U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Publishing Office

Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512–1800; DC area (202) 512–1800

Fax: (202) 512–2104 Mail: Stop IDCC, Washington, DC 20402–0001

21–632 PDF 2016

S. HRG. 111–1229 

BUSINESS PERSPECTIVES ON REFORMING 

U.S. CHEMICAL SAFETY LAWS 

HEARING 

BEFORE THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON SUPERFUND, TOXICS 

AND ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH 

OF THE

COMMITTEE ON 

ENVIRONMENT AND PUBLIC WORKS 

UNITED STATES SENATE 

ONE HUNDRED ELEVENTH CONGRESS 

SECOND SESSION 

MARCH 9, 2010 

Printed for the use of the Committee on Environment and Public Works 

( 

Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys 
(II) 

COMMITTEE ON ENVIRONMENT AND PUBLIC WORKS 

ONE HUNDRED ELEVENTH CONGRESS 

SECOND SESSION 

BARBARA BOXER, California, Chairman 

MAX BAUCUS, Montana 

THOMAS R. CARPER, Delaware 

FRANK R. LAUTENBERG, New Jersey 

BENJAMIN L. CARDIN, Maryland 

BERNARD SANDERS, Vermont 

AMY KLOBUCHAR, Minnesota 

SHELDON WHITEHOUSE, Rhode Island 

TOM UDALL, New Mexico 

JEFF MERKLEY, Oregon 

KIRSTEN GILLIBRAND, New York 

ARLEN SPECTER, Pennsylvania 

JAMES M. INHOFE, Oklahoma 

GEORGE V. VOINOVICH, Ohio 

DAVID VITTER, Louisiana 

JOHN BARRASSO, Wyoming 

MIKE CRAPO, Idaho 

CHRISTOPHER S. BOND, Missouri 

LAMAR ALEXANDER, Tennessee 

BETTINA POIRIER, Staff Director 

RUTH VAN MARK, Minority Staff Director 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON SUPERFUND, TOXICS AND ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH

FRANK R. LAUTENBERG, New Jersey, Chairman 

MAX BAUCUS, Montana 

AMY KLOBUCHAR, Minnesota 

SHELDON WHITEHOUSE, Rhode Island 

KIRSTEN GILLIBAND, New York 

ARLEN SPECTER, Pennsylvania 

BARBARA BOXER, California (ex officio) 

JAMES M. INHOFE, Oklahoma 

MIKE CRAPO, Idaho 

CHRISTOPHER S. BOND, Missouri 
(III) 

C O N T E N T S 

Page 

MARCH 9, 2010 

OPENING STATEMENTS 

Lautenberg, Hon. Frank R., U.S. Senator from the State of New Jersey ........... 1 

Vitter, Hon. David, U.S. Senator from the State of Louisiana ............................ 8 

Whitehouse, Hon. Sheldon, U.S. Senator from the State of Rhode Island ......... 9 

Inhofe, Hon. James M., U.S. Senator from the State of Oklahoma, prepared 

statement .............................................................................................................. 93 

WITNESSES 

Fisher, Linda J., Chief Sustainability Officer, DuPont ........................................ 10 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 12 

Williams, Howard, Vice President, Construction Specialties, Inc. ...................... 18 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 20 

Responses to additional questions from: 

Senator Boxer ............................................................................................ 23 

Senator Inhofe ........................................................................................... 24 

Bosley, Beth D., Managing Director, Boron Specialties ....................................... 27 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 29 

Response to an additional question from: 

Senator Boxer ............................................................................................ 35 

Senator Whitehouse .................................................................................. 36 

Responses to additional questions from Senator Inhofe ............................... 38 

Response to an additional question from Senator Vitter .............................. 41 

Hawkins, Neil C., Sc.D., Vice President, EH&S and Sustainability, the Dow 

Chemical Company .............................................................................................. 42 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 44 

Responses to additional questions from Senator Boxer ................................ 51 

Response to an additional question from Senator Whitehouse .................... 52 

Responses to additional questions from Senator Inhofe ............................... 53 

Drevna, Charlie, President, National Petrochemical and Refiners Association . 56 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 58 

Response to an additional question from Senator Boxer .............................. 77 

Responses to additional questions from: 

Senator Inhofe ........................................................................................... 77 

Senator Vitter ............................................................................................ 79 

Gerwig, Kathy, Vice President, Workplace Safety and Environmental Stewardship Officer, Kaiser Permanente ................................................................... 81 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 83 

Responses to additional questions from Senator Boxer ................................ 85 

Response to an additional question from Senator Inhofe ............................. 85 

ADDITIONAL MATERIAL 

Written testimony of iGPS Company, March 9, 2010 .......................................... 100 

Letter to Senators Boxer, Lautenberg, and Inhofe and U.S. Representatives 

Barton, Whitfield, Waxman, and Rush from the Adhesive and Sealant 

Council, Inc., et al., March 8, 2010 ..................................................................... 105 

(1) 

BUSINESS PERSPECTIVES ON REFORMING 

U.S. CHEMICAL SAFETY LAWS 

TUESDAY, MARCH 9, 2010 

U.S. SENATE, COMMITTEE ON ENVIRONMENT AND PUBLIC WORKS, SUBCOMMITTEE ON SUPERFUND, TOXICS

AND ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH, Washington, DC. 

The Subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 10 a.m. in room 

406, Dirksen Senate Office Building, Hon. Frank R. Lautenberg 

(chairman of the Subcommittee) presiding. 

Present: Senators Lautenberg, Vitter, Carper, and Whitehouse. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. FRANK R. LAUTENBERG, 

U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF NEW JERSEY 

Senator LAUTENBERG. Good morning, and welcome to the third 

oversight hearing on the Toxic Substances Control Act in the Subcommittee on Superfund, Toxics and Environmental Health. 

We began this push to reform the toxic substances law a few 

months ago after a review with EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson. 

Ms. Jackson reminded us that the current law does not provide her 

agency with the tools it needs to protect the public from hazardous 

chemicals. 

We also heard from the experts at the Centers for Disease Control. They told us that most Americans are walking around with 

hundreds of industrial chemicals coursing through their bodies. We 

also learned that the Government Accountability Office has identified the Toxic Substances Control Act as a high risk area of the 

law. And I don’t know whether we need any reminders, but this 

law was originally written in 1976. A long time has passed without 

a lot of action to support it. 

Today as we cap off the hearings on this law, known as TSCA, 

we will hear—I am pleased to say—from the business community. 

What we hear might be a surprise. Executives at some of the 

world’s leading chemical companies have determined that the status quo is not working for them, either. As a former CEO I know 

that executives have two major duties: to do what is right for your 

clients, your customers, while doing right for your company and 

your country. Reforming this broken law is an opportunity to do 

both. 

The current law is not good for the environment, it is not good 

for our health, and it is ultimately not good for business. The reason is clear: the American people are more and more concerned 

about chemicals ending up in their bodies. Parents in particular 
2 

are dismayed that the Government is powerless to require testing 

of chemicals that are going into our children’s bodies. 

Many of the chemicals we use in our daily lives, perhaps even 

most—are safe. But our current law does not allow the EPA to 

draw a bright line between chemicals that are safe and chemicals 

that are toxic. So consumers are left confused and worried. This 

uncertainty hurts businesses all the way down the supply chain. 

