U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

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

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

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

87–628 PDF 2014

S. 1009, THE CHEMICAL SAFETY IMPROVEMENT 

ACT 

HEARING 

BEFORE THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON ENVIRONMENT AND THE 

ECONOMY 

COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND 

COMMERCE 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

ONE HUNDRED THIRTEENTH CONGRESS 

FIRST SESSION 

NOVEMBER 13, 2013 

Serial No. 113–92 

( 

Printed for the use of the Committee on Energy and Commerce 

energycommerce.house.gov 

COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND COMMERCE 

FRED UPTON, Michigan 

Chairman 

RALPH M. HALL, Texas 

JOE BARTON, Texas 

Chairman Emeritus 

ED WHITFIELD, Kentucky 

JOHN SHIMKUS, Illinois 

JOSEPH R. PITTS, Pennsylvania 

GREG WALDEN, Oregon 

LEE TERRY, Nebraska 

MIKE ROGERS, Michigan 

TIM MURPHY, Pennsylvania 

MICHAEL C. BURGESS, Texas 

MARSHA BLACKBURN, Tennessee 

Vice Chairman 

PHIL GINGREY, Georgia 

STEVE SCALISE, Louisiana 

ROBERT E. LATTA, Ohio 

CATHY MCMORRIS RODGERS, Washington 

GREGG HARPER, Mississippi 

LEONARD LANCE, New Jersey 

BILL CASSIDY, Louisiana 

BRETT GUTHRIE, Kentucky 

PETE OLSON, Texas 

DAVID B. MCKINLEY, West Virginia 

CORY GARDNER, Colorado 

MIKE POMPEO, Kansas 

ADAM KINZINGER, Illinois 

H. MORGAN GRIFFITH, Virginia 

GUS M. BILIRAKIS, Florida 

BILL JOHNSON, Ohio 

BILLY LONG, Missouri 

RENEE L. ELLMERS, North Carolina 

HENRY A. WAXMAN, California 

Ranking Member 

JOHN D. DINGELL, Michigan 

FRANK PALLONE, JR., New Jersey 

BOBBY L. RUSH, Illinois 

ANNA G. ESHOO, California 

ELIOT L. ENGEL, New York 

GENE GREEN, Texas 

DIANA DEGETTE, Colorado 

LOIS CAPPS, California 

MICHAEL F. DOYLE, Pennsylvania 

JANICE D. SCHAKOWSKY, Illinois 

JIM MATHESON, Utah 

G.K. BUTTERFIELD, North Carolina 

JOHN BARROW, Georgia 

DORIS O. MATSUI, California 

DONNA M. CHRISTENSEN, Virgin Islands 

KATHY CASTOR, Florida 

JOHN P. SARBANES, Maryland 

JERRY MCNERNEY, California 

BRUCE L. BRALEY, Iowa 

PETER WELCH, Vermont 

BEN RAY LUJAN, New Mexico 

PAUL TONKO, New York 

JOHN A. YARMUTH, Kentucky 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON ENVIRONMENT AND THE ECONOMY

JOHN SHIMKUS, Illinois 

Chairman 

PHIL GINGREY, Georgia 

Vice Chairman 

RALPH M. HALL, Texas 

ED WHITFIELD, Kentucky 

JOSEPH R. PITTS, Pennsylvania 

TIM MURPHY, Pennsylvania 

ROBERT E. LATTA, Ohio 

GREGG HARPER, Mississippi 

BILL CASSIDY, Louisiana 

DAVID B. MCKINLEY, West Virginia 

GUS M. BILIRAKIS, Florida 

BILL JOHNSON, Ohio 

JOE BARTON, Texas 

FRED UPTON, Michigan (ex officio) 

PAUL TONKO, New York 

Ranking Member 

FRANK PALLONE, JR., New Jersey 

GENE GREEN, Texas 

DIANA DEGETTE, Colorado 

LOIS CAPPS, California 

JERRY MCNERNEY, California 

JOHN D. DINGELL, Michigan 

JANICE D. SCHAKOWSKY, Illinois 

JOHN BARROW, Georgia 

DORIS O. MATSUI, California 

HENRY A. WAXMAN, California (ex officio) 

(II) 

(III) 

C O N T E N T S 

Page 

Hon. John Shimkus, a Representative in Congress from the State of Illinois, 

opening statement ................................................................................................ 1 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 2 

Hon. Paul Tonko, a Representative in Congress from the State of New York, 

opening statement ................................................................................................ 3 

Hon. John D. Dingell, a Representative in Congress from the State of Michigan, opening statement ....................................................................................... 5 

Hon. Fred Upton, a Representative in Congress from the State of Michigan, 

prepared statement .............................................................................................. 134 

Hon. Henry A. Waxman, a Representative in Congress from the State of 

California, prepared statement ........................................................................... 135 

WITNESSES

Hon. David Vitter, a United States Senator from the State of Louisiana 1 ........ 8 

Hon. Tom Udall, a United States Senator from the State of New Mexico 1 ....... 9 

James Jones, Assistant Administrator, Office of Chemical Safety and Pollution Prevention, Environmental Protection Agency .......................................... 11 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 14 

Answers to submitted questions ...................................................................... 190 

Cal Dooley, President and Chief Executive Officer, American Chemistry 

Council .................................................................................................................. 46 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 49 

Answers to submitted questions ...................................................................... 194 

Ernest Rosenberg, President and Chief Executive Officer, American Cleaning 

Institute ................................................................................................................ 54 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 56 

Richard A. Denison, Senior Scientist, Environmental Defense Fund ................. 67 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 69 

Answers to submitted questions ...................................................................... 198 

Dean C. Garfield, President and Chief Executive Officer, Information Technology Industry Council ....................................................................................... 84 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 86 

Andy Igrejas, Director, Safer Chemicals, Healthy Families ................................ 93 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 96 

Answers to submitted questions 2 ................................................................... 204 

Wendy E. Wagner, Joe A. Worsham Centennial Professor, University of Texas 

Law School ............................................................................................................ 103 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 105 

Answers to submitted questions ...................................................................... 205 

SUBMITTED MATERIAL

Letter of October 23, 2007, from Frances G. Beinecke, President, Natural 

Resources Defense Council, et al., to Mr. Dingell, submitted by Mr. Dingell . 6 

Letter of June 25, 2013, from Matthew Rodriguez, Secretary for Environmental Protection, California Environmental Protection Agency, to Senator 

Dianne Feinstein, et al., submitted by Mr. Shimkus ........................................ 137 

Letter of November 13, 2013, from Jeanne Rizzo, President and Chief Executive Officer, Breast Cancer Fund, to Mr. Shimkus and Mr. Tonko, submitted by Mr. Shimkus ........................................................................................ 150 

1Mr. Vitter and Mr. Udall did not submit written statements for the record. 

2Mr. Igrejas did not answer submitted questions for the record by the time of printing. 

Page

IV 

Letter of July 24, 2013, from National Conference of State Legislatures cochairs to Senator Barbara Boxer and Senator David Vitter, submitted by 

Mr. Shimkus ......................................................................................................... 155 

Letter of November 12, 2013, from Rainer Lohmann, Graduate School of 

Oceanography, University of Rhode Island, et al., to Mr. Upton and Mr. 

Waxman, submitted by Mr. Shimkus ................................................................. 161 

Letter of June 12, 2013, from John S. Applegate, Walter W. Foskett Professor 

of Law, Indiana University Maurer School of Law, et al., to Mr. Shimkus 

and Mr. Tonko, submitted by Mr. Shimkus ....................................................... 169 

Letter of November 12, 2013, from Debra Baseman, Princeton Medical Group, 

et al., to Mr. Upton and Mr. Waxman, submitted by Mr. Shimkus ................ 186 

(1) 

S. 1009, THE CHEMICAL SAFETY 

IMPROVEMENT ACT 

WEDNESDAY, NOVEMBER 13, 2013 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, SUBCOMMITTEE ON ENVIRONMENT AND THE ECONOMY, COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND COMMERCE, Washington, DC. 

The subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 10:18 a.m., in room 

2123 of the Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. John Shimkus 

(chairman of the subcommittee) presiding. 

Members present: Representatives Shimkus, Gingrey, Pitts, Murphy, Latta, Cassidy, McKinley, Bilirakis, Johnson, Tonko, Pallone, 

Green, DeGette, Capps, McNerney, Dingell, Barrow, and Waxman 

(ex officio). 

Staff present: Nick Abraham, Legislative Clerk; Charlotte Baker, 

Press Secretary; Jerry Couri, Senior Environmental Policy Advisor; 

Brad Grantz, Policy Coordinator, Oversight and Investigations; 

David McCarthy, Chief Counsel, Environment and the Economy; 

Brandon Mooney, Professional Staff Member; Andrew Powaleny, 

Deputy Press Secretary; Chris Sarley, Policy Coordinator, Environment and the Economy; Jacqueline Cohen, Democratic Senior 

Counsel; Greg Dotson, Democratic Staff Director, Energy and Environment; and Caitlin Haberman, Democratic Policy Analyst. 

Mr. SHIMKUS. I would like to call the hearing to order. 

We want to welcome our two Senators. First, I will do—we will 

do our opening statements, and then we will give you yours and 

then—and we will begin. I recognize myself for 5 minutes. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. JOHN SHIMKUS, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF ILLINOIS 

Today we hold our fourth hearing of 2013 on the Toxic Substance 

Control Act. We welcome our witnesses, including a couple of 

former House guys; Senator Vitter and Senator Udall, as well as 

Jim Jones, Assistant Administrator of the EPA, and some of the 

important stakeholders in this discussion. 

Until more recently, TSCA was one of the least understood Federal environmental laws, but it is one of the most important environmental protections laws that we have. It governs chemical substances, mixtures and articles from the time they are invented, all 

the way through the stream of commerce. 

Our hearings have been very instructive. They have given us a 

chance to dig into the nuts and bolts of this complex body of law. 

Among other aspects of the law, we studied approval of new chemicals, regulation of existing chemicals, protection of confidential 

2 

business information, and the value of a seamless integrated U.S. 

market for chemicals and products that contain them. We have gotten the perspective of learned experts in the practice of TSCA law, 

former EP officials experienced in what works and what doesn’t 

work in the law’s administration, State environmental control officials, downstream product manufacturers, and citizen activists. 

As we will hear firsthand in just a few minutes, a lot of thought 

and hard work has also gone into TSCA on the other side of the 

Capitol. Earlier this year, Senator Vitter and the late Senator 

Frank Lautenberg, with strong bipartisan support, introduced Senate Bill 1009, the Chemical Safety Improvement Act. Its reform, if 

enacted, will represent the most sweeping set of changes to TSCA 

since the Ford administration. 

We are eager to learn what aspects of this proposal brought such 

a diverse set of supporters together. We hope this administration 

and our panel will tell us what they see as the best attributes of 

the legislation. We also hope to entertain suggestions on how to 

make it better. 

Writing legislation as complex and as important as modernizing 

TSCA is not easy, but implementing it may be even tougher. Congress can give EPA both the authority and direction to carry out 

everything in a new TSCA, but we just can’t assume that the Agency has the resources to accomplish all of it, nor that they will get 

it done in a short period of time of enactment. That is why we need 

some guidance from Jim Jones, who manages the chemical regulation for the EPA. Mr. Jones, we hope your help won’t end with today’s hearing. The same goes for stakeholders, and not only the 

ones we will hear from today. We need your help in understanding 

the real world implications of any legislation we might consider. No 

one, whether on this side of the dais or on the witness table, has 

all the answers, but that doesn’t mean we don’t need you to give 

us all of your input. 

