Congress
    must reform this law. The need is urgent because it is not only
    failing to provide health protections, it is failing to provide
    industry with a stable environment in which to conduct its
    business, and its customers with confidence in the safety of
    its products.
        We recognize that reform must meet the needs of a variety
    of stakeholders, and that is why our coalition has been deeply
    engaged in dialog with the industry. We have ongoing dialogs
    with the American Chemistry Council, with the Consumer
    Specialty Products Association and its members. We have met for
    many days over the past 6 months to narrow our differences.
    Eight members of our coalition traveled to the headquarters of
    both the Dow Chemical Company and Procter and Gamble to hear
    first-hand about their businesses and understand their
    perspectives for TSCA reform.
        We strongly have endorsed and support the bipartisan
    leadership shown by Chairman Lautenberg and Ranking Member
    Inhofe to convene a process of stakeholders to explore how we
    can move this bill forward in a way that is truly bipartisan.
        Let me say that while the details of many of the dialogs we
    are involved in are confidential, we have made substantial
    progress. In our dialog with CSPA, we are on the cusp of
    agreeing to recommendations for legislation to deal with the
    issues that Bob just mentioned: confidential business
    information and reporting of robust information on the use of
    chemicals.
        Based on my deep involvement in these dialogs, I believe
    there is not a single issue that we cannot find the solution
    to. EDF and our Coalition would welcome the opportunity to
    share the bridging concepts we have identified, along with the
    companies with whom we have engaged.
        We urge the Members of this Committee to act now to forge
    and advance bipartisan reform legislation in this Congress. It
    represents a once-in-a-generation opportunity to create a new
    chemical management system that sustains our health, our
    environment and our economy.
        Thank you very much.
        [The prepared statement of Mr. Denison follows:]
        [GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        Senator Lautenberg. Thanks very much, Mr. Denison.
        And I thank each one of you.
        It is interesting to hear some divergent views, not
    unexpected. This is a complicated subject, but it is I think
    less than help to solve our problems as to look at
    unenforceability, that kind of thing. I mean, I believe, and it
    was summarized by a couple of you, and that it is the number of
    people who have expressed concern, the number of conditions
    that violate our sense of what is right in terms of our
    responsibilities.
        There is no doubt in my mind and minds of responsible
    scientific units, scientific bodies that there are problems
    lurking out there. And in the design for us to try to deal with
    those, does a single child's endangerment require a bill passed
    in here, a piece of legislation? Probably not, but when you
    start to see it all over the Country and the statistics tell
    you that there are problems with fertility and problems with
    this, and exposure, of course, Ms. Brody, to Vietnam, that is a
    classic in American history and the chemical business.
        But, look, my mission, and I said it earlier, and I think
    that Senator Inhofe and I have set the kind of a platform that
    says say what you want; say what you believe. But keep an open
    ear to what is going on. Keep you eyes open as to what is going
    on with the fright that exists over the condition of children.
        There is one statement that wasn't really a statement. It
    was the child's voice. We loved hearing that. I have 13
    grandchildren.
        So I ask Ms. Brody, the chemical industry employs more than
    70,000 people in my State of New Jersey. I want to protect
    these employees, their jobs and their health. And you are a
    member of the United Steelworkers Union and a representative of
    other unions that work with chemicals. How many people are in
    the steelworkers union?
        Ms. Brody. The steelworkers union has about 1 million
    members right now.
        Senator Lautenberg. And the total membership of your allied
    groups?
        Ms. Brody. Between the 11 unions and four environmental
    organizations, 15 million people all together.
        Senator Lautenberg. How might reforming TSCA, as we
    propose, affect employment in these industries?
        Ms. Brody. Earlier this year, Senator Lautenberg, we did a
    study of the economic benefits of a green chemical industry in
    the United States. And we commissioned the University of
    Massachusetts-Amherst to really tell us what was going on in
    the chemical industry and what could TSCA reform do positively
    or negatively to impact that industry.
        Because first and foremost, we need each of our members
    working and we need to do something about the economic crisis
    in the United States. And what we found is that unemployment in
    the chemical industry didn't start to go down during the great
    recession of 2008, but actually has been dropping since 1992.
    So that 38 percent of the jobs that used to be there aren't
    there anymore, and that this happened while the chemical
    industry stayed profitable at 4 percent per year during that
    entire time.
        And that what had been going on is that the chemical
    industry had stayed profitable by cutting costs, by cutting
    research and development costs so that they were less than half
    of industry overall, and by cutting labor costs and putting
    people out of work.
        And the TSCA reform actually, by moving us from a time when
    the smart money in the chemical industry is on making the stuff
    you were making 40 years ago, to a new day when making safer
    chemicals lets you create more market share; could actually put
    people back to work and turn those numbers around.
        Just one point that we noticed in this, the only part of
    the American chemical industry that has been growing jobs and
    growing in profitability is the most regulated part, the part
    of pharmaceutical chemicals, including a lot of people working
    in your State who actually are employing more people every year
    in the one part of the industry where companies have to prove
    that their products are safe before they are put on the market.
        Senator Lautenberg. Thank you.
        Mr. Dooley, over the summer, the American Chemistry Council
    suggested alternative language for one small, but important,
    part of the Safe Chemicals Act. Providing that kind of specific
    proposal increases the odds that we can find a bipartisan
    middle ground. Now, are you willing to commit to providing
    specific alternatives to all the other sections of the Safe
    Chemicals Act that you strongly criticized?
        Mr. Dooley. We have been involved in constructive
    discussions through the process that was sponsored with you, as
    well as with other stakeholders. And I think that we have seen
    progress at a very high level in terms of general concepts on a
    host of issues.
        But unfortunately, we think that this is an issue of such
    complexity that it is going to take a significant period of
    time to really resolve all those very, very complex and
    difficult issues. And we have provided the example, one of the
    most recent examples was attached to our testimony, was I think
    the most comprehensive proposal for a prioritization process
    that we submitted to the Committee, as well as to EPA.
        We are committed to do that on a host of issues.
        Senator Lautenberg. Yes, but again, will you provide your
    specific alternatives?
        Did you hear my question?
        Mr. Dooley. Yes, I did. We will provide the information and
    our ideas in the appropriate fashion.
        Senator Lautenberg. Thank you very much.
        Senator Inhofe.