It hurts the chemical industry, which is critical to our economy. 

This industry is a major part of the American manufacturing base. 

It sustains jobs across the country, and it creates products that 

save lives. 

In my home State of New Jersey the chemical industry employs 

more than 70,000 people. Nearly 1,500 New Jerseyeans work for 

DuPont, the company that is represented at the witness table 

today. The current law also harms major companies that use 

chemicals in their products, and they are joining the drum beat for 

reform also. 

I want to insert a letter into the record from the trade association that represents companies like Procter and Gamble, S.C. Johnson and Honeywell. These companies ‘‘support the development 

and implementation of a gold standard in the United States for 

chemical management policy.’’ 

[The referenced letter follows:] 
3 
4 
5 
6 
7 
8 

Senator LAUTENBERG. I look forward to hearing from our witnesses about why reforming our chemical laws is good for business. 

Now I speak to my colleagues on the Committee. Throughout 

these hearings, I have noted the constructive comments of Republican friends. They have said that my bill to reform TSCA must set 

up a system that assesses chemicals based on risk, not just hazard, 

and it will. And you have said the bill must encourage innovation, 

and it will. And you have said that the bill must be based on good 

science, and it will. 

And after taking into account the testimony we hear today I intend to introduce a bill that lays out a vision for strong, effective 

and pragmatic regulation of chemicals. But the introduced bill will 

be an invitation for all to play a part—friends on the Republican 

side, as well, obviously, as those on the Democrat side. I look forward to working with Senators on both sides of the aisle to refine 

the bill so it makes our environment cleaner, our children healthier 

and our economy stronger. 

So now, before we hear from this important panel, I will turn to 

other members for any opening statements. 

Senator Vitter. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. DAVID VITTER, 

U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF LOUISIANA 

Senator VITTER. Yes, thank you, Mr. Chairman. It is great to see 

you back, and thank you for this hearing. 

As we move forward with this discussion, I want to stress a point 

you mentioned, which is the absolute critical importance of sound 

science. All being focused on sound science is important to, first, 

achieve maximum protection for U.S. citizens, achieving the overarching goals of ensuring human health and a safe environment, 

and also preserving competitiveness in the chemical industry in the 

global marketplace. We must work to ensure that our legislative efforts are paired with the appropriate resources also needed to update our chemical risk management framework and that scientists 

at EPA are getting those resources and getting the science right. 

I am really glad the industry is interested in seeing TSCA reformed. Over the last several months numerous industry leaders 

have come into my office to discuss this need for reform, doing it 

in a way that protects health and competitiveness. It is important 

to note in that regard that more than half of the patents issued for 

chemical industry innovation over the last 5 years were authored 

by U.S. entities. 

I want to quickly reiterate for the record what I have said before 

in this Committee about the five overarching principles that I 

think are important in this work. No. 1, I think EPA has to redo 

their inventory of chemicals in commerce. There aren’t 80,000 

chemicals in significant commerce, as we often hear. The number 

may be closer to one-quarter of that. And we need to know what 

it is and what they are, and then focus on them. 

No. 2, a European registration evaluation authorization of chemical substances, a REACH-style program, I think would likely kill 

innovation in the U.S. and is a real recipe for ham stringing small 

and medium sized manufacturers in particular. 
9 

No. 3, assuming REACH is the wave of the future is entirely premature and could actually impair human safety by preventing critical products, helpful products in terms of safety from entering the 

marketplace. 

No. 4, if the EPA decides to use any given study as a reason for 

limiting of terminating the use of a certain chemical, the results of 

that study need to be repeatable and proven in further supporting 

studies. 

And No. 5, if the EPA is going to decide to utilize resources to 

re-review a chemical prior to the necessary mandated review period, that review sure as heck should be based on sound science 

and not just a New York Times article that uses politicized science 

from an environmental group. I am particularly talking about the 

atrazine episode. I think what I just said is a fair characterization 

of that, trying to scare the public. 

So I look forward to this discussion. I will be keeping those principles in mind as we have the discussion and work on the bill, and 

thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Senator LAUTENBERG. Thank you, Senator Vitter. 

Senator Whitehouse, welcome. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. SHELDON WHITEHOUSE, 

U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF RHODE ISLAND 

Senator WHITEHOUSE. Thank you, Chairman. 

First of all, let me thank you for holding this hearing and for 

your continuing and determined interest in protecting Americans 

from the onslaught of new chemicals that are turned out year after 

year after year after year, and whose use in our food supply and 

in our medications and in products that children and seniors and 

all Americans have access to is poorly enforced. We are way, way, 

way, way behind. We have a chemical safety deficit in this country, 

and we need to catch up. You are one of the most determined leaders in this, and I am delighted to join you at this hearing. 

Senator LAUTENBERG. Thank you very much for being with us. 

I now would like to start hearing from our witnesses. I will tell 

you in advance that votes are scheduled on the floor of the Senate. 

We are going to have to defer at some point. So we will try to move 

things along. If we do have to recess, I would ask your patience 

and your participation. It is not a scheme to keep us from being 

heard, I can tell you that. 

So I would like to call first on Ms. Fisher. Ms. Fisher is Vice 

President for Safety, Health and Environment for DuPont; Mr. Williams, Vice President, Construction Specialties; Ms. Bosley, Managing Director of Boron Specialties, testifying on behalf of the Society of Chemical Manufacturers and Affiliates; Dr. Hawkins, Vice 

President for Environment, Health and Safety at Dow Chemical; 

Charles Drevna, President of the National Petrochemical and Refiners Association; and Ms. Kathy Gerwig, Vice President for Workplace Safety with the Kaiser Foundation Health Plan. 

We ask you to present your testimony within 5 minutes. If it 

breaks the rule a little bit, we will be kind. Otherwise, the punishment is too difficult to discuss in public here. But please try to 

keep your remarks to 5 minutes. 

Ms. Fisher, we invite you to speak first. 
10 

STATEMENT OF LINDA J. FISHER, CHIEF SUSTAINABILITY 

OFFICER, DUPONT 

Ms. FISHER. Thank you, Senator Lautenberg. 

My name is Linda Fisher, and I am currently Chief Sustainability Officer for DuPont. As you know, I spent many years at 

EPA, including managing the Office of Pesticides and Toxic Substances. 

I have had the opportunity recently to be very involved with the 

American Chemistry Council’s review of TSCA, and I fully support 

the recommendations that they have put forward. 

DuPont is a diverse, 208-year-old company. We use a wide variety of chemicals to make products for markets that include agriculture, buildings, transportation, electronic goods and consumer 

products. We believe it is time to update TSCA. 

Now, this is a shift in the position that industry has taken over 

the past several years, and there are a few reasons for that change. 

I bring these reasons to the Committee because they really have 

started to shape how industry feels about TSCA reform. 

First of all, there is a growing awareness in the public, as you 

mentioned, Mr. Chairman, about the exposure to chemicals 

through products. That concern is being felt in the marketplace as 

consumers exercise their own buying decisions. 

Second, chemical regulation is rapidly moving across the globe to 

countries including China and Canada and the European Union. 

Some of these regulatory schemes are imposing significant administrative burdens on companies. They will soon result in the generation of substantial amounts of data and risk management decisions 

that will have global impacts. 

We should not cede to the European Union or China or any other 

country the responsibility to set global chemical policy. The U.S. 

should lead on sensible, risk based and cost effective environmental 

policymaking. 