And, finally, thanks to all the members of the subcommittee for 

your thoughtful work this year on TSCA. Have you noticed that our 

hearings have not been debates across the aisle, but rather nonpartisan efforts to understand the current law? At times, I have 

learned as much from questions from Mr. Tonko or Ms. DeGette, 

and the answers witnesses give them, as I have from my own brilliant questions that I have offered. 

Let us continue to embrace that same spirit as we begin to explore whether we can make Federal chemical management policy 

better, and allow the United States to lead the global—the globe 

in manufacturing smarter public health protection and innovation. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Shimkus follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF HON. JOHN SHIMKUS

Today we hold our fourth hearing of 2013 on the Toxic Substances Control Act. 

We welcome our witnesses, including a couple of former House guys, Senators Vitter 

and Udall, as well as Jim Jones, Assistant Administrator of EPA, and some of the 

important stakeholders in this discussion. 

Until more recently, TSCA was one of the least understood Federal environmental 

laws, but it is one of our most important environmental protection laws. It governs 

chemical substances, mixtures, and articles from the time they are invented all the 

way through the stream of commerce. Our hearings have been very instructive. 

3 

They’ve given us a chance to dig into the nuts and bolts of this complex body of 

law. 

Among the aspects of the law, we’ve studied: 

• Approval of new chemicals, 

• Regulation of existing chemicals, 

• Protection of confidential business information, and 

• The value of seamless, integrated U.S. market for chemicals and products that 

contain them. 

We’ve gotten the perspective of: 

• Experts in the practice of TSCA law; 

• Former EPA officials experienced in what works and what doesn’t work in the 

law’s administration; 

• State environmental control officials; 

• Downstream product manufacturers; and 

• Citizen activists. 

As we’ll hear first-hand in just a few minutes, a lot of thought and hard work 

has also gone into TSCA on the other side of the Capitol. Earlier this year Senator 

Vitter and late-Senator Frank Lautenberg with strong bipartisan support introduced S. 1009, the Chemical Safety Improvement Act. Its reforms, if enacted, would 

represent the most sweeping set of changes to TSCA since the Ford administration. 

We’re eager to learn what about this proposal brought such a diverse set of supporters together. We hope the administration and our stakeholder panel will tell us 

what they see as the best attributes of the legislation. We’re also open to suggestions on how to make it better. 

Writing legislation as complex and as important as modernizing TSCA is not easy. 

But implementing it may be even tougher. Congress can give EPA both the authority and direction to carry out everything in a new TSCA, but we can’t just assume 

that the agency has the resources to accomplish all of it, nor that they’ll get it all 

done in a short period of time after enactment. 

That’s why we need some guidance from Jim Jones who manages chemical regulation for EPA. And, Mr. Jones, we hope your help won’t end with today’s hearing. 

The same goes for stakeholders, and not only the ones we’ll hear from today. We 

need your help in understanding the real-world implications of any legislation we 

might consider. No one, whether on this side of the dais or at the witness table, 

has all the answers, but that does not mean we don’t need you to give us all of your 

input. 

And, finally, thanks to all the members of this subcommittee for your thoughtful 

work this year on TSCA. Have you noticed that our hearings have not been debates 

across the aisle, but rather non-partisan efforts to understand current law? At times 

I’ve learned as much from questions by Mr. Tonko or Mrs. DeGette, and the answers witnesses have given him, as I have from my own. 

Let’s continue to embrace that same spirit as we begin to explore whether we can 

make Federal chemical management policy better and allow the United States to 

lead the globe in manufacturing, smarter public health protection, and innovation. 

Mr. SHIMKUS. With that, I yield back the balance of my time, and 

I yield 5 minutes to Mr. Tonko, the ranking member of the subcommittee. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. PAUL TONKO, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF NEW YORK 

Mr. TONKO. Thank you, Mr. Chair, and good morning. I am 

pleased to be here today for this important hearing on the Chemical Safety Improvement Act. It is a pleasure to welcome Senator 

Vitter and Senator Udall here to discuss their perspectives on 

TSCA, TSCA reform, and report on their ongoing efforts to reconcile the interests of the many constituencies who have a deep 

stake in chemical issues. It is not an easy task. 

This is our subcommittee’s fourth hearing on TSCA. There seems 

to be general agreement by all parties that the current law simply 

is not working. Current law does not give the Environmental Protection Agency the tools or the resources the agency needs to implement an effective toxic chemical program, but general agreement 

4 

on these observations is no guarantee of agreement on the best way 

to address these problems. And it appears we still have some disagreement about which aspects of TSCA are in need of revision. 

The public does not have confidence in this law or EPA’s implementation of it. Industry’s assertion that its products are safe is 

simply not good enough. Because the Federal law is ineffective, 

States have stepped in to address specific chemical risks. State action provides an essential backstop to Federal law, but individual 

State actions do not provide a uniform safety guarantee to all of 

our citizens, and they do not provide national standards and regulatory certainty to industry. 

So where do we go from here? 

The bipartisan initiative represented by S. 1009 offers us an opportunity for broad participation in the effort to reform TSCA, and 

that is what we need; broad participation in this effort. Because 

chemicals are such a part of our daily lives, we all have a stake 

in this effort. This bill does not yet address many of the current 

law’s shortcomings. In some respects, it takes us backward by preempting States’ ability to act, for example. 

There is no need for a State preemption. If this proposal provides 

EPA with the tools to protect all of our citizens, including those 

who are the most vulnerable; children and our elderly, there will 

be far less call for individual State action, but States should retain 

their rights to act in the best interests of their citizens, and to address specific State concerns when, indeed, it is necessary. 

I am concerned about retaining the unreasonable risk standard 

from current law when it has not proven to be a sufficient basis 

for Agency action over the past 37 years. 

EPA cannot evaluate the potential risk or relative safety of 

chemicals without sufficient information. The fact is we still have 

many chemicals circulating in commerce for which we have little 

health and safety information, and even less about their behavior 

in the environment. This problem stems from several weaknesses 

in the current law, which this legislation only partially addresses. 

We need a Federal chemical law that provides adequate protection 

of public health and the environment, and that promotes continued 

innovation in our chemical industry. 

The Chemical Safety Improvement Act does not yet achieve the 

right balance between these important goals, but with additional 

work it could. We have a very knowledgeable and experienced 

group of individuals here today who will offer constructive suggestions to this subcommittee about how to proceed. 

Thank you for being with us this morning. I look forward to 

hearing your views on the Chemical Safety Improvement Act, and 

your recommendations for creating what needs to be an effective 

chemical safety law. 

Thank you, and I yield back. 

Mr. SHIMKUS. Gentleman yields back his time. The Chair now 

seeks anyone need time on the majority side. Seeing none, the 

Chair now recognizes the chairman emeritus, Mr. Dingell, for 5 

minutes. 

5 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. JOHN D. DINGELL, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF MICHIGAN 

Mr. DINGELL. I thank you for holding this hearing. This is a valuable act, and I am much appreciative to you. 

We need to know what is going on with regard to TSCA, the 

Toxic Substances Control Act. It is long past time to reform this 

law. EPA has not been able to tackle even the most dangerous of 

chemicals and substances, and we may need to find a way to fix 

this problem. 

There has been only a few successes of TSCA since it was signed 

into law by my good friend from Michigan, former member of this 

body, our good friend, President Gerald Ford. During the House 

floor debate on TSCA, I was successful in proposing an amendment 

to phase out the use of PCBs. That, I think, and six other substances are about all that TSCA has been able to remove from the 

trade. 

We are finding out today what kind of negative effects PCBs 

have on the food chain, human health, wildlife and water quality. 

Frankly, it is very bad, and they remain a part of the chain even 

though they have been long removed. My amendment was supported by industry and by the environmentalists, and was adopted 

by a voice vote. Those kinds of things are possible to do, and I 

would note that we think that industry and the others who are concerned with these matters can work together, and I hope that this 

committee will give them the chance so to do. 

The most recent change to TSCA happened only a few years ago 

when I was chairman of the committee, and when we passed the 

Mercury Export Ban Act. I have here a letter from 2007 penned by 

the National Mining Association and Natural Resources Defense 

Council, the American Chemistry Council, the Environmental 

Council of State, and McLaren Institute in support of that legislation, and I ask unanimous consent that it be inserted in the record. 

Mr. SHIMKUS. Without objection, so ordered. 

[The information follows:] 

6 

7 

Mr. DINGELL. And I thank you for that. 

The reason I suggest this is it shows that we can work together 

where there is the will, and your leadership, I hope, will provide 

us that necessary requirement. 

My point here is that any overhaul of TSCA must include broad 

support from industry, environmental and conserver groups. From 

the time that we passed the Clean Air Act amendments of 1977, 

this committee has held frequent hearings over the next 13 years 

until we ultimately passed the Clean Air Act amendments of 1990. 

An interesting story about that was, somebody said, Dingell, what 

a great thing you did in getting this bill through the House in 13 

hours. I said, yes, it only took me 13 years to do it. But the harsh 

fact of the matter is these things take a lot of hard work, and a 

lot of time and a lot of cooperation. 

I think industry and others who have concerns on this, consumers and environmentalists, are willing to work together, and 

your leadership, I think, will be of enormous value in achieving 

that great goal. 

There has been much debate on the—in the Senate about the legislation before us, and I am pleased to see that we have two of our 

former colleagues from the Senate over here to discuss these matters with us. Before supporting any legislation, however, I would 

hope that the broad support that we saw from the Mercury Export 

Ban in 2007, and for TSCA in 1976, will be available. 

I do look forward to today’s hearings, and I commend you, and 

I hope that we can find compromises that will gain not just the 218 

votes on the House floor, but will come closer to the unanimity that 

we have seen on other legislation that has come out of this committee, including the Clean Air Act, which we passed by an overwhelming majority with, I think, less than 10 votes against it. So 

I hope that we can work together. The task will be difficult. The 

problem is very complex, and I think the challenge is great, but I 

am hopeful that the members of the committee can pull together 

on this, your leadership will be successful, and that we will accomplish the great goal of cleaning up the mess that we have on TSCA, 

and seeing to it that it works with the other problems that we have 

in connection with Clean Air, Superfund and all the other difficulties that we confront. 

I thank you for your courtesy to me, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. SHIMKUS. Gentleman yields back his time. Now the Chair 

would like—again, wants to welcome our former colleagues from 

the House, now U.S. Senators, back to the House side and to the 

Energy and Commerce Committee room. This has been an issue 

that has been going on for many years, and Senator Vitter and I 

sat down 3 years ago, and—when he started working with Senator 

Lautenberg on this. So we are glad to have you present, and I 

would recognize each of you 5 minutes. That is not a hard time. 

And then we will dismiss you and we won’t put you up to questions 

from your former colleagues. Who knows what they would ask. 

So with that, we would like to recognize Senator David Vitter 

from Louisiana for 5 minutes. 

8 

STATEMENTS OF HON. DAVID VITTER, A UNITED STATES SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF LOUISIANA; AND HON. TOM 

UDALL, A UNITED STATES SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF 

COLORADO 

STATEMENT OF HON. DAVID VITTER 

Mr. VITTER. Thank you very much, Chairman Shimkus and 

Ranking Member Tonko and all the members for this invitation. 

Senator Udall and I are really excited to be here to talk about our 

work, particularly over the last few months, to ensure that S. 1009, 

the Chemical Safety Improvement Act, which I had the real honor 

and pleasure of introducing with Frank Lautenberg, continues to 

improve, and ultimately gets us to where we need to be so that finally, after 37 long years, we modernize and repair the badly-outdated Toxic Substances Control Act. 

Today’s hearing is a huge step in the right direction, and I know 

it is continuing your work, the fourth hearing that you have had 

on this important topic, and I am really excited to see your work 

and see it dovetail with our work. 