        Senator Inhofe. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        I have just two questions, one that I am going to ask Mr.
    Dooley. It is nice to be with you again. You have a lot of
    people up here with whom you have served in the past.
        I am concerned, and you have addressed this, but not
    thoroughly enough, about how this could adversely affect new
    products. That is what I am concerned about. I have always
    taken great pride that we try to be ahead of the rest of the
    world, and could you address that for me?
        Mr. Dooley. I would be delighted to. I would like to use
    maybe our greatest concern about the underlying bill, with the
    safety standard which would require us to provide with a
    reasonable certainty and no harm a chemical from all aggregate
    exposures.
        Basically, what the intent of this legislation is to adopt
    the same policy and procedures that we use for pesticides,
    where you actually have a risk cup. I was a farmer prior to
    coming to Congress. I dealt with pesticides. And when you
    registered a pesticide, you had a limited number of
    applications on a limited number of crops for a product that
    was going to be biologically active and try to kill either a
    bug or a weed. You could define those pathways of exposure.
        That process does not work on industrial chemicals that
    have thousands and thousands of pathways of exposure. And I
    will provide this to the Committee at an appropriate time, but
    we have a chlorine tree here, which shows the hundreds and
    hundreds of different products that chlorine is used in. Now,
    if you use the proposal of the safety standard that is under
    this legislation, it would require anyone that was going to be
    making a new products or a new mixture that had chlorine in it,
    they would have to do an aggregate assessment of the exposures
    resulting from not just their new product, but from all uses in
    commerce today.
        And so if you think about it for a minute, chlorine is in
    this water. It is an integral part of trying to make sure it is
    pure. Chlorine is in the varnish that is on your desk. Chlorine
    is in the semiconductors that are in your phone.
        So does chlorine, if you had this risk cup perspective,
    does the chlorine that is in the water, does it fill it up this
    much? In the ink, does it fill it up this much? In the
    semiconductors, does it fill it up this much? Maybe in the
    batteries in your pacemaker, does it take it up to the top?
        And so you have a new innovative company out there that has
    a new application for chlorine that might be the cutting edge
    technology that is going to ensure that the U.S. manufacturers
    are going to be the lead in solar cell technology, yet the risk
    cup is full. And so where do they go? How do they ensure that
    they can get approval from EPA? How can even a startup company
    that has limited resources and capacity, how do they even have
    the ability to assess the aggregate exposure?
        This bill with this safety standard is a prescription to
    deny the U.S. manufacturers' ability to be at the forefront of
    innovation and creating jobs.
        Senator Inhofe. Thank you, Mr. Dooley. This might be my
    birthday, but I don't have a pacemaker.
        [Laughter.]
        Senator Inhofe. One last question, a little bit over our
    time, but I just want to ask Mr. Matthews, because I have heard
    it stated very times that States are ill-equipped to deal with
    these things. And the term that has been used is ``a complex
    maze of regulations across the Country.'`
        Could you address that?
        Mr. Matthews. I would be pleased to do that. I think
    Senator Gillibrand indicated numbers I hadn't even seen before.
    There were something like 25 States that have adopted 80
    different chemical management laws over the last 9 years. And I
    think we heard testimony from Mr. Sturdevant that that is a
    difficult issue for States to take on because they don't
    necessarily have all the tools to address the toxicity of
    chemicals and to understand the use and exposure information
    that I referred to.
        And that this would be best done at the Federal level where
    we can marshal resources one time in this Country, not
    duplicate that, and assure that at whatever the standard
    actually is, we have uniformity in that regard so that a
    company like a S.C. Johnson or a Procter and Gamble, which has
    products in all the retail shelves and in all of our homes, can
    have one 50-State strategy, instead of a strategy across
    multiple States, now 25 and growing, for formulation, for
    labeling and so on.
        So I think on both sides of the issue, it is both
    unburdening the States in a very difficult area. It is reducing
    the resources in this Country that are being applied to doing
    that from potentially 50 down to one Federal Government role.
    And it is industry that will be able to, in our industry in
    particular, to market their products knowing that if they meet
    the Federal standard, they will have provided a safe product to
    the marketplace.
        Senator Lautenberg. Senator Cardin, please.
        Senator Cardin. Well, first, Senator Lautenberg, let me
    thank you for your leadership on this issue. You have been
    incredible in pointing out the risk factors and putting a face
    on it as to the individuals who are impacted by what we do, by
    our failure to provide adequate protection. So I thank you very
    much and I thank you for holding this hearing.
        Mr. Dooley, it is nice to see you again. I respect very
    much your views. I was interested in your oral response, but I
    read your written statement also where you point out that the
    Toxic Substance Control Act needs to be changed. I looked at
    what happened in my own State of Maryland with BPA, where
    because of the inability of the national government to provide
    safety standards, the State had to act.
        It is not the ideal circumstance. The ideal circumstance is
    to have the Federal Government provide the blanket protection
    we need for the Nation, allow States to be able to push the
    envelope if they can, but to know that there is the backstop at
    the national level. We don't have that today.
        So I very much value your judgment, and I want to followup
    on the Chairman's point, that we need to work together. We need
    to make sure that we encourage innovation. I am all for that.
    But I was disappointed by your response to Chairman Lautenberg
    because you said it could take a lot of time. Too many people
    are affected by this. We have to get this moving. We can't say
    let's wait another decade for a study to come back and then
    determine what we should be doing at the national level.
        This is a safety issue. And we need your help and we don't
    have time. And we need to do this in a bipartisan manner. I
    agree with that. But you have the expertise, but you also have
    the credibility so that we could get something done sooner
    rather than later that will help the people of this Country and
    help job growth in this Country.
        So I just encourage you to have a greater sense of urgency
    than at least I interpreted from your reply.
        Mr. Dooley. Well, I guess, Senator, I would respond is that
    I think it is unfortunate that we are having a hearing on this
    legislation today; a bill that is very similar to that which
    was introduced 2 years ago; a bill that we have been involved
    in extensive discussions with Senator Lautenberg and his staff,
    explaining what our concerns and objections were; that we have
    had extensive conversations with the NGO community, telling
    them what our concerns and objections were, as well as some
    ideas in terms of how they can improve it.
        And when we are faced with a situation, if we would have
    seen maybe another iteration that showed some progress, the
    tenor of our comments might be a lot different.