Third, in the absence of reforms to TSCA we are seeing evolving 

State programs and chemical-specific actions that are quite honestly creating a lot of uncertainty in our marketplace. As with 

every environmental legislation, I am sure we will have a big debate over preemption. But I think we all know that if there is a 

strong, Federal regulatory review of chemicals, the kind that will 

build confidence in the public, there will be much less incentive for 

the States to act in this important area. 

In a reauthorized TSCA we need a regulatory program that provides greater public and market confidence in the safety of our 

chemicals with more timely, predictable and transparent decisions 

by EPA. Modernizing TSCA will be difficult and complex. It is important that we get it right with a deliberative stakeholder process. 

And Mr. Chairman, I do want to compliment you and your staff 

for reaching out to those of us in industry and listening to our concerns. 

Let me highlight some of the key elements of modernizing TSCA. 

Data gathering under TSCA is currently cumbersome and time 

consuming. A modernized TSCA should allow EPA to get the data 

they need when they need it. We hope that they would leverage the 

data that we have generated from industry and the data that will 

be generated through the REACH program. Then if there are data 
11 

gaps we would ask that EPA have the authority to collect that authority as quickly as they need to. 

We also would like a statute and regulatory program that minimizes animal testing and again makes data available to the public. 

EPA should be directed, under new language, to systematically 

assess existing chemicals on a prioritized basis to evaluate the 

safety of exposures associated with those uses and to make risk 

based decisions, integrating both hazard and exposure. But what 

should happen after EPA completes its safety assessment? Under 

TSCA section 6, it has proven quite difficult for the agency to address exposures to specific chemicals where it is warranted. EPA 

should have a range of risk management tools that would allow 

them to reduce exposures to appropriate levels in the most cost effective manner. That would include reducing exposures from 

plants, improve manufacturing controls as well as restrictions on 

particular chemical uses. 

In doing so, EPA could reduce unacceptable levels of exposure by 

those actions that are most cost effective and that best preserve the 

beneficial uses of chemicals. 

We hope that Congress will avoid presumptive bans and rigid, 

prescribed legislative phase-outs of chemicals. We think that that 

ignores risk and most importantly, ignores the realities of 

transitioning to new products to receiving needed consumer and 

regulatory approvals and modifying manufacturing facilities to 

bring new chemicals to the market. Such actions could lead to unnecessarily disrupting markets and reducing public access to important products in the marketplace. 

The agency should focus on, again, the most effective ways to reduce exposures and to target areas of concern to the public. Along 

with changes to the PMN program and the CBI provisions of 

TSCA, which I talk about in my testimony, we think these measures would constitute a significant change in how EPA regulates 

chemicals and will build confidence in the public in the safety of 

the products that they use every day. 

I thank you for the opportunity to speak with you this morning. 

Many in industry again recognize the need to reform TSCA. The 

time has come to bring our statutes in the U.S. more on par with 

what is going on in the rest of the world. It will be challenging. It 

is going to be difficult process for both industry and the Government. But we do look forward to working with you as you amend 

the statute and with EPA as they move to implement the program. 

I thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Ms. Fisher follows:] 
12 
13 
14 
15 
16 
17 
18 

Senator LAUTENBERG. Thank you. 

Mr. Williams. 

STATEMENT OF HOWARD WILLIAMS, VICE PRESIDENT, 

CONSTRUCTION SPECIALTIES, INC. 

Mr. WILLIAMS. Thank you, Chairman Lautenberg, Senators, 

staff, Committee. 

I am Howard Williams, Vice President and General Manager of 

Construction Specialties, Pennsylvania division. We are a small 

multi-national. We are about $300 million a year, 1,600 staff across 

the world, operate from 25 sites in 19 countries. So being able to 

compete from all of those sites is very important to us. 

Equally important, too, is that we are in the construction market 

that is 14 percent of our gross domestic product. Within this marketplace, TSCA reform has an opportunity to inform and to enlarge 

the architectural building product market. 

Elimination of persistent and bioaccumulative toxins is at the 

forefront of our built environment purchasing programs, building 

construction programs, for both private as well as what is going on 

within the Government sector. Federally mandated environmental 

preferable purchasing looks at PBTs, as do the LEED green building standards by which most of our Federal buildings, State and 

private buildings are constructed. 

Broad based adoption of these green building standards has resulted in really very well documented and unprecedented benefits 

to the economy, to human health, as well as our environment. The 

same engine, this construction market engine that produced these 

results has an opportunity to greatly benefit human health as we 

go forward with a new chemical program. 

A side note example is that in 2003 Kaiser Permanente, one of 

our very largest customers, came to us and said, if you would like 

to continue to sell product to us—and they are a major customer— 

then you need to develop a product that has no polyvinyl chloride 

in it, or risk losing our business. Within a year’s time, we managed 

to do that. It is a product that the health care product as a whole 

embraced. 

Now here we are 7 years later, we have been able to develop a 

PBT-free product that coincides with where the marketplace is at 

this time. 

So awareness and materials chemistry within the construction 

market are rapidly expanding. For almost every building product 

with perhaps the exception of a two by four, chemistry is involved 

within that building product. The consumer awareness of what is 

going on with chemistry, they are making their decisions of what 

is going on, where they are buying off the shelf. But they really 

don’t have a lot of opportunity to make the decision as to what is 

in the chemistry in their homes or in the hospital rooms or in their 

children’s schools. That chemical effect, or that chemical question, 

is now embedded in a number of building standards, LEED green 

building products, Green Guide for Health Care, the Collaborative 

for High Performance Schools, and Practice Green Health. 

The consensus based programs that answer these questions 

started off looking at off gassing and then made a rapid move to 

looking at, let’s eliminate what is off gassing. They reject some of 
19 

the toxic effects. The best practices that they have developed are 

in harmony with executive orders. They are also in harmony with 

Federal purchasing standards. It is a time of people benefit 

environmentalism, and TSCA reform has an opportunity to weigh 

in very heavily on that. 

Just within the green building product market, the green build- ing product market is about a $10 billion per year marketplace. So 

we do need a clear identification of chemicals of high and low concern. We need—as manufacturers, we need reliability of that information. We need greater disclosure of chemicals of high concern so 

that we can make our product development questions, we can answer them and we can take that information to our specifiers. 

I know that there are, certainly, within everyone’s paths, some 

non-chemical hazards here. From a business standpoint, I think 

easing some of us into reform by giving us an opportunity to disclose things to perhaps a third party that we don’t want to show 

to our competitors. This confidential business information I know 

is at the forefront of a question mark here. But I think the reality 

is, manufacturers need to have that opportunity to either disclose 

it or disclose it to a third party so they can product their information. 

The NGOs that are involved—the NGOs are the voices of those 

of all of us, if we had the time to study and to personalize this information. The NGOs are saying the same things that we would be 

saying: it affects our lives, it affects our children. 

The other part is, as a taxpayer, I would really prefer that, as 

a taxpayer, I not have to pay for this, that it be a part of—we in 

industry have the profit opportunity; we in industry should bear 

the expense and let the consumers make the decisions. 

So reform, again, just making data available to us, identifying 

the chemicals of high concern and low concern, so that we all know 

what is safe and what is good. I would say that the buildings industry is really in a position today to partner with Federal Government and to help make this happen. Standards are being developed 

and emerging every day that work toward this, a high identification and a high level of change. 