The Lautenberg-Vitter Bill, which is currently co-sponsored by a 

very bipartisan and politically-diverse quarter of the U.S. Senate, 

was the product of extensive negotiations, and I believe it exemplifies solid positive bipartisan compromise and good policy. But while 

we were putting together the bill initially, certainly, Frank Lautenberg and I never thought we had perfect legislation. And so that 

is why I have been honored to partner with Senator Udall since 

Frank’s passing, to strengthen S. 1009, and we have committed 

ourselves to meeting with anyone interested in achieving significant bipartisan TSCA reform. 

After a long hearing, for instance, in July in our Senate committee, and countless hours of meetings, we fully recognize the 

issues that have been raised, some legitimate, some not, with the 

Lautenberg-Vitter Bill. And I think it has made—been made abundantly clear, but I will certainly say it again, and I know Senator 

Udall agrees, anyone interested in achieving meaningful bipartisan 

compromise to ensure TSCA reform protects all Americans in all 50 

States, not just a small segment of the population, or the financial 

interests of some particular constituency, anyone who has those interests has a welcome seat at the table. And I am confident that 

by working with Senator Udall and interested stakeholders, the 

EPA, all of you, other members, co-sponsors of S. 1009 and others, 

will achieve a final version that not only enhances business certainty and creates a strong Federal chemicals management system, 

but also sets meaningful deadlines and protects the most vulnerable among us, effectively screens all active chemicals in commerce, 

and guarantees Americans access to private rights of action and 

legal remedies, and makes certain that EPA has the tools necessary to ensure the chemicals that we are all exposed to are indeed safe. 

Now, as I said, anyone interested in a meaningful, substantive 

result and bipartisan compromise is welcome to a seat at the table, 

but I do want to urge that the Lautenberg-Vitter Bill, which was 

the product of a lot of hard work and real compromise itself, is the 

core and the foundation that we build from. Frank himself called 

9 

that compromise an historic step that would ‘‘fix the flaws with 

current law.’’ Vice President Biden referred to our efforts as a ‘‘bipartisan breakthrough.’’ In a statement from Senator Lautenberg’s 

widow, Bonnie, she remembered, ‘‘Frank told me that this bill 

would be bigger and could save more lives than his law to ban 

smoking on airplanes.’’ And in her words, ‘‘passage of this bill 

would be a wonderful cap to his career and testament to his legacy.’’ 

So S. 1009 is Senator Lautenberg’s legacy bill, and I hope we 

work hard to improve it, take up any significant legitimate issue. 

We have been doing that through my work with Senator Udall, but 

in doing that, I hope we do not go back, quite frankly, to failed previous efforts that were completely stuck-in-the-mud on partisan 

lines. And so, again, I want to urge us to stick to this core as we 

improve it and pass it into law. 

I would be remiss not to mention the work that went into achieving this compromise with Frank, because it didn’t happen overnight, didn’t happen without a lot of work and a lot of give-andtake from both of us. He was a very talented legislator committed 

to making the world a better place. I enjoyed arguing and negotiating and working with him. Frank’s wife, Bonnie, was there to 

take pictures the day Frank and I shook hands on the core pivotal 

agreement, and again, I am really pleased and honored that Senator Udall and I have partnered carrying on that work and that 

legacy to get it across the finish line. 

Again, I want to thank each and every one of you for all of your 

work on TSCA, I know it has been ongoing, and specifically for this 

hearing as part of that continuing conversation. 

Thank you for the invitation. 

Mr. SHIMKUS. Thank you. And the Chair now recognizes Senator 

Udall. And, sir, you are recognized for 5 minutes. 

STATEMENT HON. TOM UDALL 

Mr. UDALL. OK. Thank you very much for the invitation to be 

here today, and I really in particular want to thank Chairman 

Shimkus and also Ranking Member Tonko. 

We—Senator Vitter and I both appreciate this opportunity. And 

let me just, at the beginning, just say what a pleasure it has been 

working with Senator Vinner—Vitter and all of the stakeholders to 

try to center-in on something that we think can get through the 

Senate, and also I hope will be received over here with some kudos 

and applause. 

S. 1009, the Chemical Safety Improvement Act, has been the center of a lot of debate and discussion in the Senate since its introduction. When I first cosponsored the legislation, I did so for two 

reasons; one, I believed the bill addressed some of the key flaws in 

TSCA, and that has been noted here. There have been a number 

of flaws there. And I was very moved by the spirit of bipartisan 

compromise led by Senator Frank Lautenberg and Senator Vitter 

in an area where the two parties are often very far apart. 

My staff and I and Senator Vitter’s staff have spent many 

months since the introduction, working on this legislation and 

working with the various stakeholders. S. 1009 is not perfect, and, 

as introduced, has some key problems that need to be addressed. 

10 

As Senator Lautenberg’s successor, as chairman of the Senate Subcommittee on Superfund, Toxics and Environmental Health, I respect the criticism the bill is receiving, and I strongly believe several key areas must be addressed for this legislation to be successful. 

Chairwoman Boxer held a hearing on this issue earlier this year 

which delved into these issues. I applaud this committee for taking 

similar action. 

I think many of these problems are unintentional, but many in 

the environment and health community believe these issues mean 

this legislation should not move forward as-is, and given the fact 

that we are talking about one of the most ineffective laws on the 

books, that is worth noting. I agree that we should not pass S. 1009 

as introduced, but I am, and will continue to be, optimistic about 

the incredible bipartisan spirit around finding reform and protecting our families from dangerous chemicals. 

As the subcommittee chair, I want to develop and pass legislation that safeguards our citizens. S. 1009 has a number of strong 

elements of needed reform, as well as problems. We can, building 

off of that, and that is why I have committed so much time to 

working with Senators of both parties to improve this bill so that 

it could move forward and be something we can all be proud of. 

Through the—through that process, I have come to appreciate 

how big a challenge this is. After all, TSCA’s own fatal flaws have 

not been fixed in decades. Nevertheless, I believe we are up to the 

challenge. 

Here are the big three issues with the current Senate bill that 

we are working on. Number one, ensuring that the EPA will have 

the tools it needs to protect citizens from dangerous chemicals, and 

to ensure that EPA will be able to review the known 84,000 chemicals. This means getting the prioritization and deadlines right, 

along with specifically protecting vulnerable populations. Second, 

we must make sure to protect private rights of action, to hold companies responsible, and ensure they don’t cut corners. As a subcommittee chair and supporter of justice for victims, it is not my 

intent to preempt private claims. That has been stated publicly by 

myself and by Senator Vitter. Further changes are absolutely necessary to make this intent clear throughout the bill. And finally, 

we must make sure to protect the right of States to safeguard our 

citizens. 

On that last point, let me take a moment to say to Ranking 

Member Waxman and members of the California delegation that 

the chair of our committee, Barbara Boxer, has been a tireless advocate for the State of California and our country. I appreciate the 

leadership she has shown to protect citizens from dangerous chemicals, and I believe that California and other States play a critical 

role in lifting up health and safety standards for our country. 

As this committee proceeds on its own deliberations of how to reform TSCA, I would word—urge you to work together as we are 

working together, and I am sure you will. I think it would benefit 

us all to work together on a bipartisan and bicameral basis. TSCA 

has been a failed environmental law for decades. We have a historic opportunity before us. Success is far from certain, but it would 

be a shame to waste it. 

11 

And thank you again, Chairman Shimkus. Pleasure to be over 

here with my former colleagues, and we look forward, Senator 

Vitter and I do, on working with you on this piece of legislation. 

Mr. SHIMKUS. I want to thank you both for coming over. We appreciate the efforts you have made so far, and really the bipartisan 

approach is going to be critical in moving anything, and we look 

forward to working with you as we move through this process. So 

thank you again. You are dismissed, and we will then seat our second panel. 

So, as stated in my opening statement, we would like now to welcome and thank you for coming, the Honorable Jim Jones. You 

are—he was the Assistant Administrator, Office of Chemical Safety 

and Pollution Prevention, with the United States Environmental 

Protection Agency. 

Sir, you have 5 minutes. We are not hardcore on the time. This 

is a very important issue, and we look forward to your opening 

statement. 

STATEMENT OF JAMES JONES, ASSISTANT ADMINISTRATOR, 

OFFICE OF CHEMICAL SAFETY AND POLLUTION PREVENTION, ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 

Mr. JONES. Good morning, Chairman Shimkus, Ranking Member 

Tonko, and other members of the subcommittee. 

Thank you for inviting me to—for the opportunity to discuss reform of the chemicals management laws of the United States. 

I think we all agree on the importance of ensuring that the 

chemicals manufactured and used in this country are safe. With 

each passing year, the need for TSCA reform grows, and this administration believes it is crucial to modernize and strengthen the 

Toxic Substances Control Act to provide EPA with the necessary 

tools to achieve these goals. 

EPA is encouraged by the interest in TSCA reform, indicated by 

the introduction of several bills in recent years, the bipartisan discussions underway, and today’s hearing which marks the fourth in 

a series of hearings on TSCA reform before this subcommittee. 

Many stakeholders share common principles on how best to improve our chemicals management programs. EPA is committed to 

working with each of you and other members of Congress, the environmental community, the chemical industry, other stakeholders 

and the public to improve and update TSCA. 

As you know, chemicals are found in almost everything we use 

and consume. While they are essential for our health, wellbeing 

and prosperity, it should be equally essential that they are safe. 

Compared to 37 years ago when TSCA was passed, we have a 

much better understanding of the environmental impacts, pathways of exposure and health effects that some chemicals can have, 

especially on children and other sensitive populations. 

TSCA gives EPA jurisdiction over chemicals manufactured, processed or distributed in the United States; however, unlike laws applicable to drugs and pesticides, TSCA does not have a mandatory 

program that gives EPA the authority to conduct a review to determine the safety of existing chemicals. In addition, TSCA places 

challenging legal and procedural requirements on EPA before we 

12 

can require the generation and submission of data on the health 

and environmental effects of existing chemicals. 

While TSCA was an important step forward when it passed in 

1976, it has not only fallen behind the industry it was intended to 

regulate, it has also proven an inadequate tool for providing the 

American public with the protection they rightfully expect from exposure to harmful chemicals. When TSCA was enacted, it grandfathered-in, without any evaluation, about 60,000 chemical in commerce at the time. 

It has also proven challenging to take action to limit or ban 

chemicals that have been determined to pose significant health concern. For example, in 1989, after years of study, EPA issued a rule 

phasing out most uses of asbestos in products. Yet, in spite of nearunanimous scientific opinion, a Federal court overturned most of 

this action because it found the rules had failed to comply with the 

requirements of TSCA. In the past 37 years, the EPA has regulated 

only 5 chemicals under Section 6 of TSCA, which gives the EPA the 

authority to ban harmful chemicals. 

While EPA is committed to using the tools available under 

TSCA, we believe it should be updated and strengthened to ensure 

that EPA has the appropriate tools to protect the American public 

from exposure to harmful chemicals. It is crucial that any updates 

to TSCA include certain components. 

In September of 2009, the administration announced a set of 

principles to help guide the discussion to update and strengthen 

TSCA. These include providing the agency with the tools to quickly 

and efficiently obtain information from manufacturers that is relevant to determining the safety of chemicals. The EPA also should 

have clear authority to assess chemicals against a risk-based safety 

standard, and to take risk management actions when chemicals do 

not meet the standard. 

On April 15, Senators Lautenberg, Vitter and others introduced 

S. 1009, the Chemical Safety Improvement Act. While EPA has not 

yet developed a formal position on the bill, we offer the following 

observations in light of the Agency and the administration principles. As stated in the principles, legislation should provide EPA 

with authority to establish risk-based safety standards that are 

protective of human health and the environment. The EPA should 

have clear authority to take risk management actions when chemicals do not meet the safety standard, with flexibility to take into 

account a range of consideration, including children’s health, economic costs, social benefits and equity concerns. The principles further indicate that clear, enforceable and practicable deadlines 

should be set for the Agency to review and make decisions on 

chemicals, in particular, those that might impact sensitive populations, and provide a sustained source of funding for implementation. Administrative requirements should add demonstrable value 

to the process beyond existing law and requirements. Legislation 

should provide the EPA with tools to ensure the protections put in 

place are carried out, and provide a level playing field for companies that comply. 