        Senator Cardin. And I would point out, if we had your bill
    before us so that we could take a look at it and compare it, I
    think it would be more constructive. The Chairman challenged
    you to come forward with recommendations. It is not one-sided
    here.
        Mr. Dooley. And we have provided significant
    recommendations. I would be delighted to meet with you and your
    staff and explain. And in terms of the safety standard that you
    have proposed here that we object to, we have an alternative.
        Senator Cardin. The question is this. Here is the point.
    You say in your statement that the current law needs to be
    reformed. If the industry truly believes that, then you need to
    come forward with what you believe is necessary, and respond
    point by point to what Senator Lautenberg has put in his bill
    so that we can sit down here and try to make some sense out of
    this.
        But if your objective is to defeat legislation, if that is
    your objective, then I understand what you are doing. But if
    your objective is to get legislation enacted, I don't
    understand what you are doing.
        Mr. Dooley. Our objective is to see the modernization of
    TSCA in a way that provides the appropriate level of safety,
    ensuring the safety of the chemicals that are used for their
    intended purposes that are in commerce. And ensuring that we
    can do so in a manner that allows this U.S. chemical industry
    to continue to be at the forefront of innovation.
        Senator Cardin. I accept that.
        Mr. Dooley. They are not mutually exclusive.
        Senator Cardin. I accept that. Then I just urge you to be
    more forthcoming on your recommendations so that we can try to
    get to where the real problems are, and try to get the ability
    at the national level to provide the safety standards that
    allow innovation, which is what the industry needs and what the
    American public needs.
        That is why I just urge you to be more open so that we can
    get answers to the issues that have been raised. We don't want
    to continue under the current system that puts such a burden on
    States to act because of the failure of the Federal Government
    to provide the basic protection that is needed.
        Mr. Dooley. The only thing I will conclude, this is my last
    comment. Sometimes I would say we have been providing answer.
    We have been providing solutions to what the industry likes and
    would like to see, which we think would be appropriate.
        Unfortunately, they are not the answers that some of the
    authors and some of the proponents of the legislation,
    supporters of the legislation that we are testifying on today
    want to hear. And so just because they are not embodied in this
    legislation doesn't mean that this industry hasn't been
    offering what we think are concrete solutions and proposals.
        Senator Cardin. I appreciate that. I will make one final
    observation here. It is clear in this political environment,
    the way we get legislation enacted is for both sides to come
    together. This Committee has a history of working together on
    issues. We just passed out a surface transportation bill by an
    18 to zero vote. It contains some things in there I don't like.
    It contains some things in there Senator Crapo doesn't
    particularly like, but we were able to get it done.
        If there is a good-faith effort to get legislation enacted,
    then participate with us. If you objective is to make sure
    nothing gets through this Congress, then I understand what you
    are saying. But be straight with us as to what your objective
    is.
        Your testimony leads me to believe that you want to see
    reform passed by the U.S. Congress and signed into law. If that
    is the case, I don't know where you are on this issue. I know
    Senator Lautenberg's bill. I have read Senator Lautenberg's
    bill. I would welcome specifics, rather than just saying no,
    this doesn't work; this doesn't work; this doesn't work. What
    works?
        And I will just conclude by saying, Ms. Brody, I
    appreciated your response to say that regulation does create
    jobs if we do it in the right way. Thank you for that point.
        Senator Lautenberg. Thanks very much.
        Senator Crapo.
        Senator Crapo. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
        Again, I want to thank you for holding this hearing today,
    and specifically, I want to convey my thanks to you for being
    willing to work with us in a bipartisan fashion.
        Senator Cardin is right. We have an incredibly toxic
    political environment here in Congress right now, but this
    Committee is one of the committees where that brutal toxicity
    has not yet been able to rear its head. We have some fights and
    obviously we have some different points of view, but we have, I
    think, a good-faith intention on the parts of all of the
    Members on this Committee to try to find the common ground and
    build the consensus to make progress in the ways that will
    benefit our Country on all of these issues.
        And I just want to relay that message to all of the
    stakeholders on this issue. I believe that the Members of this
    Committee are sincere. And I will say to my colleagues on the
    Committee, I think that the stakeholders whom I have worked
    with are sincere and want to find a solution to the problems
    that we face. And so I will tell you, that is the only way that
    we will be able to move forward, particularly in this political
    climate.
        So I just wanted to make that comment. I wish Senator
    Inhofe was here so I, too, could wish him happy birthday, but I
    will do that privately as I get a chance to do so a little bit
    later.
        With regard to the questions I have, I think I will start,
    Mr. Matthews, with you. TSCA was designed to be a chemical
    management statute, and we are moving into a focus now on
    approaching it in the light of protecting workers and first
    responders and so forth, at least in one context of the
    discussion.
        Could you discuss those dynamics as to how do we try to
    move forward and achieve that re-focus?
        Mr. Matthews. Yes, Senator, thank you.
        Yes, I agree with the premise that TSCA is a chemical
    management statute. It is worth reflecting on the fact that
    there are other statutes and other agencies besides EPA who
    have a role in some of the issues which are being or would
    propose to be addressed through the Safe Chemicals Act, and
    that is an area of concern that there would be overlapping and
    inconsistencies.
        It is a big job to define the right standard, to run
    chemicals through the criteria that would be adopted for
    safety, and to define what a safe use of those chemicals is.
        And Senator, you may have been absent when I was talking
    about what we think is needed here is substantial additional
    use and exposure information, and to some extent that will
    cover some of the areas that you have identified of concern.
        So I don't think there is an inconsistency in the notion
    that this law can and perhaps should provide enough data so
    that there is a fuller picture of where it is being used, how
    it is being used, and the exposures that are being created.
        But at some point, I would say, Senator, that the line has
    to be drawn where while that is true, if we start to regulate
    workplace exposures we are going to run into conflict with
    OSHA, and that is probably, I will say in my judgment, more
    trouble than it is worth. I think OSHA is a robust statute and
    can and is being administered appropriately.
        One other specific you mentioned I think was emergency
    workers. And I will say this, we have discussed that issue. It
    is a little down in the weeds, if I may say that, but it is an
    important issue, but it is below the level of trying to find
    common ground. That is not the driver.
        But it has come up, for example, in the context of
    confidential business information. And in that context, we have
    talked about there will be circumstances where speed and the
    disclosure of information is critical, and are there ways in
    which that can be accomplished while, again, still protecting
    proprietary considerations.