So I thank you for inviting me to testify today. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Williams follows:] 
20 
21 
22 
23 
24 
25 
26 
27 

Senator LAUTENBERG. Thank you very much, Mr. Williams. 

Ms. Bosley, we will hear from you, please. 

STATEMENT OF BETH D. BOSLEY, MANAGING DIRECTOR, 

BORON SPECIALTIES 

Ms. BOSLEY. Good morning, Chairman Lautenberg and members 

of the Subcommittee. I am pleased to testify before you today on 

behalf of the Society of Chemical Manufacturers and Affiliates. 

Since 1921 SOCMA has served the batch chemical industry with 

over 300 member companies. Those companies are usually small or 

medium sized businesses. We make a $60 billion impact to the U.S. 

economy, and we contribute to the chemical industry’s position as 

one of the Nation’s largest exporters. 

First, I need to state that no one in the chemical industry wants 

a chemical that they manufacture or produce to cause harm to 

human health or the environment. Our families live in the communities near our plants, and we use the thousands of products that 

are made possible by modern chemistry. 

Chemical innovations benefit many U.S. industries and enhance 

American competitiveness in global markets. Without U.S. based 

innovations, advantages such as lightweight transportation components, low emission paints and detergents that work in cold water 

would not be possible today. Our Nation’s ability to reduce its carbon footprint will also depend heavily on the technology and innovation from a vibrant chemical industry. 

The United States leads chemical innovation and is a leader in 

research and development, improved manufacturing techniques 

and process safety advances that are designed to reduce the impact 

of chemicals on human health and the environment. Our position 

as exporter and innovator is threatened by sharply increased competition from countries with lower resource costs, lower wage 

standards and lax regulations. This is more than an economic 

threat. Losing our manufacturing base to these developing countries does not make the American public safer. We need only read 

the headlines to find examples where foreign manufacturing has 

increased risk to U.S. individuals and decreased public confidence. 

Modernized chemical regulation must take into account American industrial competitiveness not only to avoid losing jobs but 

also so that production is not pushed beyond the reach of U.S. law. 

Many TSCA critics point to REACH legislation as a model for 

TSCA reform in the United States. But REACH is fundamentally 

flawed in that it does not prioritize by risk. Therefore, a low risk 

chemical will be screened with the same priority as a high risk 

chemical in the same volume threshold. 

In contrast, Canada, through its use of a categorization and 

prioritization process, was able to demonstrate that over 80 percent 

of the chemicals in commerce in Canada did not present undue risk 

to human health or the environment. This approach allowed Canada to then systematically assign to the remaining chemical substances a priority for more in depth review. 

Two principles are essential to a sustainable chemical management law that won’t eliminate jobs or deter economic growth. TSCA 

priorities should be established based on risk, and emphasis should 

be placed on existing authority. 
28 

Basing priorities and regulatory criteria on scientific evaluation 

of hazard and exposure factors is critical. If a chemical is highly 

toxic but used only in strictly controlled industrial environments, 

then the risk to public health is readily manageable. 

One mechanism needed first is an inventory reset, which was 

part of EPA’s ChAMP program. Of the over 80,000 chemicals now 

listed on the inventory, EPA estimates that only about 20,000 of 

these are presently in commerce. 

Another TSCA mechanism that has worked is EPA’s New Chemicals program. They have successfully reviewed 35,000 chemicals 

without impeding innovation that is crucial to American competitiveness. Through this program, manufacturers submit pre-manufacture notices, and these chemicals undergo a risk based review 

by EPA. The fact that limited data is available during the PMN 

process can be expected given the early stage of development during which the PMN must be filed. This does not mean that the 

manufacturer has stopped testing, or it is selling products with inadequate health and safety data. 

EPA has pioneered efforts using modeling and Structure Activity 

Relationships to help inform agency decisions. The scientists at 

EPA are extremely knowledgeable, and they make regulatory decisions based on conservative interpretation of their model data. 

Studies show that EPA’s extensive modeling capabilities align 

closely with or are more conservative than measured test data. 

It is important to emphasize that EPA is not limited to existing 

data and models when reviewing new chemicals. They have the authority to require companies submitting PMNs to generate and 

submit specific health data, and they have done so when they felt 

information was needed. 

SOCMA members are proud of our track record in protecting our 

workers and communities. We favor a regulatory model that builds 

on the effective public-private relationship between EPA and industry to assess and manage chemical safety. 

In summary, this model should involve risk based prioritization, 

proven regulatory mechanisms and existing authority. EPA should 

not be burdened with the determination that each chemical is safe 

for its intended use, and above all EPA needs adequate funding. 

The biggest weakness in the TSCA program today is lack of resources, not lack of authority. 

I would like to thank you for the opportunity to discuss this 

pragmatic approach, and I look forward to your questions. 

[The prepared statement of Ms. Bosley follows:] 
29 
30 
31 
32 
33 
34 
35 
36 
37 
38 
39 
40 
41 
42 

Senator LAUTENBERG. Thank you very much, Ms. Bosley. 

Dr. Hawkins, we would like to hear from you now, please. 

STATEMENT OF NEIL C. HAWKINS, SC.D., VICE PRESIDENT, 

EH&S AND SUSTAINABILITY, THE DOW CHEMICAL COMPANY 

Mr. HAWKINS. Thank you. Chairman Lautenberg and members of 

the Subcommittee. 

I am pleased to testify today on an issue that is critically important to the Dow Chemical Company and to me personally, product 

safety. I am responsible for Dow’s product safety programs and 

compliance with chemical product safety laws in the U.S. and 

around the world. 

Dow is a leading global manufacturer of advanced materials. We 

supply customers in over 160 countries. Our diverse chemistry can 

be found in applications that range from food ingredients to electronics to water purification, alternative energy including wind and 

solar, and personal care products. 

As a global company, Dow goes well beyond compliance. Dow’s 

2015 sustainability goals include a progressive product safety leadership goal for which we publicly report our progress. We also have 

product stewardship management systems in place to ensure our 

products are safe for their intended uses. 

Despite our collective efforts key stakeholders seem to lack confidence in the Federal regulatory system. For example, we continue 

to see an uptick in legislative proposals at the State and local level 

to ban specific chemical applications. Often these fixate on chemicals that have been in commerce for decades and are relatively well 

studied. It seems ineffective to take an ad hoc chemical by chemical 

approach to product safety under the assumption that data rich 

chemicals are risky and that alternatives must be safe. 

Contrast that with the approach of other countries which in the 

last few years have required a comprehensive look at all chemicals 

in commerce to determine those uses that deserve special regulatory scrutiny. 

We believe the U.S. law responsible for ensuring the safety of 

chemicals in commerce, TSCA, is in need of reform. We are not 

alone in our view. Dow has worked side by side with members of 

the American Chemistry Council, the value chain and with NGO 

stakeholders to call for modernization of the statute. ACC has developed comprehensive principles for TSCA reform, which we fully 

support. 

First and foremost, we believe the Federal program ought to 

screen all chemicals in commerce to identify those chemicals and 

their uses that should be evaluated against a minimum safety 

standard. This type of screening process would help focus Government resources on priority chemicals and uses believed to pose the 

greatest risk. 