We understand the concerns raised by many stakeholders regarding the appropriate role for States in addressing the risks of chemiVerDate Mar 15 2010 10:08 Oct 06, 2014 Jkt 037690 PO 00000 Frm 00016 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 F:\113-92 CHEM SAFETY ASK OK 10-2-14\113-92 CHEM SAFETY PDF MADE WAYNE
13 

cals to which their citizens are exposed, and EPA stands ready to 

provide technical assistance on this important issue. 

Mr. Chairman, thank you again for your leadership on TSCA reform, and I will be happy to answer questions that you or members 

of the committee have. Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Jones follows:] 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

Mr. SHIMKUS. Thank you. Now I will recognize myself for the 

first 5 minutes for the starting of questions. 

So, again, welcome. 

Does Senate Bill 1009, in your opinion, strengthen EPA’s ability 

to prevent dangerous new chemicals or those with inadequate information from entering the market? 

Mr. JONES. Yes, Congressman. To clarify, the existing statute 

does not require EPA to make an affirmative finding of safety for 

a new chemical, as 1009 requires an affirmative finding on the part 

of the EPA before a new chemical can enter the market. As it relates to data generation, interestingly, my attorneys have read the 

bill to provide EPA with the ability to require the generation of 

data if necessary to make a finding. 

There are other stakeholders who are not reading that provision 

the same way, which to me is an indication that there may be a 

need for clarification around that. 

Mr. SHIMKUS. Thank you. Do you consider Senate 1009 an improvement over current law for EPA to address hazards and risk 

of chemical substances in American commerce? 

Mr. JONES. So, you know, as we heard from Senator Udall, TSCA 

is perhaps one of the most poorly implemented environmental statutes, and so the way in which we look at the bill isn’t is it better, 

is it—does it allow us to achieve our stated objectives of safe chemicals in the United States. And in that respect, under that standard, 

which is the way I am attempting to look at it, I think that there 

are some shortcomings, as we heard from Senator Vitter, that I 

would be happy to talk about as well. 

Mr. SHIMKUS. Many witnesses have testified before our committee on the strengths and successes of existing TSCA, Section 5, 

provisions for new chemicals, and new uses of existing chemicals. 

Notwithstanding Senate 1009 makes changes to Section 5, do you 

consider these changes appropriate? 

Mr. JONES. I think it is surprising to most people that we do not 

need to affirmatively determine safety before a chemical enters the 

market, so I think that that change is an important one, that the 

Agency affirmatively say, yes, this chemical is safe before it enters 

the market. 

Mr. SHIMKUS. Could these changes negatively impact innovation 

in the United States? 

Mr. JONES. When people talk about innovation, which we are 

very sensitive to at EPA and try to facilitate it, I don’t think they 

think of it as innovation of unsafe things. So I don’t view a requirement that the Agency affirmatively determine something meets a 

safety standard as impacting innovation in a negative way. I actually think it will facilitate innovation, because innovation should be 

around safe things. 

Mr. SHIMKUS. Right. I appreciate that. Further, some witnesses 

have talked about EPA needing more information on chemicals. 

Section 4 of Senate 1009 provides the EPA authority to order development of data and information on chemicals. Is this a tool the 

Agency currently has under Section 4 of TSCA today? 

Mr. JONES. Thanks, Mr. Chairman. That is actually one of the 

real highlights of the introduced bill. Right now, the Agency, if we 

wanted a company to generate health and safety data for a chemVerDate Mar 15 2010 10:08 Oct 06, 2014 Jkt 037690 PO 00000 Frm 00025 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 F:\113-92 CHEM SAFETY ASK OK 10-2-14\113-92 CHEM SAFETY PDF MADE WAYNE
22 

ical, we need to go through a rather complex rule-making process, 

which also requires us to make certain findings that creates somewhat of a catch 22. We have to have a sense that there is a problem before we require the generation of this data, and the rulemaking themselves can take up to 5 years, if not longer. 

So order authority, the ability to, without going through that 

elaborate process, is a huge improvement, and it is an authority 

that we have in our pesticides program right now. 

Mr. SHIMKUS. And you answered it in the last question—the prepared questions I have is, order authority would be helpful in this 

venue, as you just testified. 

Mr. JONES. Very much so. 

Mr. SHIMKUS. Let me ask two other questions based upon your 

opening statement. 

When you say equity concerns, what do you mean? 

Mr. JONES. So sometime, well, actually, whenever you are protecting in a regulatory decision, or otherwise, it is important to understand where the protections occur. It is also important to understand where do the costs fall. Are the costs being borne by a broad 

segment of society, a narrow segment of society, are the benefits 

being enjoyed by a very narrow segment of society, or a broad segment of society? And so it is understanding where the costs and the 

benefits of a decision may fall. Understanding what they are. 

Mr. SHIMKUS. We kind of need a little more work on that because 

I think, for me, the basic premise is are we producing chemicals 

that are safe. So that I would think a safe chemical would be good 

for everybody in the production process and for the consumers, but 

I will get more briefings on that. 

When you define sensitive populations, what do you mean by 

that? 

Mr. JONES. Well, so that can be an equity concern. So that by 

looking at what we expect that we are going to be looking at highly-exposed individuals, wherever they may be—— 

Mr. SHIMKUS. In the workplace or—— 

Mr. JONES. In the workplace—— 

Mr. SHIMKUS [continuing]. Outside the fence of the facility, is 

that what we are talking about? 

Mr. JONES. Whoever is highly exposed to the chemical that we 

are looking at, or the use that we are looking at. And we also mean 

it to include are there certain parts of the population that may be 

biologically more sensitive. So a child or an infant may have different sensitivities than an adult, an elderly individual may have 

different sensitivities than a teenager. And so we look at both the 

highly exposed, who is getting more exposure than the average, 

and are there individuals or groups that may have greater sensitivity than the average. 

Mr. SHIMKUS. Great. Thank you very much. My time has expired. The Chair now recognizes Mr. Tonko for 5 minutes. 

Mr. TONKO. Thank you, Mr. Chair, and thank you, Administrator 

Jones, for your guidance. 

Now, the American people have relied on EPA and the Toxic 

Substances Control Act to protect them against the dangers of toxic 

chemicals, but EPA has faced significant challenges in banning or 

restricting toxic chemicals under TSCA, even in cases where the 

23 

risks are widely recognized and understood, such as is the case of 

asbestos. So EPA’s first principle of TSCA reform from 2009 reads, 

and I quote, ‘‘chemicals should be reviewed against safety standards that are based on sound science, and reflect risk-based criteria 

protective of human health and the environment.’’ 

Some have suggested that EPA should consider the cost to the 

chemical industry and others when setting a safety standard. That 

would mean that somehow EPA would have to factor in the cost 

of reducing the public’s exposure to harmful chemicals when determining whether exposure to a chemical is safe. 

Would an approach that requires consideration of cost and determination of the safety standard comport with EPA’s principle? 

Mr. JONES. Thank you, Representative Tonko. The administration principles speak both to science-based safety standards, and 

then in risk management, the Agency having the flexibility to consider other factors such as costs, so that when we are looking at 

how to mitigate a risk, those cost considerations can play into the 

ultimate decision making. And those concepts are both captured in 

the administration principles. 

Mr. TONKO. So based on science and cost? 

Mr. JONES. That is right. 

Mr. TONKO. We are looking at both. Historically, TSCA has applied an unreasonable risk standard. This standard has been interpreted to require cost consideration in setting standards, and it 

was one of the key problems that led to the tragic failure to phaseout use of asbestos. Is that correct? 

Mr. JONES. I think that not just in the unreasonable-risk standard itself, but many of the other requirements within Section 6, including the least burdensome requirement. Those two phrases, and 

a lot of other language around it, required what I would consider 

to be paralysis by analysis. So much analysis, you could never actually finish the work. And those conspired to get in the way of EPA 

in the asbestos context, and I would argue since then of being effective with Section 6. 

Mr. TONKO. So the bill we are considering today continues to use 

the legal standard of unreasonable risk. I am concerned that continuing to use this standard invites the use of the traditional interpretation which leaves EPA, as you made mention, paralyzed. Is 

this a fair concern? 

Mr. JONES. It is interesting, Congressman. There are a number 

of people in the stakeholder community, and they—in my conversations, they don’t fall out in terms of, you know, one group versus 

another, but there are some parties who believe unreasonable risk 

can only be read to mean a cost benefit balancing. There are others 

who believe that it is all of the language around it that will matter 

ultimately. And so I think it is important to have that dialog to 

come to consensus so everyone agrees, whatever words are being 

used, there is a common understanding. 

That being said, I do believe that 1009 also has other language 

in it, beyond unreasonable risk, that has a similar effect as the 

least burdensome requirement which requires a seemingly endless 

amount of analysis on the part of the Agency before we can ever 

move forward. So I think that that is important to address as well. 

24 

Mr. TONKO. And so in your view, we could end up with an adequate standard if we make it clear that EPA should abandon the 

historical interpretation of unreasonable risk? 

Mr. JONES. You know, I—interesting—I fall within the camp, 

thinking that the statute can clearly define unreasonable risk, but 

you need to use enough words that you counter the case law that 

exists out there right now, and the way in which the term is used 

within existing TSCA, but it is very important that whatever is 

done, that people agree about what the interpretation is, and not 

be in a position where people look at the same two words and think 

it means two different things. 

Mr. TONKO. So would it be easier to simply use a new standard 

that doesn’t have the baggage associated with the phrase unreasonable risk? 

Mr. JONES. Well, that would be one way to do that. 

Mr. TONKO. OK. Given the history of litigation under TSCA, statutory language on cost consideration and the safety standard must 

be completely clear. I commend the administration for its clear 

principle on this matter, and look forward to ensuring that any bill 

we produce is consistent with the administration’s position, otherwise we will have a lot of explaining to do to the victims of asbestos 

and other toxic chemical exposure. 

There is also a lot of talk about resources, as you talked about 

putting more and more into the standards that need to be met and 

reviewed. In your opinion, where are we at with the resource issue 

in order for the Agency to comply with the implementation? 

Mr. JONES. So one of the administration’s principles is that there 

be a sustained source of funding for the EPA. Under existing funding, we would be limited in how much progress we could make in 

any period of time. We would think that a sustained source of funding would involve something above and beyond what currently exists for EPA. I think there are some models out there we could look 

to. 

Mr. TONKO. Thank you very much, Administrator Jones. 

Mr. JONES. Thank you. 

Mr. SHIMKUS. Gentleman’s time has expired. Chair will now recognize the gentleman from Georgia, Mr. Gingrey, for 5 minutes. 

Mr. GINGREY. Mr. Chairman, thank you. 

Administrator Jones, I have got—actually I have got four questions for you, and I will start. 

Were Senate Bill 1009 enacted tomorrow, what would be the status of the regulations or guidance under current law? Would EPA 

need to reissue new regulations for regulatory matters that are already settled under current law? 

Mr. JONES. Thank you, Congressman. 

So I believe that existing regulations would carry on as they are. 

I think guidance, we would need to look case-by-case to each guidance to see whether or not a new law, such as 1009, would require 

us to make any modifications to conform with a new statute. But 

regulations would carry on as they are currently drafted. 

Mr. GINGREY. Great. Thank you. And the second question, how 

could activities currently underway at EPA, as an example, identification of work plan chemicals and progress in conducting risk asVerDate Mar 15 2010 10:08 Oct 06, 2014 Jkt 037690 PO 00000 Frm 00028 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 F:\113-92 CHEM SAFETY ASK OK 10-2-14\113-92 CHEM SAFETY PDF MADE WAYNE
25 

sessments of them, be integrated into S. 1009 in a manner that 

does not disrupt or delay current TSCA work? 