        And I think we have begun to identify some of those
    alternatives. And again, I would use the word, as other
    Senators have here, it is all about finding solutions to the
    problem which we mutually agree must be addressed through this
    law.
        Senator Crapo. Well, thank you. And let me just raise
    another issue. It kind of relates to the unintended
    consequences issue, but right now we are seeing, in my opinion,
    in the Federal Government, at the Federal level across many
    different industries and issues, an explosion of regulatory
    activity.
        Now, I understand that there are different points of view
    about the impact of that activity on the economy and on safety
    and soundness and other factors. One concern that I have is
    that as we move forward in looking at what the proper statutory
    and then ultimately regulatory climate should be, is that we
    have a multiplicity of agencies with jurisdiction over same or
    similar activities.
        Not in this area, but we have been doing a lot of activity
    in the financial arena recently in terms of regulatory
    activity, and there are some companies who deal with as many as
    five or six or seven regulators. And in some cases, they
    actually have different definitions of the same kinds of
    activities and different requirements on the same activities
    that are impossible to meet. In other words, they can't meet
    one without failing to meet the other. And we run into these
    inconsistencies in the regulatory world.
        I don't know the answer to this question, but do we face
    that kind of risk here in terms of the potential for not
    identifying accurately where the jurisdictional boundaries are
    between different agencies?
        Mr. Matthews. Senator, if that question is directed to me,
    I would be pleased to say yes, we do face that. I think earlier
    testimony about the States stepping into the vacuum and
    creating many different rules for similar chemicals and similar
    products is one example of that.
        I think at the Federal level, as we just mentioned, the
    notion that a substance may be used in different products and
    suddenly that implicates OSHA; that implicates FDA
    considerations and other agencies. It is a reality. There is no
    perfect solution to that. But I do think that care needs to be
    taken in adopting a reform TSCA that we don't, with respect,
    that Congress does not go too far in creating additional
    conflicts where, again coming back to the purpose and goal,
    this is chemical management legislation and I think that that
    needs to remain the focus.
        But I must underscore again, at the risk of repetition,
    that the information that will come to the agency will be
    substantial; will have implications elsewhere; and certainly
    this law as drafted, if I recall, permits under defined
    circumstances the sharing of that information with other
    agencies which have the appropriate authorities to address some
    of those other issues.
        So I do agree that this is a consideration and we just need
    to keep our eye on that ball as we go forward.
        Senator Crapo. Thank you. I know some of the others may
    want to respond to this, but my time is up, so maybe in a next
    round I can get further into that.
        Senator Lautenberg. Thanks very much.
        Senator Udall?
        Senator Udall. Thank you, Senator Lautenberg. And I thank
    you for holding this hearing and know that you are always
    looking out for your children and grandchildren and concerned
    about these kinds of impacts, chemicals on them; and also
    looking out for consumers. So I appreciate your laying a bill
    out there.
        I also am concerned about this matter that was brought by
    first the Chairman and then by Senator Cardin. And I think
    there is definitely an issue of urgency. Maybe I should just
    approach this a little different way because I think the thrust
    of the question is still the same, though.
        While EPA maintains a list of chemicals under TSCA, which
    is nearly 80,000 chemicals that are out there, only 200 have
    ever been examined under the Act and only five banned. Testing
    by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention has found
    more than 212 industrial chemicals in the bodies of most
    Americans.
        And there have been a lot of television programs. I
    remember one Bill Moyers did where he went and got his blood
    tested and he said, ``I'm walking around with all these
    chemicals and I am a guinea pig.'` And I think people have seen
    that and they know that is out there and they are concerned
    about that.
        And of these 212 industrial chemicals in the bodies of most
    Americans, including at least six known carcinogens and dozens
    have been linked to cancer, birth defects and other adverse
    health effects, GAO has called TSCA a :high-risk area of law
    ripe for reform.'`
        So my question is, Mr. Dooley and Mr. Matthews, are you
    advocating for our body burden of chemicals to go up over time?
    So are you saying 10 years from now, instead of 212, we should
    have 400? It is kind of a simple question, yes or no.
        Are you pushing for, because that is what the urgency is
    here is to try to say we are in an unacceptable situation.
    There is I think some suggestion here that we may mark up this
    bill. If you are marking up a bill, you want to see language.
    And I think it is very urgent that we see something more than
    just criticism of the particular language that is in the bill.
        But please, on the body burden question. That is just a yes
    or no question, Cal.
        Mr. Dooley. It is a no.
        Senator Udall. So you are not advocating for it to go up?
    OK.
        Mr. Dooley. No. The issue, Senator, is that we have to have
    a system in place.
        Senator Udall. And are you concerned about it?
        Mr. Dooley. We are absolutely concerned about it, and we
    think, and that is what we are advocating for the modernization
    of TSCA. There has to be a system in place that ensures that we
    can do an evaluation of the safety resulting from a combination
    of evaluating the hazard and exposure of a particular chemical;
    understanding in terms of what it the exposure resulting from
    use of that chemical for its intended purposes; understanding
    at what level and threshold that chemical might pose a risk to
    health and safety.
        And then when we make a determination through the
    regulatory process and EPA having the authority there, they
    determine that this risk of exposure is too high, well, then we
    have to put in place controls. We totally support that. And we
    are doing that today when we are engaged with EPA in submitting
    new chemicals for approval. EPA has a lot of authority to do
    this today. And we work with them, trying to ensure that we are
    responding appropriately.
        But it is, you know, I will be honest. I take offense when
    anyone would even insinuate that our industry is supporting an
    increase in the body burden of chemicals over a period of time.
        Senator Udall. Well, that is where we are headed right now.
    Where do you think we are headed? Because it has been going up
    year after year. We put TSCA in place in 1976 and what has
    happened since then? TSCA and the regulatory agencies don't
    have the ability. You know that. They do not have the ability
    to pull chemicals off. One of the most dangerous chemicals was
    asbestos. We had a failure to regulate under TSCA. It is a
    carcinogen, outright carcinogen.
        So I don't think you can sit there at the table and say,
    oh, yes, we want to see them pulled off. They are going up and
    up and up.