An ideal chemical safety program would base safety decisions on 

the weight of scientific evidence. Research would be judged on the 

basis of scientific merit and quality without regard for funding 

source or where studies were conducted. At Dow, for example, we 

have hundreds of scientists with expert knowledge of the products 

we manufacture. Our analytical tools are considered the best in the 
43 

world, and our toxicology laboratory has been operating for more 

than 70 years, well before testing was required by any government. 

Quality research must be used, and everyone, not just the industry, should be held to common quality standards. 

Finally, reform should not only ensure that chemicals are safe for 

their intended uses, it should also provide incentives for sustainable chemistry—carrots, not just sticks. At Dow sustainable chemistry refers to a cradle to cradle approach—that drives all of us to 

use resources more efficiently and safely and minimize our total 

footprint. It builds on well established principles for green chemistry which are recognized by EPA. 

As we consider changes to TSCA, we should explore incentives 

for sustainable chemistry, such as a collaborative Federal R&D program and development of tools to advance improvements in all aspects of a product’s life cycle. The sustainable solutions for tomorrow are in our laboratories today. Let’s find ways to bring them to 

market sooner through incentives. 

We recognize that it is much easier to agree on general principles 

than specific legislative language, and the details are very important in this case. As Congress takes a hard look at TSCA, multistakeholder dialogue will speed us to meaningful reform. Collaboration is the quickest path to our common goal, a stronger and more 

effective chemicals regulatory program in the United States. 

Thank you for the opportunity to testify today. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Hawkins follows:] 
44 
45 
46 
47 
48 
49 
50 
51 
52 
53 
54 
55 
56 

Senator LAUTENBERG. Thank you very much. 

Mr. Drevna, we welcome your testimony. 

STATEMENT OF CHARLIE DREVNA, PRESIDENT, NATIONAL 

PETROCHEMICAL AND REFINERS ASSOCIATION 

Mr. DREVNA. Thank you and good morning, Chairman Lautenberg. It is really good to see you, sir. And Senators Whitehouse and 

Vitter, thank you for having us here today. 

I am Charlie Drevna, President of NPRA, the National Petrochemical and Refiners Association. We are a national trade association representing virtually all U.S. refiners and the vast majority 

of domestic petrochemical manufacturers, who produce the chemicals that serve as the building blocks for everything from clothing 

and medicine to plastics and computers. 

Again, I appreciate the opportunity to appear before you here 

today. 

NPRA considers the current Federal chemical regulatory framework to be a solid foundation for protection of human health and 

the environment. NPRA also understands the Subcommittee’s and 

others desires to example TSCA implementation and where needed 

consider the modifications to the statute. We support reasonable 

modernization of our Nation’s chemical risk management policies. 

However, we believe that a wholesale rewrite of TSCA is neither 

necessary nor desirable. In support of my views my written statement goes into great detail on a number of these things. Rather 

than simply summarize that information, I would like this morning 

to focus on several items that NPRA supports regarding the modernization of TSCA. 

A strong legislative framework is critical to creating a successful 

chemicals management regulatory program and requires deliberate 

and careful consideration due to the complexity of the issues and 

their broad impacts on all parts of the American economy. To that 

end, NPRA supports an open and transparent process of updating 

our chemical risk management laws so that all stakeholders, including EPA and other relevant Federal officials, NGOs, the affected business community and Members of Congress and their 

staff can work together to update this statute. Only through such 

an open and inclusive dialogue can we be assured that steps toward modernization remain constructive. The end result will be a 

more effective chemicals policy management. 

To ensure that kind of open and inclusive discussion needed to 

make TSCA modernization a success I strongly believe that any 

initial proposal should begin in the form of a discussion draft rather than a formally introduced bill. I fear that premature introduction of legislation may result in political lines being drawn in the 

sand which would ultimately impede meaningful discussion and potentially even negate progress. A discussion draft will enable a constructive dialogue among all stakeholders and allow the best ideas 

and principles to be brought forward. 

NPRA also believes that all stakeholders should have a clear 

idea of what EPA has in terms of information and tools and what 

the agency needs. Although some claim that EPA is not able to effectively collect information on the risk of chemicals, the agency 

has in fact obtained a wealth of valuable chemical hazard and ex-
57 

posure information over the years through its new chemicals program, consent agreements, voluntary programs like the HPV Challenge and data call-ins. The HPV Challenge alone resulted in the 

collection of hazard information for more than 2,100 high production volume chemicals, which represent 95 percent of all chemicals 

in commerce by volume. 

Additionally, NPRA supports a TSCA dialogue focused on risks 

and not just the hazards a chemical may have. Hazards only speak 

to the intrinsic properties of a substance, while risk involves the 

likelihood of a substance to cause harm. As an everyday example 

of this, consider the automobile. By their very nature, cars are hazardous. They are large, heavy objects propelled by a highly flammable fuel. Yet when operated properly and in a safe manner the 

risk posed by automobiles is far outweighed by the benefits provided by modern transportation. 

By the same token while many of the chemicals used to make 

products that enhance and improve our lives may have hazardous 

properties, the risks posed by those substances have been minimized by controls employed by the manufacturing community. 

Finally, as we take steps to modernize our Nation’s chemicals 

management policy care must be taken to ensure that TSCA continues to achieve its overarching goals of protecting human health 

and the environment while at the same time promoting innovation 

and economic growth of the United States. Here, Senator, in your 

opening remarks, we agree 100 percent. NPRA believes that these 

goals are complementary and not mutually exclusive. 

There are also those who would like to see the United States 

adopt a program similar to that approach used in Europe under 

REACH. In reality, REACH is an unproven program that is already so much of a burden that the French government has set 

aside 600,000 Euros to help small businesses deal with it. 

Mr. Chairman and members of the Subcommittee, we are a Nation of innovators. When it comes to crafting sound, effective, responsible chemical risk management policy, we as a Nation can do 

better than REACH. 

Thank you for your time. I look forward to your questions. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Drevna follows:] 
58 
59 
60 
61 
62 
63 
64 
65 
66 
67 
68 
69 
70 
71 
72 
73 
74 
75 
76 
77 
78 
79 
80 
81 

Senator LAUTENBERG. Thank you very much, Mr. Drevna. 

Ms. Gerwig, we look forward to hearing from you. 

STATEMENT OF KATHY GERWIG, VICE PRESIDENT, WORKPLACE SAFETY AND ENVIRONMENTAL STEWARDSHIP OFFICER, KAISER PERMANENTE 

Ms. GERWIG. I would very much like to thank Chairman Lautenberg and members of the Subcommittee for inviting me to testify 

before you today. 

My name is Kathy Gerwig. I am Vice President of Workplace 

Safety and the Environmental Stewardship Officer for Kaiser 

Permanente, the Nation’s largest integrated health care delivery 

system. Our mission is to provide high quality, affordable health 

care services and to improve the health of members that we serve. 

Our commitment to the issues the Subcommittee is exploring today 

is an important and integral part of this mission. 

At Kaiser Permanente we understand that healthy communities 

and a healthy environment are critical to the health and wellness 

of every person. We are dedicated to environmental sustainability 

because it has direct, positive effects on individual and community 

health. Since the organization was founded in 1945, we have 

worked to curb our overall impact on the environment by using 

safer chemicals, building greener hospitals, reducing waste, purchasing locally grown food and using sustainable energy. We believe that through our practices we can promote the creation and 

adoption of safer chemicals and sustainable materials in a way that 

supports a healthy economy, healthy environment and healthy people. 