Mr. JONES. I believe that the existing—introduced Bill 1009 allows the agency to designate the compounds that we are already 

working on, workplan chemicals and other chemicals for which we 

have prioritized, which are about 80-plus, as high priority right 

from the get go. So right from the beginning, they would become 

high priority chemicals under the current draft. 

Mr. GINGREY. In your view, does the knowhow, experience and 

capability of the United States in regulating chemicals compare to 

other nations? 

Mr. JONES. Yes, well, just so you understand, my experience includes about 20 years working in the pesticides program and then 

in this capacity as well. Pesticides are chemicals and, in the pesticide context, we have a very strong statute that requires us to 

evaluate every chemical and have been able to effectively do that, 

so I think we have some of the best knowhow, experience and 

knowledge in the world as it relates to chemicals. I think what we 

are struggling with in this context is a statute that makes it difficult to apply that experience to the chemicals under TSCA. 

Mr. GINGREY. And my last question, and I have got, gosh, 2–1/ 

2 minutes, I may be able to yield back some time. 

The United States is currently exploring a free trade agreement, 

as you know, with the European Union. Do you see any potential 

impact of those trade talks on domestic chemicals regulation? 

Mr. JONES. That is a very good question. What I would say about 

that is that my organization and myself will participate with 

USTR, largely through USTR, on those kinds of discussions. What 

we try to do at EPA is to identify areas where there may be unnecessary barriers to trade, while ensuring that existing health and 

safety standards in the United States are maintained. 

And so sometimes you may identify a barrier, but it is not going 

to get changed because we have domestic laws that would prevent 

it, but there are times when you can identify a problem that can 

be harmonized without changing the domestic safety standards in 

the United States. 

And so that is the sweet spot that we are looking for. Whether 

we will find any in that context is, I think, too early to determine, 

but that is how we will approach the issue. 

Mr. GINGREY. Could this free trade negotiation influence chemical risk assessment policy in the United States and should it? I 

mean that is really the meat of the question. They do things differently, obviously. 

Mr. JONES. Yes, that is a very good question. The Obama administration has been very clear that we are taking a risk-based approach to chemicals management in the United States. That is 

what we do under existing law, it is what we are advocating in a 

reformed TSCA. I don’t see any scenario where we would move 

away from that. It is a pretty core principle of the administration. 

It has also been the principle of the U.S. Government for many administrations. 

Mr. GINGREY. Well, that is—— 

Mr. JONES. I think it would be kind of unusual for us to move 

away from that. 

26 

Mr. GINGREY. That is very reassuring, Administrator Jones. 

Thank you very much, and I yield back 30 seconds. 

Mr. SHIMKUS. Gentleman yields back the time. The Chair now 

recognizes the ranking member, full committee, Mr. Waxman, for 

5 minutes. 

Mr. WAXMAN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. Jones, thank you for testifying today. I would like to explore 

two issues with you about this bill. One is the issue of deadlines 

associated with effective Agency action, and the other is preemption of State requirements. 

Let us start with the deadlines issue. 

You testified that in the last 37 years, EPA has only been able 

to require testing on a little more than 200 of the more than 84,000 

chemicals listed on the TSCA Inventory. That means that not even 

one percent of chemicals have been tested for safety in nearly four 

decades. 

I think the American people would see this as disappointing. 

They are counting on the Agency to ensure chemicals are adequately tested, but this history demonstrates that the law is not 

working the way it needs to. 

That is why, in my view, it is critical that legislation to reform 

TSCA include meaningful deadlines to ensure that chemical reviews are completed on a timely basis. 

Does the bill, Mr. Jones, that we are examining today adequately 

address this issue? Will it ensure that there are meaningful deadlines to address this huge backlog? 

Mr. JONES. Thank you, Congressman Waxman. 

I don’t believe that it does. The bill does require EPA to set deadlines, but it gives us unlimited ability to change those deadlines. 

So, in effect, I don’t believe as a matter of law there are meaningful 

deadlines in the statute. I will say, as you well know from the Food 

Quality Protection Act which you had a big hand in, there were 

very clear deadlines about what EPA had to do. We had to look at 

all pesticides used on food within 10 years, and during a 10-year 

period we evaluated them all, actually, 99 percent, and met the 

deadline—— 

Mr. WAXMAN. Yes. I am interested in that because this committee passed that bill. In fact, I worked with Chairman Bliley and 

Chairman Dingell. It was a strong bipartisan-supported bill. It required pesticide residues on food to be safe for infants and children. 

It included deadlines for hundreds of chemicals to be reviewed. And 

you are in charge of both—— 

Mr. JONES. That is right. 

Mr. WAXMAN [continuing]. The TSCA issue and the 1996 law. So 

you have had the experience with deadlines that were very concrete. Did it affect the Agency’s implementation of the law? 

Mr. JONES. I think it is why we met the deadline. From 1996 to 

2006, we met that deadline for 99 percent of the 10,000 food use 

tolerances in the United States, from 1996 to 2006 under TSCA, 

which has currently no deadlines. We—— 

Mr. WAXMAN. Yes. 

Mr. JONES [continuing]. Didn’t evaluate a single existing chemical during that—— 

Mr. WAXMAN. Yes. 

27 

Mr. JONES [continuing]. Period of time. 

Mr. WAXMAN. Well, 400 pesticide chemicals under the Food Quality Protection Act over 10 years have been reviewed, which complies with all the law’s deadlines, and I congratulate you for that. 

At the same time, EPA completed no reviews under TSCA because 

there were no deadlines. I think that speaks very favorably for putting deadlines in the legislation. 

Now, let me turn to the question of preemption. Over the years, 

many States have acted to protect the public from the dangers of 

toxic chemicals. They have removed toxic chemicals from consumer 

products, they have banned developmental toxins from toys, and 

they have even worked to regulate chemicals that act as powerful 

greenhouse gases. 

Under this bill, Mr. Jones, EPA is required to determine whether 

a chemical is a ‘‘high priority’’ or a ‘‘low priority’’ for review. And 

once this determination is made, State rules are preempted. Isn’t 

that correct? 

Mr. JONES. New State requirements would be preempted after 

EPA makes a determination a chemical is a high priority or a low 

priority. 

Mr. WAXMAN. OK. Now, in fact, the California EPA has identified dozens of State laws and regulations that may be preempted 

under this approach. But determining something is a ‘‘high priority’’ for review is only the beginning of the process. It could take 

many years for EPA to adequately address a ‘‘high priority’’ chemical. And without meaningful deadlines, we could have important 

State public health protections preempted while Federal action languishes indefinitely. Isn’t that the case? 

Mr. JONES. That is correct. 

Mr. WAXMAN. The preemption as you see it is only prospectively, 

so existing laws would not be preempted? 

Mr. JONES. There is—I am sorry. There are actually two provisions; one is for existing requirements. Existing State requirements 

are preempted when EPA makes a safety determination. A safety 

determination is just our view of the risks of the compound; it is 

not the regulation of the compound. So you could have an existing 

State requirement be preempted once EPA has made a safety determination, but before EPA ultimately regulated it. 

Mr. WAXMAN. And that could be years. 

Mr. JONES. Well, there are no deadlines, so—— 

Mr. WAXMAN. Yes. 

Mr. JONES. Yes, years. 

Mr. WAXMAN. Well, thank you very much for your testimony and 

your answering these questions. I think it drives us to look at this 

need for a bill with strong deadlines, and get this job done. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. SHIMKUS. Gentleman yields back his time. Chair now recognizes the gentleman from Pennsylvania, Mr. Murphy, for 5 minutes. 

Mr. MURPHY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Sir, thank you for being 

here. 

First of all, I want to say I am pleased we are having this hearing and moving forward with much-needed debate. There are some 

important provisions in the Senate bill to protect public health, 

28 

while allowing companies to continue to innovate, and I am supportive of the Federal standard rather than the complexity in the 

50-State statute. And one issue I want to raise is language in here 

related to articles. The bill says imported or exported articles will 

need to say whether they contain high-priority chemicals. This 

could require an extensive review—applied outside of the U.S. for 

articles we import, and this could be an extensive burden so it is 

something we need to look at in the future. 

Mr. Jones, a couple of things in your testimony. On page 5, you 

refer to social benefits. What does that mean? 

Mr. JONES. So how the benefits of the action are captured, and 

as a general matter, they relate to the health benefits that are generated. 

Mr. MURPHY. And you mention health too. I just wondered how— 

is social different from health? 

Mr. JONES. As a general matter, I don’t think that it would be. 

Mr. MURPHY. OK, I wanted to be clear because that means different things to us. So, all right. Also, you referred on page 6 to 

sound science. Certainly, that is something this committee advocates a great deal. How do you define sound science, however? Is 

that something that is based upon refereed journals from scientists—respected scientists, is that something that the EPA puts 

out, is it something that its committees are appointed with political 

appointees—— 

Mr. JONES. Right. 

Mr. MURPHY [continuing]. How do you determine sound science? 

Mr. JONES. The Agency has actually got a fair amount of guidance that it has that describes the characteristics of what we want 

our science to include, which I would be happy to provide to the 

committee. As a general matter though, it includes that—we are 

looking at all the available information, and that we are relying on 

peer review to help make sure that our assessment of that science 

holds up. 

Mr. MURPHY. I see. Appreciate it, and I hope we can make sure 

there is wording in the bill that defines that too. Let me ask this 

then, how long would the EPA take to accomplishing the following 

tasks in the Senate bill, assuming adequate staffing and funding. 

This is in S. 1009. First of all, sorting chemicals at the high and 

low priorities. 

Mr. JONES. So the initial cut around that, actually the Agency 

did before this bill was introduced, and that took several months 

to identify perhaps the 250 highest priority chemicals. So the sorting activity of finding what we think are the highest priorities does 

not take that long. 

Now, that being said, we were looking at about—a subset of 

about 1,200 chemicals for which there was a meaningful data set. 

At the end of the day, we would be required to sort a much larger 

universe than that, but that being said, the sorting activity itself 

is one that does not particularly take a long time. 

Mr. MURPHY. OK. How long would it take you to complete the 

first safety assessment? 

Mr. JONES. So we think as a general matter, it is about a 2- or 

3-year process to be doing a chemical safety assessment, depending 

on the complexity of the chemical. 

29 

Mr. MURPHY. And how about completion of most safety assessments? 

Mr. JONES. Well, the numbers we are dealing with here in— 

under TSCA are so extraordinarily large, which is why I think that 

efforts to reform TSCA really focus in on and set some priorities 

so that you are focusing on those things that have the potential to 

have the greatest risk. 

And so, depending on how you want to define most of the chemicals, it would certainly inform how one would try to answer that. 

Mr. MURPHY. So then this begs this question, because it is so important that the manufacturers have some important data on this 

too, but how long would it take you to publish the first regulations 

imposing restrictions on a chemical? 

Mr. JONES. So after having a safety assessment and safety determination, which we think can happen contemporaneously, it would 

be about 3 years for a final regulation for a chemical that had been 

assessed. 

Mr. MURPHY. And how about deciding restrictions for the most 

risky chemicals? 

Mr. JONES. Well, it is about—the—3 years. 

Mr. MURPHY. Three years for—then either way? 

Mr. JONES. Yes. 

Mr. MURPHY. Can you elaborate a little bit what would go into 

that, making these determinations about your regulations of the 

most risky chemicals? 

Mr. JONES. With respect to what is the assessment like, or how 

do we ultimately determine whether risk management is necessary? 

Mr. MURPHY. Maybe what the assessment is like. 