        Mr. Dooley. There needs to be a process in place, which we
    support, where you would have a scientific evaluation of the
    exposures of the chemical that we have determined that pose a
    safety or environmental risk. There needs to be a process in
    place that ensures that the industry can manage those exposures
    in a fashion that ensures that the threshold of that exposure
    and the amount of those, the body burden of those does not pose
    a health and safety risk.
        Senator Udall. I am really sorry. I have run over time
    here. Mr. Chairman, I wish I could stay and hear more of the
    testimony and hear Senator Carper, who I know is a great
    champion for consumers on this. I am going to have to leave,
    but you need to pursue this bill. We need to mark up this bill.
    We need to move forward with this.
        Thank you.
        Senator Lautenberg. Thanks. And while you are still here,
    Senator Udall, the conclusion from our friend Mr. Dooley, I
    think it is summarized broadly that this is a prescription for
    failure. And when we give it that kind of an umbrella, the sun
    is not going to shine through there, but we will talk more.
        Please, we are anxious to hear from Senator Carper.
        Senator Carper. Thanks, Mr. Chairman.
        I am not going to pick on former Congressman Dooley. His
    reputation in the House was actually somebody who was pretty
    good at working across the aisle and pretty good at coming to
    consensus.
        And I am going to ask you, and then I am going to ask the
    other four witnesses as well, to join in just answering a
    couple of questions. And one of those is what would you say is
    maybe the largest outstanding issue that the environment and
    public health communities and industry need to come together on
    in order to further strengthen this proposal, but to also get
    it passed? At the end of the day, we need to enact something.
        And would you just respond to that? And I will ask our
    other witnesses to do the same.
        Mr. Dooley. I would contend that really the most important
    issue that we need to come to grips on and find a consensus on
    is on the safety standard, is where we contend that the
    reasonable certainty of no harm from aggregate exposures we
    think will lead to paralysis on the regulatory agency. It is
    not conceivable for industry to meet, and so we need to see
    some modification of that for a workable solution.
        Senator Carper. All right. Let me ask Mr. Sturdevant.
        Mr. Sturdevant. I would echo that. I think getting the
    right safety standard that ensures that, A, it has to be a
    safety standard that can be met; but B, just flipping this
    paradigm where we put chemicals out there and then see what
    happens over the course of year, I think moving that up front
    so we know that these chemicals are safe before going into
    commerce is the right thing.
        Senator Carper. All right.
        Ms. Brody.
        Ms. Brody. I agree it is the safety standard. But I have
    been doing this long enough that I remember when the American
    Chemical Council and its previous names was opposed to TSCA
    reform. And it is only under Mr. Dooley that that position has
    changed. So I appreciate the leadership that has created that,
    but I have sat in too many rooms like this where the chemical
    industry said that TSCA was working perfectly well and that all
    chemicals in use were safe.
        So I think the safety standard is a really important
    conversation, but I think we have to actually sit down and say
    if reasonable certainty of no harm from aggregate exposure
    isn't the right standard, what other words give the American
    people what this law is supposed to do, a way of knowing that
    chemicals in use are safe.
        Senator Carper. OK. Thank you for those comments.
        Mr. Matthews.
        Mr. Matthews. Senator, I agree that the safety standard is
    at the heart of it all. I would just add that for this statute
    to work, it has to be, we think, a risk-based approach. And for
    risk-based determinations to be made, the system needs better
    use and exposure information. Our industry has said we
    understand that and we are prepared to come forward and provide
    that information, and we think that will make a substantial
    difference.
        Second, having said that, we are extremely concerned about
    the provisions in the proposed legislation on confidential
    business information. We are concerned that it will be a
    disincentive to innovation; that it sets artificial timelines
    for the expiration of proprietary information that in many
    cases is unrelated to a timeline. And so that, and that are
    other aspects of the CBI issue that concern us.
        And on one related point, I would like to say a word about
    new chemicals. While that is primarily an issue that ACC has
    championed, there is a very direct affect on the downstream
    community. And that is that if they can't innovate, we can't
    innovate. We rely on our suppliers to help us find the right
    products that our customers and consumers are interested in
    buying, and we don't want to stay with the same products that
    have been on the shelves, I think, for the last 40 years was
    the reference.
        And so we echo the concern that the new chemicals program
    if it is working should not be so radically changed as to make
    it a disincentive to develop newer, greener, safer chemicals.
    Those are my thoughts.
        Senator Carper. All right. Well said. Thanks.
        Mr. Denison.
        Mr. Denison. Thank you, Senator. In my view, the most
    important issue is to ensure that a reformed TSCA uses the best
    available science to make decisions about chemicals. Many of
    the issues that are in contention are actually recommendations
    of this Nation's highest scientific body, the National Academy
    of Sciences, that calls on EPA to assess the aggregate risks of
    chemicals, that we are constantly looking at one use of a
    chemical at a time and we are looking at an average population
    exposure, rather than protecting the most vulnerable
    populations that may be more susceptible or more highly
    exposed; and rather than understanding that people are being
    exposed to chemicals from multiple sources.
        I think we have to find a way to make a workable approach
    to dealing with aggregate exposure, because I would agree with
    Mr. Dooley that it is more complicated than it is in the
    pesticide area. But the notion of pretending like we can look
    at one use of a chemical at a time and not look across those
    uses and aggregate it is simply inconsistent with the best
    available science today as it is being even practiced today by
    the USEPA.
        Senator Carper. OK. Thank you all for responding.
        Mr. Chairman, my time is expired, and I don't have time to
    ask this question or at least get answers for it. But I at just
    want to put it on the table and then will followup in writing.
        But over the last couple of years, several nations, I think
    among them Canada, Australia, maybe Korea, China, parts of
    Europe, and some other countries have undertaken reforms of
    their own nation's chemical safety laws. And the question I
    will ask you to answer for the record is: What can we learn
    from them? What should we drill down on and take away from
    those experiences?
        I used to say when I was Governor that some other, whatever
    issue we are working on in Delaware, I used to say some other
    State has solved this issue. They figured it out. They solved
    it. What we have to do is find them and figure out what they
    did. And so I think that might be helpful as well.
        I have a couple of other questions. That is one of them,
    but thank you all very much for coming here. We need to address
    this. We need to find a way to come together. And my hope is
    that under the leadership of our Chairman and Senator Crapo,
    Senator Inhofe and a lot of people's good will, we can do this.