Kaiser Permanente spends $14 billion annually on products and 

services. Despite this leverage we have experienced limitations in 

achieving our goal of using products and materials that are environmentally sustainable. To address the lack of chemical safety information our procurement and supply staff developed a supplier 

disclosure process that is used for major medical product purchases 

across our entire system. This disclosure is unique because we require information on a product specific basis. The information to be 

disclosed includes whether the product contains heavy metals, halogenated flame retardants, polyvinyl chloride, or PVC, diethylhexyl 

phthalate or DEHP, or ingredients contained on California’s Proposition 65 list of chemicals that cause cancer or reproductive harm. 

We also ask for information on the supplier’s safer alternatives. 

The process requires comprehensive vendor education and aggressive demands for safety and ingredient information. Another challenge we face is that many products that are labeled green are 

made from chemicals without adequate or any safety testing. A 

truly green product is one that is environmentally and biologically 

benign throughout its life cycle. 

Kaiser Permanente was the first health system in the U.S. to 

contract for patient controlled analgesia sets that are totally free 

of PVC and DEHP. This is significant because we purchase the 

equivalent of 18 miles of tubing annually. While the cost of this 

change reflected a savings over our prior contract, it would have 

been even less expensive to buy tubing that was made from PVC 
82 

and DEHP. Balancing pricing with environmental and public 

health considerations is always a challenge. 

To address chemicals found in fabrics, we created a sustainable 

fabric alliance program to embed environmental considerations into 

choosing fabric and fabric vendors. The considerable time and resources committed to this work was justified because there was no 

other way for us to ensure that our fabrics were free of chemicals 

of concern. 

We also support safer chemicals through research. Our division 

of research conducted the first study to look at the effect of high 

levels of workplace exposure to bisphenol-A, or BPA, on the male 

reproductive system in humans. This recent study adds to the body 

of evidence questioning the safety of BPA, a chemical used in the 

production of polycarbonate plastics and epoxy resins found in baby 

bottles, plastic containers, the lining of cans used for food and beverages, and in dental sealants. Kaiser Permanente purchases baby 

bottles that are free of BPA, and we continue to push for safer alternatives to products that contain BPA. 

As we strive to advance an economy where the production and 

use of chemicals are not harmful for humans and the environment 

Kaiser Permanente invests significant time and resources. That degree of investment is simply not feasible for most products and materials we buy, nor is it possible for most organizations that don’t 

have the resources and skills that we have developed over the decades. Mechanisms are needed to support downstream users in procuring the safest products and materials for our needs. 

Mr. Chairman and distinguished members of the Committee, 

thank you for the invitation to testify here today. I look forward 

to answering any questions you may have. 

[The prepared statement of Ms. Gerwig follows:] 
83 
84 
85 
86 
87 

Senator LAUTENBERG. Thank you very much, Ms. Gerwig. 

I want to say that your testimony, the testimony from each one 

of you was worth hearing. I assure you, we listened carefully. 

I also want to say if I was to play the role of the school teacher, 

the class was excellent; timing was wonderful. You did a great job 

in meeting the rigid standards of our time requirements. 

Ms. Fisher, in our oversight hearings, two main problems have 

arisen over and over. First, that EPA cannot get all of the data it 

needs on chemical safety, and second, EPA cannot adequately regulate risks from chemicals. Are you in agreement that EPA should 

be able to acquire more safety data on chemicals and restrict the 

use of high risk chemicals? 

Ms. FISHER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I think the way TSCA 

is currently drafted it requires a lot of process and rulemaking for 

EPA to gather the data it might need to assess chemicals. Similarly, when the agency moves to take risk management decisions 

the tools are there but the way they are currently drafted, they become very time consuming. I think that has led to the frustration 

that the public feels and sometimes, quite honestly, industry feels, 

in getting them to make a decision. 

Senator LAUTENBERG. Under current law, EPA bears the burden 

of proving that a chemical is unreasonably dangerous before the 

agency can restrict it to protect public health. Even EPA’s effort to 

ban asbestos failed to meet this heavy burden. Should the chemical 

companies have the responsibility to prove that their products are 

safe before us, Ms. Fisher? 

Ms. FISHER. Absolutely. I think the industry should have the 

burden to show that the products they are bringing to the market 

are safe. 

Senator LAUTENBERG. Dr. Hawkins, how do you feel about that? 

Mr. HAWKINS. I think the burden of proof should rest with the 

private sector, with industry. So that I definitely agree with. 

But I do also believe that EPA needs to have the authority and 

power when there is a use of a chemical that they believe creates 

risk that needs to be regulated and stopped that they have the authority to act. And so it is really two-pronged. We have the responsibility to provide the information and the substantiation of the 

safety. But we do need decisions on the tail end as well. 

Senator LAUTENBERG. The one thing that I gleaned from the testimony overall is to be careful about the way a TSCA reform should 

be developed. I assure you that casual carelessness is not the place 

we want to be. Sound science, we want that to be the top indicator 

as to what it is we should proceed with. 

So the cautionary notes that we get, I hear those as well. But 

I assure you that we don’t want to produce a product that is just 

a product. We want to produce a product that has value. We want 

to produce a product that will prevent lots of diseases that children 

seem to be acquiring, whether it is cancer, neuro-behavioral, asthma, et cetera. We know that there is a significant influence on materials in human development. We want to make sure we do whatever we can to protect our children, including my 10 grandchildren 

and everybody else’s grandchildren across this country. 

Ms. Gerwig, because the Government is not adequately reviewing 

the safety of chemicals your company has spent an enormous 
88 

amount of money trying to ensure that you are not exposing patients to dangerous chemicals. I note that the material in gloves 

was changed. I wasn’t aware of that. It sounds simple when you 

have done the right thing, I must say. 

Would requiring chemicals to be reviewed by EPA scientists reduce costs and do you think improve profitability for companies 

like yours? 

Ms. GERWIG. Shifting the burden away from downstream users, 

such as us, and pushing it toward the EPA and toward chemical 

manufacturers would certainly allow us to allocate our resources to 

providing health care as opposed to looking at the substances that 

are in the products that we use. 

Senator LAUTENBERG. Ms. Fisher, I am not picking on you, but 

we do want to hear from you further. Chemicals that we call PBTs 

buildup in our bodies, fail to break down over time and are known 

to be toxic. Other governments have taken action to restrict most 

uses of these PBTs without putting these chemicals through a traditional risk assessment process. Should we provide a way to reduce the use of PBTs quickly, without waiting for the risk assessment process to run the course? Are they so dangerous? 

Ms. FISHER. First of all, Mr. Chairman, EPA has done a lot to 

regulate many of the PBTs that have historically been in commerce 

under a number of different statutes. I think that we have to be 

careful how we construct TSCA. You want EPA to make prompt decisions based on good science. But to make the proper risk management decisions they are going to have to understand where the exposures are coming from. 

We really do want them to comment on where people are being 

most exposed. So they need to have enough information to make 

those calls. 

Senator LAUTENBERG. Thank you. 

Senator Whitehouse, you have acquired 7 minutes’ worth of time 

to balance our discussion here. 

Senator WHITEHOUSE. Thank you. 