Mr. JONES. So the assessment is basically we are going to look 

at all of the data that is available around hazard, whether the 

chemical elicits some kind of an adverse effect in animals. Humans 

being who we are trying to protect, but it is usually the laboratory 

animals that... 

Mr. MURPHY. Would you have ongoing communication with the 

manufacturers with this? And I think it is very—it is extremely 

helpful if you have an open communication, not surprising them, 

but open discussions, honest discussions as to what the scientific 

base—— 

Mr. JONES. In the last year and a half or so, we have begun to 

do some safety assessments, and we try to make it open and available to everyone. I will say manufacturers tend to participate more 

than others, but it is open to everyone. And so if they have data 

that is useful to the safety assessment, they are encouraged to 

bring it to us—— 

Mr. MURPHY. OK. 

Mr. JONES [continuing]. Make sure that we have it. 

Mr. MURPHY. Thank you. 

Mr. JONES. So we will—— 

Mr. MURPHY. I yield back. 

Mr. SHIMKUS. Gentleman’s time expired. Chair now recognizes 

the gentleman from Texas, Mr. Green, for 5 minutes. 

Mr. GREEN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for holding this hearing. 

It is our fourth on TSCA reform before our subcommittee this year, 

30 

and I am optimistic our committee can find a bipartisan path to reauthorization, and we address the concerns of most, if not all, of 

the stakeholders, and I look forward to the process. 

I would like to also thank Senators Udall and Vitter for joining 

us this morning earlier, as well as Assistant Administrator Jones, 

for the work they have done to move this issue forward. 

Mr. Jones, in your professional opinion, does the safety standard 

in Lautenberg-Vitter strengthen the EPA’s ability to regulate 

chemicals over the present safety standard? 

Ms. JONES. Thanks, Congressman Green. I think that there are 

some issues with the way in which the safety standard in 1009 is 

drafted, but the principle one that I see is that it requires a degree 

of analysis of the alternatives to the chemical that you are focusing 

on that could find EPA in a potentially an endless analytical loop. 

So that meeting those procedural requirements of evaluating all of 

the alternatives, the risks and the benefits of all of the alternatives, may find us in a situation where we can’t finish on the 

chemical that we are focusing on, and that is actually built into the 

safety standards, so I think that that is the principle problem that 

we see. 

Mr. GREEN. Well, and I know there are a number of other questions. I would hope that we could sit down and work that out because, obviously, the EPA is the enforcement agency, but we want 

to make sure the law is both easily dealt with, both for everyone 

involved in it. So I look forward to using our resources together to 

deal with it. 

Are some of the challenging and legal procedure requirements 

encountered under TSCA, in quoting your testimony, fixed in the 

Lautenberg-Vitter Bill? If so, were these challenges addressed in 

1009? 

Mr. JONES. I think that the issue that was most effectively addressed in the Lautenberg-Vitter bill is the inability the agency has 

had to easily require the generation of health and safety data. I 

think that has been the aspect of the bill that has most moved the 

ball forward. As I had mentioned earlier, I think that the removal 

of the least burdensome requirement that many focus on under 

TSCA has instead been replaced by a different kind of burdensome 

requirement, and I think that the deadlines—the lack of deadlines 

will meaningfully impair the Agency’s ability to succeed in the way 

that I think that the drafters intended. 

Mr. GREEN. OK. Do you believe the infants, children and pregnant women, and other vulnerable populations, would be protected 

more under Lautenberg-Vitter than current law? 

Mr. JONES. The Lautenberg-Vitter Bill does require that EPA 

consider sensitive populations in our safety assessments, which is 

not required under existing TSCA. It doesn’t require us to consider 

them in our safety determinations or risk management, so there is 

a movement towards that direction in Lautenberg-Vitter. 

Mr. GREEN. Under current law, can you explain what happens 

when a new chemical comes on the market? Does the manufacturer 

need EPA OK first? 

Mr. JONES. They need us to not say no. So they don’t need us 

to affirmatively say yes, they need us to not say no. And the LauVerDate Mar 15 2010 10:08 Oct 06, 2014 Jkt 037690 PO 00000 Frm 00034 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 F:\113-92 CHEM SAFETY ASK OK 10-2-14\113-92 CHEM SAFETY PDF MADE WAYNE
31 

tenberg-Vitter Bill rectifies that by requiring EPA to affirmatively 

say yes. 

Mr. GREEN. OK. And you find—if—do you have to find that a 

chemical is safe before allowing it on the market? 

Mr. JONES. We are not required to make that finding. 

Mr. GREEN. OK. Would the Lautenberg-Vitter Bill address that 

issue? 

Mr. JONES. Yes, that is—— 

Mr. GREEN. OK. How would S. 1009 change current law that protects confidential business information, and I know we have dealt 

with this on our committee a lot of times. Is it—would it require 

companies to refresh their requests for information protection? 

Mr. JONES. The principle change is that it would allow EPA to 

share confidential business information with State, local, emergency response officials, which is currently prohibited. 

Mr. GREEN. OK. How does it meet—make sure that the government officials, including States, get access to the needed information while still protecting those business secrets from competitors? 

Mr. JONES. So—— 

Mr. GREEN. Is that protected in 1009? 

Mr. JONES. That is right. It would require the recipient, the 

State or local responder, to agree to maintain the confidentiality 

before receiving the information. 

Mr. GREEN. Some of the witnesses that will follow you suggest 

EPA cannot get information to prioritize chemicals, yet I noticed 

new Section 4(e)(3)(B) allows EPA to ask the public for information 

that is reasonably ascertainable. Does that section allow EPA to 

collect information that is reasonably ascertainable to make 

prioritized—prioritization decisions? 

Mr. JONES. It does, but there is also a provision that allows us 

to require the manufacturers to generate the data without going 

through a rule-making activity. 

Mr. GREEN. OK. And again, Mr. Chairman, I am out of time but 

I look forward to us working with EPA and the drafting, and to 

make sure we know we are all on the same page, literally. 

Thank you for your time. 

Mr. SHIMKUS. Gentleman’s time expired. Chair now recognizes 

the gentleman from Ohio, Mr. Latta, for 5 minutes. 

Mr. LATTA. Well, thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. Thanks 

for holding this hearing this morning, and thank you very much for 

being here. We really appreciate your testimony, and the discussion 

that we are having today. 

Just again to kind of—where I am coming from. I represent a 

district that has 60,000 manufacturing jobs, and it is also unique 

in that I also represent the largest number of farmers in the State 

of Ohio. So I have parallel things going on out there. And so when 

I am out at home and this issue comes up, people really want to 

know what is happening in Washington, and especially where EPA 

would be going. 

And if I could ask you just a couple of questions real quickly. 

One is, do you believe that the categories that this bill creates for 

new chemicals will or could negatively impact specialty chemical 

manufacturers? 

32 

Mr. JONES. The new chemical provisions, Congressman, is that 

what you are—- 

Mr. LATTA. Right. 

Mr. JONES. I don’t believe so. I believe that we will be able to 

make decisions in a timely manner under the Lautenberg-Vitter 

bill on new chemicals. 

Mr. LATTA. And again, could you define that timely manner? 

Mr. JONES. So the current requirement is that we evaluate compounds within 90 days. If we see a problem, we need to inform the 

submitter. Under the Lautenberg-Vitter bill, that 90 days remains. 

We have the ability to extend it by 90 days or two periods of time, 

but it shouldn’t exceed another 90 days. So we are still talking 

about very short periods of time for our review of new chemicals. 

Mr. LATTA. OK. And can you also discuss EPA’s confidential 

business information improvements, and how are those working? 

Mr. JONES. So we are working very hard to do what I think of 

as the government’s role as it relates to confidential business information, which is to ensure that we are asking the question, is this 

claim eligible for confidential business information treatment. Historically, we have been somewhat passive which, if someone had 

asserted it, we basically would just accept that. We are now doing 

our part, which is to make sure that an assertive claim actually 

meets the statutory criteria around that. And over the last several 

years, we have successfully removed over 1,000 claims that have 

been made just because they were not warranted by the statute, or 

the manufacturer, when they went back and looked at their files, 

they didn’t think the claim was necessary anymore. So some of it 

has been us doing more work, some of it has been us working with 

the manufacturers to ensure that they were keeping their files accurate related to their CBI claims. 

Mr. LATTA. And also when you reviewed the bill, would those improvements be consistent with the bill? 

Mr. JONES. Generally, they would be. There is a grandfatheringin of CBI claims that—one that was made before the bill would 

pass would be considered to be CBI that would potentially impact 

some of this cleanup effort that I am referring to. 

Mr. LATTA. OK. And also, how do you believe the coordination 

has been between the EPA and the TSCA Interagency Testing 

Committee? 

Mr. JONES. So historically, it has not been particularly active, in 

that other agencies are not big users of that committee, whereby 

they are able to ask us to generate health and safety data for their 

purposes. The bill allows that activity to continue in the future. It 

would be interesting—I really can’t predict how much other agencies would be feeling more empowered to ask EPA to use its authorities to require companies to generate health and safety data 

for their purposes, but it is definitely an authority in the Lautenberg-Vitter Bill. 

Mr. LATTA. OK. And finally, if I could, I know there have been 

some questions that other members have asked about how you 

have defined certain words that have—that were in your testimony. 

On page 4, you talk about that, as stated in the principles, legislation provides the EPA with authority to establish risk-based safety 

standards. How would you define that risk-based safety standards? 

33 

Would you see the stakeholders being involved, how would you 

see—come to that definition? 

Mr. JONES. So we would definitely involve stakeholders in that— 

I will give a few examples based on implementation of other statutes. The EPA would consider, for a chemical that was a quantified 

carcinogen, that the calculated risk of that compound not creating 

more than a 1 in a million chance of increasing cancer risk to be 

a health-based safety standard, where we have identified in a 

quantifiable way in that case the level at which we believe is protective, based exclusively on a health and safety consideration. So 

that would be an example of one. It doesn’t mean under this bill 

we would say that the number, but we would include dialog with 

stakeholders to say, here is an example, do you think this is the 

appropriate health-based safety standard? Should it be 1 in a million, 1 in 100,000, 1 in 10 million, before we ultimately came down 

on what we thought was the appropriate health-based safety standard. 

Mr. LATTA. Well, thank you very much. And, Mr. Chairman, I 

see my time has expired, and I yield back. 

Mr. SHIMKUS. Gentleman yields back his time. Chair now recognizes my colleague from Colorado, Ms. DeGette, for 5 minutes. 

Ms. DEGETTE. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Jones, 

we appreciate you coming today. And, Mr. Chairman, I really appreciate you holding this hearing. We have been hammering away 

at this for some number of years, and I actually think, with the 

Senate bill and with this committee’s efforts, we may be productive. 

So, yes, let’s keep our fingers crossed. 

Mr. Jones, one thing we have been talking about is one of the 

problems with the current act is that roughly 60,000 existing 

chemicals were grandfathered-in in 1976, and as you testified, 

there is no criteria to trigger an independent EPA review of an existing chemical. So under the Senate bill, all the existing chemicals 

in commerce would be identified and prioritized for further evaluation. I want to talk to you about—a little bit about that this morning. 

I think given the number of chemicals that are out there, and the 

subset of chemicals that are actually used in commerce, we all support prioritizing EPA action that might pose a serious risk, but in 

order for prioritization to work, EPA needs to have the information 

to make the informed decisions on how to prioritize it. 

So as I understood your answers to Mr. Green’s questions, for existing chemicals, if the EPA wants to trigger some kind of a review, 

they have got to promulgate a rule before they do that, is that 

right? 

Mr. JONES. Under current law, that is correct. 

Ms. DEGETTE. Yes, and then under—as what—1009 what would 

happen would be, as a threshold, the EPA would be directed to review the safety of all existing chemicals in commerce, is that correct? 

Mr. JONES. That is correct. 