        Senator Lautenberg. Yes, we will keep the record open for
    some time and would ask that anything submitted to you in
    writing, please as prompt as you can, as fully as you can.
        Now, we are pleased to have Senator Whitehouse with us.
        Senator.
        Senator Whitehouse. Thank you, Chairman Lautenberg and
    Ranking Member Crapo. I am delighted to be here with you and I
    appreciate the work that you both have done to try to come
    together on a TSCA reform bill.
        My question is for Mr. Dooley about the American Chemistry
    Council. It is my understanding, correct me if I am wrong, that
    the American Chemistry Council has not yet come up with
    proposed statutory language that would propose the changes that
    you think are necessary; that your contribution so far has been
    more that of a critique of the existing language than a
    proponent of an alternative.
        My specific question is, if I am correct about that, would
    you provide the Committee with a detailed redline of the Safe
    Chemicals Act this year so that we can see specifically what
    your proposal is and have that to work with as we try to move
    forward.
        Mr. Dooley. We would be prepared, as we have been engaged
    in substantive conversations on how we think that we can most
    effectively move forward with a modernization of TSCA. And we
    can offer suggestions in terms of how we think the legislation
    should be constructed.
        Senator Whitehouse. Would you put those suggestions in
    writing in legislative format so we can be specific about them?
        Mr. Dooley. In terms of serving in Congress and now serving
    in the outside world, we obviously have some concerns about
    what is the prerogative of the institution, versus an outside
    entity in terms of responsibility. My view is that it is your
    prerogative and the Committee's and Congress's prerogative in
    terms of actual drafting of legislative language. But we are
    certainly committed to be a partner to help ensure that in your
    construct of that language it would reflect our policy
    priorities would be.
        Senator Whitehouse. This is nobody's first rodeo here, and
    we have all certainly been involved in legislative matters in
    which the private sector has a very specific point of view.
    Indeed, from time to time, we are presented with legislation
    that has actually been drafted by industries.
        So I think the question about the prerogative is one that
    really by the boards and it is really more a matter of
    willingness. And I would urge you to do what you can to try to
    put your desires and wishes into a redline markup format. I
    think that is the most effective way for you to engage. I
    believe you want to be constructive. I think if you don't put
    ideas forward, but are simply sniping from the woods on the
    sides, it doesn't create the image of somebody who is trying to
    be constructive.
        People can say no and move the ball around all day long,
    but it is a positive effort to go through the trouble, as we
    have all discovered when we are drafting legislation, to try to
    put something in writing. And I think it would be an important
    sign of good faith and good will and a desire to make progress
    on the part of the industry if you would reconsider that and
    put something into writing.
        I think it puts you in a much better position and a much
    fairer position, and it lets the other interests who are
    engaged in this discussion have a sense of where you really
    stand and that you are not just kind of in the weeds saying no
    to things. And I don't think that is the place you want to be,
    but I think unless you do that, that is the place where you end
    up being.
        Mr. Dooley. I just think it is kind of interesting that it
    was over a year ago, I guess, that there were a lot of folks
    concerned that we would be working with some Members of
    Congress that we thought would be more aligned with our
    interests and having them introduce a bill that would reflect
    our interests. And I think a lot of folks determined that that
    would be counterproductive to a process going forward.
        Senator Whitehouse. That is not our process. We now have a
    bill and we are simply asking for a redline proposal.
        Mr. Dooley. And I guess this where there is just a note of
    frustration. We have met with Members of this Committee staff
    on the majority side. They are pretty aware of what we think
    needs to be, and we have given them ideas and suggestions. We
    haven't given them legislative language, but they are not
    reflected in the draft that we have today. And that is not
    necessarily because of a lack of specific suggestions that we
    have offered, but it is a fundamental disagreement on the
    direction to go.
        So I don't want people to think because we haven't
    necessarily provided specific legislative language that we
    haven't engaged in offering some pretty specific solutions, but
    there could be that they are not reflected in the legislation
    because there is a fundamental disagreement.
        Senator Whitehouse. Well, my time has expired, but I
    continue to believe that it would be both advisable and helpful
    to the process if you would take your wishes for this
    legislation and actually make them public and write them down
    in a way that everybody can look at and comment on them.
        Thank you.
        Senator Lautenberg. Thanks very much, Senator Whitehouse.
    You weren't here before, but we are still planting what I will
    say is old ground here.
        Mr. Dooley, you have been here. You know it isn't, and the
    reason you don't get to pick out the people that you want to do
    these things, you don't have the votes. That is fairly simple.
    And you are a smart fellow and you know that as much of a bite
    of the apple as you would like to take, that it is never going
    to be a majority.
        So please do what you can to respond, and where we fail,
    you know, point that out in more specific terms, but be as I
    think you see running through here, a little more constructive
    instead of unenforceable and that kind of thing. Figure out
    ways to get it done. You have a powerful organization there and
    we are happy to see you here, but with your compliments about
    my staff and the other Members' staffs here, I thought we were
    maybe going to clean house. But I have thought it through, and
    they are really very good, as you described them in the
    beginning.
        [Laughter.]
        Senator Lautenberg. So we will go on with a couple of
    questions that I have, and Senator Merkley is back, and Senator
    Crapo is still here.
        I would like to ask Mr. Denison a question. The Safe
    Chemicals Act as prescribed would require the industry to
    demonstrate the safety of new chemicals before they enter the
    market. And some have criticized that that requirement is too
    burdensome and have suggested preserving TSCA's current
    approach to new chemicals.
        What is needed in terms of new chemicals to have some
    strength in this program?
        Mr. Denison. Thank you, Senator.
        I think given the limited authority and capacity that EPA
    was given under TSCA, it has done as good a job as it can in
    trying to address new chemicals coming onto the market; 1,500
    notices are received every year. EPA has to process those
    within 90 days. And one of the major flaws is that it has, in
    almost all cases, no data that is submitted along with those
    chemicals by which it can make a decision about whether to
    allow that chemical on the market or impose conditions.
        The other countries in the developed world require a
    minimum set of safety information to come in when a chemical is
    filed. And that is something that the Safe Chemicals Act would
    address by requiring a level of information.
        Now, the bill indicates already that the level of
    information ought to be tiered and varied based on the nature
    of the chemical, how much is produced, how it is going to be
    used, and what else is known about it. So I want to emphasize,
    it is not a one-size-fits-all requirement. It would set an
    extremely high bar for any new chemical to get on the market,
    but there needs to be sufficient information for EPA to make a
    reasoned decision.