I thank all the witnesses for their testimony. I was particularly 

struck by the testimony of the representatives from DuPont and 

Dow, the great chemical companies of our country, who both said, 

Ms. Fisher from DuPont, the time to modernize TSCA has come, 

and Dr. Hawkins for Dow, Congress should reform TSCA; there is 

an emerging consensus that reform is necessary. So I think that 

puts us in a good position to move forward. 

I have a number of questions. The first has to do with protections 

from foreign competition. Whenever heightened environmental and 

safety standards are proposed for American companies, we very 

often hear back that, well, we really shouldn’t do that because it 

puts us at a competitive disadvantage with other countries. 

I would rather solve that problem with protections at the border 

to make sure that harmful products are not imported to our country than I would by continuing to allow American industry to make 

unsafe products in a sort of international race to the bottom of 

product safety. I would love to have your advice, and I would be 

delighted to take this as a question for the record, if you wanted 

to have a moment to think about it, and to write down what your 

specific recommendations would be, what we should be doing to as-
89 

sure that our products that are imported meet our safety standards. 

In that context, I would also like to ask each of you—each of your 

organizations, anyway—to take a look at the Foreign Manufacturers Legal Accountability Act, which is a bipartisan piece of legislation proposed by me and Senator Sessions of Alabama, that would 

require foreign competitors of American companies that import 

their products into our country to do something as simple as to file 

an agent for service of process so that as one of the witnesses mentioned—I think it was you, Ms. Bosley—when the sulfide contaminated wall board or the lead painted toys come into our country, 

and somebody is injured as a result, they can find relief and a remedy from the importing company. 

We had an Alabama contractor here reporting that to protect his 

own reputation he had to make good on the sulfide damage that 

was caused by the Chinese defective sulfide contaminated wall 

board. But there was no way he could find anybody to get any compensation from. In many cases there are very arcane laws; you 

have to translate the complaint into the foreign nation’s language. 

We should require a simple agent for service of process here. We 

do it for American corporations; we should require it for foreign 

corporations. 

If there are other steps you think we should take, I would be 

very interested in those. I think it really is important that we not 

allow international competition to degrade into a race to the bottom 

of safety. 

Ms. Gerwig, thank you for what Kaiser is doing. I hope that we 

can use the Kaiser process as a benchmark for where TSCA could 

and should go. Clearly, a great number of the chemicals that you 

require notification of through your supplier disclosure process are 

ones that are not presently restricted through EPA’s chemical analysis review, correct? 

Ms. GERWIG. Correct. 

Senator WHITEHOUSE. So you are ahead of them. And you have 

based your decisions, presumably, on sound science, correct? 

Ms. GERWIG. Sound science, credible evidence that is available to 

us that shows their connections between those chemicals and disease. 

Senator WHITEHOUSE. And in particular, thank you for your 

work on latex gloves. You mentioned that in your testimony. As 

somebody who has seen a child standing outside of an emergency 

room bleeding in the rain because they had not yet cleared a latexsafe pathway for that child through the emergency room, I think 

for families who have latex sensitivity around the country, that 

was a wonderful thing for you to help lead on. 

Ms. Bosley, you said in your testimony something that I was interested to read. I just want to highlight it. Let me know if it is 

in fact what you meant. ‘‘Because of the vast number of chemicals 

and applications we do not think that EPA should be burdened 

with a determination that each chemical is safe for its intended 

use.’’ Did you really mean to say that? 

Ms. BOSLEY. I do. I believe that industry should be responsible 

for knowing the uses. EPA should certainly provide the regulatory 

authority and the guidance and the oversight. But it is industry 
90 

who should determine whether a chemical is safe for its intended 

use. 

Senator WHITEHOUSE. We should rely on the manufacturer to determine the safety of the product? How well did that work out with 

tobacco? How well did that work out with lead? 

Ms. BOSLEY. There are certainly chemicals that are due for more 

scrutiny than are industrial chemicals. I think that is where the 

risk prioritization comes into play. If you have a chemical that has 

a very high risk potential EPA can take more time and do much 

more due diligence on the safety of that chemical for its intended 

use. 

But for the vast majority of industrial chemicals that are used 

in a strict industrial environment, that level of authority would not 

be necessary. I think it would just seize up EPA, frankly. 

Senator WHITEHOUSE. I am a little bit surprised. I assumed that 

there was, I don’t know, some mistake here. Because there are so 

many chemicals, we don’t think EPA should be responsible for determining whether a chemical is safe for—isn’t that the purpose of 

environmental regulation, is to assure that a chemical is safe for 

its intended use? 

Ms. BOSLEY. That is the purpose of things like FDA, certainly for 

food, and for food contact items and for drugs. It is the position of 

EPA through its program for pesticides. That universe of chemicals 

is much smaller. And once again the risk is much higher. These are 

chemicals that are meant to be ingested, that are meant to be injected and the risk for human exposure is much higher. 

If you consider a chemical that is used to manufacture, perhaps 

a certain industrial polymer that will never be used in a consumer 

product, that type of use is where the vast majority of industrial 

chemicals are. 

Senator WHITEHOUSE. So to put a limiter on that sentence, we 

do not think that EPA should be burdened with the determination 

that each chemical is safe for its intended use, where its use is not 

intended to expose that chemical to the public, is really what you 

mean to say? 

Ms. BOSLEY. That is right. It is all about that risk prioritization 

and risk determination. That is—looking at the hazard of the 

chemical in association with its exposure potential. 

Senator WHITEHOUSE. In terms of a reasonable new chemicals 

fee that would go to EPA to support this, do you have a proposal 

in mind on that or any vehicle that would actually assure that 

those funds ended up at EPA? 

Ms. BOSLEY. At this point, I think the PMN fee, the pre-manufacture notice fee is $2,500. It goes to the Treasury, not EPA. That 

is, I think, a fundamental flaw in the situation. There are certainly 

other fees that EPA could assess. I know confidential business information is a difficult premise for EPA to maintain. It is very burdensome for EPA to maintain confidential business information. 

Perhaps they would like to charge for that service. 

Senator WHITEHOUSE. My time has expired, Chairman. 

Senator LAUTENBERG. If you have another question, we have 

time. I have a couple. 

Senator WHITEHOUSE. Let me just ask one more about the question of the confidential business information. There has been a lot 
91 

of static about that. I am told that 16,000 chemicals in the TSCA 

inventory are classified as confidential business information, which 

has the effect of restricting information on the toxicity of those 

chemicals even with State and local public health officials, which 

really doesn’t seem to make a lot of sense. Clearly, if somebody 

wished to stall and create additional cost and bureaucratic burden 

on the regulator there is a strong incentive to upgrade the confidential business information claim and make that a point of dispute. 

Is anybody comfortable with the confidential business information standard as it presently exists, and what suggestion do you 

have for repairing it so that it more prudently reflects chemical 

risks and the access for particularly State and local public health 

officials to that information? 

Ms. BOSLEY. The public face of any chemical is really its material 

safety data sheet. Those are public documents that are available on 

most manufacturers’ Web sites; if not on their Web sites then certainly from a call to the manufacturer. That toxicity data is not 

confidential with respect to OSHA. It is on every material safety 

data sheet. The entire study is certainly not there; it would be too 

cumbersome to put it there. But the results of that study are there; 

all available toxicity data is required by OSHA to be public information. That information is available to anybody who would like it. 