Ms. DEGETTE. And so that sounds good, but if the EPA is going 

to review all of those chemicals, they are going to need to get a lot 

of data that they don’t currently have. Is that right? 

Mr. JONES. That is correct. 

34 

Ms. DEGETTE. And so I guess what I want to ask you is, under 

the current drafting of S. 1009, is there a minimum set of information the EPA will have for each chemical so they can decide how 

to review and prioritize it for action? 

Mr. JONES. We think that we will very likely tailor the data that 

we are interested in having for a safety assessment based on some 

of the characteristics of the chemical. So, for example, chemicals 

that are persistent bioaccumulative and have some toxicity, we 

would require a lot more data for, health and safety data, than for 

a chemical which our—the evidence that we have based on models 

that we used, predicted it as likely to be of lower toxicity. So we 

would probably tailor the data we would like to see for our assessments based on characteristics that we know. 

Ms. DEGETTE. Now, in the bill itself, is there actually any standard set for the data that you would use or obtain, or is—would— 

are you just left to decide that for yourselves? 

Mr. JONES. The bill as drafted gives the Agency quite a bit of discretion as to what data it would want to compel generation of. 

Ms. DEGETTE. And does it lay out what criteria the Agency 

would use to decide which—or—you see what I am saying? It is 

like there are so many chemicals out there—— 

Mr. JONES. Yes. It gives the criteria for the order in which we 

prioritize things as high. 

Ms. DEGETTE. OK. Now, S. 1009 also changes the requirements 

for entry into commerce of new chemicals. It is my understanding 

that maybe as 80 or 90 percent of new chemical applications currently contain no data on potential impacts to human health. Is 

that correct? 

Mr. JONES. That is correct. 

Ms. DEGETTE. So under current law, the EPA wouldn’t be making an affirmative decision about a new chemical’s safety before it 

enters the market, is that correct? 

Mr. JONES. That is correct. 

Ms. DEGETTE. Under S. 1009, the EPA must make a decision 

about the likely safety of a new chemical, is that right? 

Mr. JONES. That is correct. 

Ms. DEGETTE. But will the EPA have data about the new chemicals to accurately make the safety determination? 

Mr. JONES. So we expect that there will be, for many situations, 

the models that we use to predict hazard will allow us to make 

such determination—likely to meet the safety standard determination for many chemicals. There will be some chemicals which, when 

we use predictive models, they are going to raise enough concerns 

that we are going to want to see health and safety data generated. 

Ms. DEGETTE. OK. Well, I appreciate you—I appreciate that answer, but I am a little concerned because it seems a little bit vague, 

and I think that is one of the areas of this bill we can really work 

on, is setting clearly what data the EPA needs to be given for certain classes of chemicals. So I look forward to working with you 

and also with the committee on those issues. 

Thanks. 

Mr. SHIMKUS. Gentlelady’s time has expired. The chair now recognizes the gentleman from West Virginia, Mr. McKinley, for 5 

minutes. 

35 

Mr. MCKINLEY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and again, thank you 

for the—once again continuing this discussion. 

Mr. Jones, two questions for you. The first is, will, in your analysis of the Vitter bill, did—will it require an expansion, will it need 

more FTEs, anything along that line to be able to carry out the 

new mission? 

Mr. JONES. In the absence of additional resources, the number of 

chemicals we would be able to move through the process will definitely be meaningfully constrained. 

Mr. MCKINLEY. Will be what? 

Mr. JONES. Meaningfully constrained. The number will be smaller than I think most people would hope. 

Mr. MCKINLEY. So the answer to the question, are we going to 

have—are you going to need more FTEs? 

Mr. JONES. It is likely that additional FTE would be necessary 

to achieve the kind of numbers, I think, that generally people 

would expect from the Agency. 

Mr. MCKINLEY. OK. Secondly, is the—some of the criticism of the 

existing bill and the Vitter language is about the burden placed on 

EPA to express the need before they make the request to the companies to fulfill that assessment. Can you share with us the value 

of why the EPA should make the first step in determining the 

need? 

Mr. JONES. The need for health and safety data? 

Mr. MCKINLEY. Yes. Right. 

Mr. JONES. So the Agency is pretty well equipped, and we are 

also coming at it with the simple desire to understand health and 

safety. So we have got both the—well, largely, we have the scientific expertise to be able to judge whether or not health and safety data is necessary, and what kind to make a safety determination. 

Mr. MCKINLEY. So if—again, I—that—be more specific with that. 

So I am just trying to understand that. So—because some are saying they don’t think you should make the first step, the company 

should provide that chemical and their product data. Do you think 

it best for you to first make the—make your own analysis to determine that there is still a need—— 

Mr. JONES. The—— 

Mr. MCKINLEY [continuing]. Before you ask them to produce it? 

Mr. JONES. Yes, I think that we have got a pretty sophisticated 

way of understanding where we need information and where we 

don’t. And as I was answering the question to Congresswoman 

DeGette, we are able to do it in a way that is tailored to the chemical and the issues that the particular chemical expresses. And so 

I think in many ways, it can be the most efficient way for the 

Agency to identify we need this data but not that data. 

Mr. MCKINLEY. OK. And maybe to add one last in the little time 

I have left. I think I heard it—the question but I wasn’t sure I 

heard the answer again, and that is, with the passage of this, 

this—you really think that this is an improvement for health safety 

and for children, pregnant women, we—on and on and on. This is 

going to be an improvement over what we have now? 

Mr. JONES. Well, as I said in answer to the first time that question was asked, that the way in which we are trying to think about 

36 

it is does this give us the tools to ensure safe chemicals in the 

United States, and as I pointed out, I think that there are a number of areas which are meaningful deficiencies that would need to 

be addressed before we could say that this bill will give us the tools 

we need to ensure safe chemicals in the United States. 

Mr. MCKINLEY. So—and the bottom line here, you think this 

really is an improvement? 

Mr. JONES. I think it needs some improvement. 

Mr. MCKINLEY. OK, it still needs to be worked. OK, and I am 

OK with that, but I just wanted—are we—if it is moving in the 

right direction to make sure that it is an improvement over what 

we have now. 

Mr. JONES. There are aspects that are moving in the right direction, and there are aspects that are not. 

Mr. MCKINLEY. OK. Thank you very much. 

Mr. SHIMKUS. Will the gentleman yield? Will the gentleman 

yield? 

Mr. MCKINLEY. Yes. 

Mr. SHIMKUS. Let me follow up on just two quick questions. 

Part of the 85,000 list of chemicals, there are some that are no 

longer in commerce or in manufacturing processes, and those—you 

could be—probably easily drop them off, isn’t that true? 

Mr. JONES. Well, interestingly, we would have to go through a 

process to drop them off, and as a general matter, manufacturers, 

even if they are not making the chemicals, like them on the list because at some point in the future, they want to bring that into 

their production, for whatever marketing reasons they have, they 

can do that if it is not on the list. 

Mr. SHIMKUS. But under the new law, if passed as-is, they are 

still going to be looked at then. The whole idea is to get through 

this list in some time. 

Mr. JONES. Under 1009, it actually creates two lists. One is an 

active list, things that are actively in commerce, and one is an inactive list, things that are no longer in commerce. 

Mr. SHIMKUS. Right. 

Mr. JONES. Manufacturers can go from inactive to active by noticing EPA. 

Mr. SHIMKUS. Let me ask another question. Is there a difference 

between chemicals that go actually into consumer consumption or 

handling, versus chemicals that are involved just in the manufacturing process that stays within the walls of a facility? 

Mr. JONES. The way in which we evaluate them is very different, 

but we have jurisdiction over both. We evaluate them very differently. One is, we are looking at the exposures that a consumer 

would get, and the other, we are going to look at what happens in 

the workplace to the worker if the worker is exposed. 

Mr. SHIMKUS. Great, thank you. And the Chair now recognizes 

the gentlelady from California, Mrs. Capps, for 5 minutes. 

Mrs. CAPPS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you, Mr. 

Jones, for your testimony here and your statement here, and your 

position at EPA. 

Many stakeholders have raised concerns about the need to protect vulnerable populations. That is my concern in talking with you 

during my 5 minutes. Any system needs modernization. TSCA, I 

37 

am sure, can use it too, but an essential component is to really address how vulnerable populations will be affected. 

Any reform, for example, of this statute that fails to adequately 

protect children or pregnant women would be a terrible failure. 

Vulnerable populations do include infants and children, the elderly, 

the disabled and anyone living in a close proximity to a chemical 

facility. The National Academies of Science, in their 2009 report 

called Science and Decision—Decisions, recommended that vulnerable populations should receive special attention at every stage of 

the risk-assessment process. S. 1009 makes only two references to 

subpopulations. Vulnerable populations are not addressed in the 

safety standard, and are not required to be considered in the safety 

determination. This strikes me as a glaring oversight. Even using 

the problematic terminology of this bill, a chemical should not be 

deemed to meet the safety standard if it poses an unreasonable 

risk to a vulnerable subpopulation. 

So I have a couple of yes/no questions to ask you, because I hope 

you agree with this. Do you think a chemical that poses an unreasonable risk to a subpopulation should be able to pass the safety 

standard under a reformed TSCA? 

Mr. JONES. No. 

Mrs. CAPPS. And to follow up, as a general matter, should a 

chemical that poses a serious or substantial risk to a vulnerable 

subpopulation be considered acceptable under a reformed TSCA 

safety standard? 

Mr. JONES. No. 

Mrs. CAPPS. Well, I thank you for that. That puts you on the 

record there. Turning now to the risk-management decisions that 

will be taken when a chemical does not meet the safety standard 

under a reformed TSCA. 

Mr. Jones, should risk-management actions under a reformed 

TSCA ensure that unreasonable risks, including those to vulnerable populations, are addressed? 

Mr. JONES. Yes. 

Mrs. CAPPS. And should risk-management actions under a reformed TSCA ensure that a serious or substantial risk to a vulnerable population should be addressed? 

Mr. JONES. Yes. 

Mrs. CAPPS. Partly in answer to a previous question—well, let us 

put it this way: The Senate made some progress in their legislation. Are there some areas that we could improve upon that you 

would like to highlight in less than 2 minutes? 

Mr. JONES. Sure. Thank you for that. And I am only in this position because of the fine education I got at the University of California, Santa Barbara. And thank you for—— 

Mrs. CAPPS. Thank you very much. That doesn’t hurt your standing in my eyes. 

Mr. JONES. So we think that the kinds of improvements that are 

necessary to get this bill to the place where we think it gives us 

the tools we need to ensure safe chemicals in the United States are 

along the following. That there need to be meaningful deadlines on 

the Agency, that the safety standard should be clear and understood by all parties as to being a risk-based safety standard. The 

kind of analysis that we have gotten bogged down because of the 

38 

least burdensome requirements under existing TSCA shouldn’t be 

replaced with additional analysis that does not add a lot of value 

to the ultimate decision making. And I also think that there needs 

to be a balanced approach to preemption, which I currently don’t 

think the bill achieves. 

Mrs. CAPPS. Thank you. Thank you very much for that summary. 

Mr. Chairman, I am a strong supporter of reforming TSCA, in 

addition to wanting us to pay special attention to this particular 

witness, just because where he received his education. 

I do have some serious concerns about the bill before us today. 

The Senate language does not require the protection of vulnerable 

populations in the safety standard or in the risk-management decisions, and I think that is a fundamental flaw that would affect 

each of us in our congressional districts. Any TSCA reform bill this 

committee considers should ensure that the most vulnerable among 

us are protected, and this protection is real and effective. So I look 

forward to having this committee continue to work on this particular issue. 

Thank you. 

Mr. SHIMKUS. I thank my colleague. I—just to note that right 

now, there is no—in current law, there is no vulnerable population 

comment, but in the Senate bill I think it is listed at least twice. 