        Moreover, TSCA fails to have a mechanism by which EPA can
    readily revisit a new chemical after it is on the market should
    its production or use pattern change significantly. Only if it
    goes through an onerous regulatory process for each and every
    chemical can it get that kind of look-back provision, the
    ability to look again at a chemical if its use has expanded,
    for example, into a consumer product category that it wasn't
    used in before.
        The bill would provide an ability for EPA to look at those
    chemicals, and again this is consistent with the approach taken
    in other countries. Canada, which the American Chemistry
    Council and other industry players have often pointed to as a
    model program, actually does have a process by which chemicals
    as they enter into commerce and their use expands, more data
    are required and the government is required to re-review those
    chemicals in a tiered fashion.
        We think that kind of an approach could balance the need to
    ensure that you are not stifling innovation and overly impeding
    the introduction of new chemicals, but at the same time ensure
    there is some significant degree of safety assured of those
    chemicals before they get embedded in our economy, when it is
    very hard to do anything about it.
        We need that gate to be at the beginning of the process and
    not wait until we find some problem 10, 20 years later to
    actually ensure the safety.
        Senator Lautenberg. Mr. Sturdevant, the Safe Chemicals Act
    would preserve the ability of a State to go beyond the Federal
    standard on chemical safety to protect our citizens. How would
    establishing the strong Federal system on chemical safety
    affect the ability to establish the State-level regulations?
    Where might the States come in there, because we are trying to
    preserve an option for the States that they see a greater need
    for supervision?
        Mr. Sturdevant. I think with the changes envisioned in the
    bill, with a stronger Federal system, the need for the States
    to engage in these activities would decline I am sure. I think
    that there would still be cases where the ability to address
    problems that are occurring in particular States should be
    maintained. But I think that what we would see instead is just
    sort of a more normalized State-Federal relationship like we
    see with a whole bunch of other statutes where there is good
    Federal backstops and then States can tailor regulations
    accordingly in their own States.
        So I think that we would see that kind of normalized
    relationship where States address problems if and when they are
    needed, as opposed to trying to address the fundamental
    challenges that we have all been talking about here today that
    really need to be addressed at the Federal level.
        So I think that a result from me and my agency would be we
    would end up spending less time and energy on these efforts
    because we know that they are being addressed at the Federal
    level.
        Senator Lautenberg. Thank you.
        Senator Crapo, do you have something?
        Senator Crapo. Yes, Mr. Chairman.
        I just wanted to make an observation, a comment, and the
    witnesses can comment on this if they would choose. But it
    seems to me that there is sort of a consistent message point
    coming from the Democratic side of the aisle to the Chemistry
    Council here that they have to come forward with statutory
    language or their response is not acceptable.
        Although it is not unheard of for participants or
    stakeholders on an issue to propose statutory language, I don't
    know that I recall very many cases in which a Committee has
    demanded that and sort of set that bar as the bar of proper
    participation on an issue.
        I would tell you that if the effort is to create the
    impression that failure to come forward with a proposed
    alternative statutory proposal is the only acceptable way to
    engage on that issue, I think that is wrong. I can say that the
    American Chemistry Council and other stakeholders have been in
    my office many, many times to discuss this issue. I know that
    they are sincere about wanting to move forward.
        As far as I am aware, their concerns have been very, very
    well expressed. And I believe that every Member of this
    Committee knows what the conflicts are in terms of
    disagreements about the issues with regard to the statute.
        So I just felt like I had to say that because I felt like
    there was an impression being created that there was not an
    engagement or that there was not a willingness to try to work
    toward finding a solution and that has certainly not been my
    experience.
        Senator Lautenberg. If I might, just a quick response. I
    think that if you have a chance to look through Mr. Dooley's
    testimony and his commentary, I got the impression that it was
    thought by Mr. Dooley that we weren't paying enough attention
    to what they were offering. So my response was to say, OK, give
    us some statutory language here. But that isn't intended to be
    a word-for-word kind of thing. It is, OK, give us the challenge
    to what you see.
        And we invite the participation of Mr. Dooley just because
    we have some differences here. And I think that it is fair for
    you to voice your organization's views, but on the other side,
    you have seen the run-through here, including friends on both
    sides of the aisle, as to, OK, don't like it.
        Be more specific about what it is and maybe even do an
    evaluation that says, OK, we are willing to dismiss the fact
    that science says that there are some episodes of health
    problems as a consequence of fairly active use of some chemical
    here or there.
        What we are trying to do, and trying very hard to do, is
    begin. I started off in my comments this morning with we want
    an open process and you are included in that opening,
    obviously. But I think it has to be more specific as to not
    only what you don't like, but how would you fix it. And I think
    that is a reasonable request.
        Senator Crapo. My only comment was to the effect that it
    has been my impression that there has been very aggressive and
    extensive engagement from all sides. This is an issue on which
    I have seen a tremendous amount of activity. And I thought that
    there was an impression being created that was not accurate and
    I don't want that impression left in this hearing, that any of
    the participants and stakeholders have not been very engaged in
    trying to help make their positions and their proposed
    approaches known to the Committee.
        Senator Lautenberg. Fair enough.
        Senator Whitehouse. If I might add, I don't doubt for a
    moment that there has been heavy engagement. I think it helps
    with the transparency of the engagement when there is actual
    language that is produced. That is my only point.
        Senator Lautenberg. Senator Merkley.
        Senator Merkley. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
        I wanted to explore a little bit the interaction between
    American companies and the current chemical regulation regime
    in the European Union. And I was wondering, Ms. Brody and Mr.
    Sturdevant, if you could describe succinctly some of the
    distinctions between the European system and the current
    American system? Of course, recognizing that our American
    companies are already engaged in, if you will, working with or
    within the framework that is laid out in Europe.
        Ms. Brody. Let me just start. Thank you for the question,
    Senator.
        Virtually all of the major players in the American chemical
    industry are global companies and are selling to the European
    Union and other markets.
        You would agree with me, Cal?