Senator WHITEHOUSE. So it is your position that no further disclosure of confidential business information, no change in that process at EPA is justified at this stage? 

Ms. BOSLEY. No. As I said, I think it is extraordinarily burdensome for EPA to maintain confidential business information. I 

think it is important that they do where it is necessary. But I 

think, for instance, that there may be a sunsetting of confidential 

business information that would be appropriate. 

Senator WHITEHOUSE. So you don’t think the where it is necessary the line is being drawn correctly at the moment, that needs 

to be adjusted? 

Ms. BOSLEY. That is correct. 

Senator WHITEHOUSE. You had your hand up? Same answer. 

Very good. 

Senator LAUTENBERG. Thanks very much, Senator Whitehouse. 

I just have a couple of things here. Dr. Hawkins, new techniques 

for testing chemicals are being developed so that scientists can obtain faster and more accurate results without relying on animal 

testing. These techniques will also be far less expensive than existing animal testing. How will these techniques affect the volume 

and the quality of safety data that you can provide to EPA? 

Mr. HAWKINS. Actually, we are very excited and test and prototype many of these advanced approaches you are describing as well 

as other approaches like structure activity relationships and looking at mechanisms of how chemicals work. But it is very important 

that you brought that up because this whole issue of animal welfare is very important. We work with many stakeholders from the 

animal welfare community relative to our tox lab. 

So as TSCA is reformed we need to be careful that we are only 

calling for tests with animals that uniquely need to be done with 

animals. At the same time we need to make sure that the non-ani-
92 

mal testing yields valuable information and are validated. We work 

on that with suppliers and are aggressively pursuing those. 

Senator LAUTENBERG. You mentioned also, Dr. Hawkins, in your 

testimony that American companies should not be disadvantaged 

by competition from outside the country. Is there a disadvantage 

now to American companies as a result of our lack of testing or 

verification of the quality and safety of the products? 

Mr. HAWKINS. I think we are heading into a period here with 

REACH being implemented. That is still an experiment. It is a big 

experiment. But it is ongoing. As to how that might change the 

global chemical marketplace, American chemical industry and related industries are big exporters. So as you get into these elaborate regulatory systems in a place like Europe or Canada or elsewhere I think there is a potential for us being disadvantaged if our 

system is not cognizant of the receiving end. We are big exporters, 

all of us. So we need to be cognizant of that. 

Senator LAUTENBERG. Mr. Williams, current law allows chemical 

makers to hide health and safety data from the public and companies like yours by making broad claims of confidential business information. How would limiting these claims to legitimate business 

secrets help companies like yours? 

Mr. WILLIAMS. It is a great question, because I have a good example. We use McDonough Braungart Design Chemistry, cradle to 

cradle certifications. We have particular material, an adhesive, that 

is used in our products. We approached the adhesives manufacturer and said, we want to know what is in there. And they absolutely refused. We offered a non-disclosure agreement, no, we are 

not going to give it. 

They did sign a non-disclosure agreement with McDonough 

Braungart Design Chemistry, because they were willing to reveal 

to someone that wasn’t about to—they thought we were going to 

copy their material, they thought we were going to give their information to someone else and create a competitor against them. So 

I think the need for businesses to be able to disclose, in perhaps 

a safe environment, is highly important. 

But we need to know that information. We absolutely must have 

that information in order to make the environmental and health 

claims that we make. We have gone through businesses that have 

required us to sign non-disclosure agreements before we get in the 

door, and they have all said, what we do here is confidential; no 

one else does it; it is proprietary. Well, we have walked through 43 

other businesses that are doing the very same thing. 

Some of our proprietary claims in business are as much in our 

own thinking and our own pride in authorship, and then there are 

the real ones that are relative to simply not wanting to tell our 

competitors what we are doing. So I believe reform needs to take 

that into consideration because various manufacturers think they 

are going to need to be eased across that threshold and understand 

that doing this is very important. It is essential. And yet doing it 

in a safe way of protecting that competitive information, there has 

to be a means of doing that. 

Senator LAUTENBERG. Thank you. Thank you all, each of you, for 

your testimony. 
93 

What we are discussing here today is essential to at least warrant to the public that we are trying to do whatever we can to protect them. The anxiety that now accompanies pregnancy is quite a 

different condition than some time ago when we counted fingers 

and toes and things of that nature and said, OK, there is a healthy 

baby. And we must do whatever we can to assure those who would 

bear children, to assure those children’s development, that we have 

done everything possible. We know there is a presence of materials 

in almost everybody across our Nation. We must do whatever can 

to protect that development of that child, to protect the health and 

well-being of people across our country. 

There is no secret that things like diabetes and asthma have 

shown growth. And I am not suggesting here that it is a chemical 

product. But nor can we say that no, and I think Senator 

Whitehouse’s commentary about the things that have been left over 

the years to industry, and I salute the industry, I think it is a 

wholesome, necessary industry in our society, the chemical industry. But when we talk about things like asbestos and the kinds of 

fights that we had to establish the fact that asbestos is so lethal. 

And we saw it in the State of New Jersey, where we have a huge 

industrial presence. 

So my thanks to each one of you. This hearing is concluded. It 

is of great value to us in trying to develop a process, a way to get 

things done without enough of a benefit to add some more burden 

to the business of doing business. Thank you all. 

[Whereupon, at 11:13 a.m., the Subcommittee was adjourned.] 

[An additional statement submitted for the record follows:] 

STATEMENT OF HON. JAMES M. INHOFE, 

U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF OKLAHOMA

Chairman Lautenberg, I am very pleased to see you here today and am glad to 

know you are feeling well. 

As we consider legislation aimed at modernizing the Toxic Substances Control Act 

(TSCA), Congress must avoid creating new burdens that hurt consumers and the 

economy. This principle is especially important today as the economy continues to 

struggle and unemployment remains near 10 percent. So, thank you for having this 

hearing, Mr. Chairman. It is critical that we listen to private sector concerns and 

consider ideas from the business community. I’d like to request that the written 

statement of the American Chemical Council be entered into the record. 

TSCA regulates thousands of basic chemicals and compounds—chemicals that are 

the foundation of our way of life and on which our economy, health and welfare depend. I believe that TSCA is a fundamentally sound statute. But it is 30 years old, 

and the science of chemical risk assessment has evolved. As you’ve heard me say 

before, I am open to the idea of modernizing the Act. 

The chemical industry has set out principles for reform. And in previous hearings 

I also laid out principles. Let me say this again: in order for me to accept changes 

to TSCA, the revisions must be based on risk assessment using the best available 

science, must include cost-benefit considerations, must protect proprietary information, and must prioritize reviews for existing chemicals. 

I have high expectations that the perspectives we hear today will focus on sound 

science, risk based decisionmaking and prioritization of review. Let it be known, 

however, that I do not want to hear suggestions that create artificial advantages 

favoring one sector over another—in other words, please do not give us ideas that 

create an uneven playing field among companies or products or cause economic 

harm to consumers. 

I look forward to hearing from the witnesses on their productive and constructive 

ideas for reforming TSCA. Welcome to the Committee. 

[The referenced statement follows:] 
94 
95 
96 
97 
98 
99 
100 

[Additional material submitted for the record follows:] 
101 
102 
103 
104 
105 
106 

Æ