        And so all of them are looking at the new law in Europe,
    REACH, and figuring out how to test their chemicals and if
    their chemicals will meet the REACH safety standard. So I think
    it actually adds to this discussion about if the Safe Chemicals
    Act as written isn't the right language for the American
    Chemistry Council, what is? Because we have this statute moving
    in Europe and in other countries that is new and provides a
    place to start with in thinking about how can American chemical
    law add to what is already going on in other parts of the
    world.
        And I think it is very appropriate to look at how much
    money the American chemical industry is already spending to
    test their chemicals for the European market and to figure out
    how every single dollar that is being spent there can add
    information to what we could do to get the kind of exposure,
    information and use information that we need about chemicals in
    the United States, and to do that in an important new way.
        I think it is important to add, though, that European
    chemicals law was as broken as American chemicals law still is.
    And the European Union and its new Parliament took strong
    action with the opposition of the American Chemistry Council
    hard and heavy against REACH being enacted. But now that it is
    the law of the European Union, there is a whole lot we can
    learn from that and build on in what we do in TSCA reform.
        Senator Merkley. OK, great.
        Mr. Sturdevant.
        Mr. Sturdevant. My knowledge of REACH is quite general so I
    won't go into specifics. But one thing that has come out of
    REACH that I think is both worth looking at very hard and has
    already been beneficial is the amount of information that is
    coming out of the reporting required there. So that has been
    one of the key challenges for us at the State level is gaining
    access to information. So REACH is actually providing us
    information that we haven't had access to before.
        And I certainly understand the concerns expressed by Mr.
    Matthews about information and sharing too much information,
    and that inhibiting innovation. I think that there is a lot of
    room for improvement in the current law on confidential
    business information, how that is kept confidential. I think
    that there is a happy medium to be found here and REACH could
    perhaps inform that.
        Senator Merkley. Thank you.
        And to anyone on the panel who would like to comment on it,
    my impression is that the effort has been made to craft this
    bill that is before us in a fashion that the information
    prepared on chemicals for Europe would satisfy the U.S. law. Do
    you all share that view or do you have a different view? It
    would be helpful.
        Mr. Denison. I think there has been a concerted effort to
    ensure that we not reinvent the wheel or create a system that
    requires duplicate testing, et cetera. There is absolutely
    information coming from REACH that will be directly relevant in
    the U.S. and we should make sure that our EPA has the authority
    to get access to that information and that it is used in
    informing and meeting the requirements that industry faces in
    providing minimum information.
        So the bill I think goes very far in describing a variety
    of types of information, including existing information being
    developed under other jurisdictions that could be used to
    satisfy the data requirements under this bill. So it would only
    be the gaps that remain after that other information is
    factored in that would be a new burden, if you will, on the
    American industry.
        We have an advantage in going second here because the
    European Union has gone first. And they are taking a lot of
    arrows in the back because of that. But that actually makes the
    lift for the U.S. under TSCA reform that much easier.
        Senator Merkley. Mr. Matthews and Mr. Dooley, I think both
    of your associations have members who export products to
    Canada, which has yet a different structure, and to Europe. Any
    insights on how those reporting requirements are going? And
    also the degree to which essentially as information is
    developed for that market, whether that also then largely would
    address the requirements that we are seeking here in this Act?
        Mr. Dooley. Just a couple of comments. One on the REACH.
    Obviously, all of our companies are participating, complying
    with that. There is the data that we are providing to meet
    those requirements. I would say that based on our analysis of
    the legislation, the 847, it is unclear whether or not that
    data would be similar or identical. And obviously, we would be
    interested in seeing to the greatest extent possible a
    harmonization of those data requirements.
        But I would also cite that we would look to the Canadian
    model as being the preferred model over the REACH in that it
    does embrace a much more of a prioritization process where you
    would focus the resources of EPA, as well as the private
    sector, on those chemicals of the greatest concern, that we
    think would then lead to greater, more positive developments
    ensuring safer chemicals in commerce.
        So we think the Canadian model is actually one which is,
    from our perspective, would work better from a regulatory
    context, achieving a similar level of safety outcomes, and
    would also be more cost-effective and efficient from the
    industry perspective.
        Senator Merkley. Thank you.
        Senator Lautenberg. The record will be kept open.
        Before closing the hearing, I ask unanimous consent to have
    Senator Boxer's statement to be put in the record.
        [The prepared statement of Senator Boxer was not received
    at time of print.]
        Senator Lautenberg. And the letter from the United
    Steelworkers, from the American Nurses Association, and a
    statement from the Procter and Gamble Company.
        [The referenced documents follow:]
        [GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        Senator Lautenberg. And with that, I thank all of you. I
    thought it was certainly an interesting meeting, but I think it
    is one that will help us move our legislation along.
        And Mr. Dooley, we wait to hear from you and any of you who
    have further comments you would like to make in writing.
        Thank you very much.
        The meeting is closed.
        [Whereupon, at 11:55 a.m., the committee was adjourned.]
        [Additional material submitted for the record follows.]

                         Statement of Hon. Max Baucus,
                     U.S. Senator from the State of Montana

        Chairman Lautenberg, thank you for holding this important
    hearing today on S. 847, the Safe Chemicals Act of 2011.
        The Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) needs to be
    reformed. There is a broad consensus that it is outdated. And
    this bill is an appropriate starting point for that effort.
        I have heard many times in recent years from Montanans who
    are passionate about improving chemical safety. Parents from
    across Montana, and mothers in particular, are worried about
    the products that surround their children. Montanans who suffer
    acute chemical sensitivity would lead better lives with a more
    transparent system. And I never forget the many Montanans
    touched by the nightmare of the asbestos contamination of the
    town of Libby, Montana--and the clear failure of TSCA to
    address the toxicity of asbestos.
        TSCA is not adequately protecting Americans, and it is our
    obligation to fix it. Congress should give EPA better tools to
    keep our families safe, including strong up-front requirements
    for obtaining data about chemicals and the ability to
    prioritize the risk of different chemicals.
        Looking forward, the more we can do to promote green
    chemistry innovation, the more new jobs we will create,
    technology we will export, and families we will keep safe.
    Rivertop Renewables in Missoula, Montana, is a perfect example
    of this kind of innovation. A balanced bill ought to ensure
    that homegrown companies like Rivertop can continue to lead the
    chemical industry.
        Thank you again for your hard work in crafting this bill
    and keeping the process inclusive. I look forward to working
    with you toward an agreement in this committee.
    [GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

                                     [all]