So there is some movement in the—in that direction. 

The Chair now recognizes the gentleman from—I am trying to 

find here, gentleman from Florida, Mr. Bilirakis, for 5 minutes. 

Mr. BILIRAKIS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate it very 

much. Thank you for holding this hearing as well. 

I would like to ask a question. Should Congress require a minimum number of chemicals to be acted on each year? 

Mr. JONES. That is a great question, Congressman. The benefits 

of having a minimum number of chemicals is that you can feel that 

there is forward progress being made all of the time. The downside 

to it is that, in the absence of meaningful resources, you can find 

the Agency in a situation where it can’t meet the statutory requirements, or the way in which it does so is to by working on easier 

chemicals, which is not really, I think, what the objective is of setting priorities, that we would be working on the more complicated, 

difficult compounds first. So there are definitely some pros and 

cons to including a minimum number of chemicals. 

Mr. BILIRAKIS. OK, thank you. Some question that Senate Bill 

1009 does not require adequate data to prioritize chemicals. Does 

Senate Bill 1009 give the EPA authority to seek additional data 

and info? How do you read Senate Bill 1009? 

Mr. JONES. So that is a good question as well. I think that there 

is a disagreement amongst some of the people reading the bill as 

to whether or not we have the ability to require the generation of 

health and safety data if it is not already a high priority chemical. 

We read the bill to allow us to be able to do that. I think the fact 

that there are people reading the same words and coming to a different answer to that question is another example where it might 

be useful to seek clarity on that point. 

Mr. BILIRAKIS. All right, thank you very much. Next question, 

would Senate Bill 1009 allow the EPA to assess the safety of 

chemicals that are persistent bioaccumulative and toxic, and reVerDate Mar 15 2010 10:08 Oct 06, 2014 Jkt 037690 PO 00000 Frm 00042 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 F:\113-92 CHEM SAFETY ASK OK 10-2-14\113-92 CHEM SAFETY PDF MADE WAYNE
39 

quire risk management for those that fail to meet the safety standard? 

Mr. JONES. The bill allows the Agency to do that, but—not create 

the explicit requirements to give any priority to persistence or bioaccumulation, but it certainly allows the Agency to evaluate them 

and take risk management if warranted. 

Mr. BILIRAKIS. Thank you. Thank you for your response. 

And I yield back. 

Mr. SHIMKUS. Gentleman yield to me—— 

Mr. BILIRAKIS. Yes. 

Mr. SHIMKUS [continuing]. For a quick—so risk is defined as hazard plus exposure. Is that how you define it? 

Mr. JONES. Hazard times exposure. Yes, hazard times exposure. 

Mr. SHIMKUS. So define for me the difference between substantial and unreasonable. So if you have substantial risk, OK, we 

know what risk is, we know what unreasonable risk, so what are— 

I guess that is two adjectives, but I mean what is the difference 

between those two? 

Mr. JONES. I actually think it really depends on all of the other 

words that are used in the statute to describe what the Agency is 

required to find. I don’t believe unreasonable risk, those two words 

by themselves, mean that the Agency has to conduct a cost benefit 

analysis. I do believe the courts have said those words used in conjunction with a lot of other words create the requirement of a risk 

benefit balancing, but the words themselves I don’t think mean, to 

the layperson or anybody who can read the dictionary, means cost 

benefit. But it is a lot of the words that are used in conjunction 

with the actual standard that, I think, gives it its full meaning. 

Mr. SHIMKUS. Great, thank you. The Chair now recognizes the 

gentleman from California, Mr. McNerney, for 5 minutes, who has 

been waiting very patiently. 

Mr. MCNERNEY. Waiting and listening, Mr. Chairman. Thank 

you. 

Mr. Jones, in your testimony, I believe you stated that S. 1009 

requires affirmative standards. Would you please elaborate on that, 

especially regarding enforcement, how those affirmative standards 

would be enforced in the new law? 

Mr. JONES. Thank you. That comment reflects specifically to the 

new chemicals provision in 1009. Under existing law, the Agency, 

when a new chemical is submitted, we have 90 days to evaluate it, 

and only if we identify a problem are we able to work with the 

manufacturer to prevent it from being introduced into commerce. 

Under S. 1009, it requires the Agency to make an affirmative finding of meeting the safety standard before the manufacturer can 

move that chemical into commerce. 

Mr. MCNERNEY. OK. That is a good thing, I think. 

Mr. JONES. I would think so, yes. 

Mr. MCNERNEY. You also stated that in S. 1009, the language 

would make it as difficult as the unreasonable risk or least burdensome language in TSCA to enforce rules as it has been for TSCA 

with asbestos. Can those—can that language be modified in your 

opinion to remove some of those barriers, and make it reasonable 

to enforce? 

40 

Mr. JONES. For any of the issues that we have identified, the 

devil is always in the details, but I think that changes could be 

made in a way that would not send us into an endless amount of 

analysis before we could ultimately make protective decisions. 

Mr. MCNERNEY. Well, who would you recommend that the committee consult with on that language? 

Mr. JONES. I think it is important to have all stakeholders. I 

mean obviously you can’t have literally all stakeholders, to be 

bringing all people to the table, as I think you get the best outcome 

and you can get a common understanding of what—the words you 

are using are the words everybody believes that they mean. 

Mr. MCNERNEY. OK. Well, to change the subject a little bit. The 

European Union has made significant progress on some of the 

60,000 chemicals that have been grandfathered. Is that correct? 

Mr. JONES. The European Union, which has a very different 

model, has definitely made some progress in the universe of chemicals sold in Europe. 

Mr. MCNERNEY. Would S. 1009 allow you to—the EPA to collaborate with the European Union on identifying some of those, and 

classifying some of those chemicals? 

Mr. JONES. We definitely would be able to collaborate. I think the 

fundamental problem we and the Europeans are dealing with as it 

relates to that collaboration is they have required manufacturers to 

generate a lot of health and safety data, and the European Union 

under their rules cannot share that information with us. They have 

to have the company’s permission. The companies find themselves 

in a situation where they negotiated agreements across multiple 

companies, and unless everybody agrees, they can’t give us the information. And so I am hard-pressed to know what U.S. domestic 

law could do to actually break that log jam. I think we have to—— 

Mr. MCNERNEY. OK. 

Mr. JONES [continuing]. Work something out, not under law, but 

with manufacturers to figure out how to get access to that treasure-trove of health and safety data. 

Mr. MCNERNEY. OK. That is a good answer. Regarding resources, 

if S. 1009 becomes law, would the Agency need greater resources 

to carry out the various rule makings laid out in the bill? 

Mr. JONES. I think where we would run into issues with expectations, expectations of, I assume, the Congress and certainly I think 

of the American public, is that the number of assessments we 

would be able to do under existing resources would probably, for 

most people, be considered to be inadequate. So to change that, we 

would need resources. I do think there are models out there that 

involve the industry financing that are used in the FDA and our 

pesticides program that are worth looking at. 

Mr. MCNERNEY. So in S. 1009, there aren’t any dedicated funding sources? 

Mr. JONES. No, there are not. 

Mr. MCNERNEY. So that could be interpreted as one of the weaknesses in that law—in that proposed law? 

Mr. JONES. One of the administration principles is there be a 

sustained source of funding, and that is not addressed in the bill. 

Mr. MCNERNEY. OK, thank you. 

Mr. Chairman, I yield back. 

41 

Mr. SHIMKUS. Gentleman yields back his time. The Chair now 

recognizes the gentleman from Pennsylvania, Mr. Pitts, for 5 minutes. 

Mr. PITTS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. Jones, in our first hearing, witnesses stated that EPA needed specific statutory authority for chemical prioritization. Is that 

important? 

Mr. JONES. Thank you, Congressman. I think it is important because there are so many chemicals in commerce that it is important to direct the Agency to focus on those that may present risks 

earlier in the process rather than later. And in the absence of that, 

you could see wily bureaucrats, of which I am one, working on easy 

things because we can do a lot of easy things. So I think being directed to work on those things that are the highest priority is a 

very important thing when you have a universe that big. 

Mr. PITTS. Does S. 1009 require that chemicals be prioritized? 

Mr. JONES. Yes, it does. 

Mr. PITTS. Does S. 1009 allow EPA to consider potentially vulnerable subpopulations in making decisions to prioritize chemicals 

for review, and in subsequent safety assessments and determination? 

Mr. JONES. In safety assessments, we are required to consider 

vulnerable populations. That is not required of safety determinations or—in the priority setting. We are not prohibited, but it is not 

required for the other two. 

Mr. PITTS. S. 1009 lays out framework requirements for 

prioritizing existing chemicals, gathering, testing data and information, conducting safety assessments and making safety determinations. Does a reformed TSCA need to set these requirements 

out as four separate steps? 

Mr. JONES. The bill has a lot of what we were referring to as 

framework requirements, we think we counted a total of about 17. 

I think it is possible to collapse a number of the frameworks down, 

and not lose some of what the drafters intended. Most were drafted—making it more streamlined and straightforward. 

Mr. PITTS. S. 1009 has provisions requiring that EPA sort chemicals for review as either a high or low priority. Should there be 

more categories than just high or low priority? 

Mr. JONES. I don’t see a huge amount of value in adding another 

category other than high or low. 

Mr. PITTS. Are you concerned that you cannot seek judicial review of the prioritization screening decisions? 

Mr. JONES. That is a very good question. I think it runs counter 

to generally how we run the government, that an Agency action 

that ends all other downstream consequences is unable to be challenged. So a high-priority decision—when we do that, downstream 

things have to happen. And so it doesn’t bother me that that is not 

subject to judicial review, because the downstream thing ultimately 

will. A low priority under 1009 actually stops all action. EPA at 

that point is done. No more work. Stop. That to me is a final Agency action, and although I would like to think all of our final Agency 

actions shouldn’t be—no one should be bothering us about them, 

I—as a matter of good government, I think that it is important to 

allow people who disagree with a final Agency action to seek review 

42 

of that in an appropriate judicial proceeding. And so I think that 

having a law not be subject to judicial review is not a good place 

for the government to be in. 

Mr. PITTS. And managing the many chemicals that you need to 

review, how long do you expect this process to take, both to 

prioritize and schedule for assessment? 

Mr. JONES. The prioritization process I think will happen, the 

initial one, very quickly. The initial assessments will happen within a couple of years. I think it will be many years before we have 

evaluated all the high priority chemicals. 

Mr. PITTS. OK, thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. SHIMKUS. Gentleman yields back his time. 

Chair now recognizes the gentleman from Louisiana, Mr. 

Cassidy, for 5 minutes. 

Mr. CASSIDY. Mr. Jones, I apologize if someone else has asked. 

I had to step out. 

To prove safety by the first—to prove that something is not at 

risk, you have to prove a negative. It is very difficult to prove a 

negative. How do you prove a negative? 

Mr. JONES. So we rely on analytical tools that often include data, 

often include models. So if something does not express hazard, it 

is impossible for it to have risk, if something doesn’t—— 

Mr. CASSIDY. Now, that is—now, let me ask, because we had a 

hearing about the risk of something for breast cancer. It is a big 

concern of mine. My wife is a breast cancer surgeon, and I am a 

physician, so we were on a vacation so we pulled down the literature, and there is a body of literature for this particular chemical, that it could cause breast cancer, but—and somebody did a regression analysis and goes, you have got to be kidding me. There 

is obesity, alcohol, cigarette use, family history, and here is a very 

marginal effect that may or may not. But the witness was passionately and quite emotionally declaring that this particular chemical 

had an impact upon breast cancer. 

So I guess I would come back to no risk at all may be in the eye 

of the beholder, right, or of the interest group or whatever. In that 

situation, what does this law allow you to do? 

Mr. JONES. Well, it would require us to assess the risk of that 

chemical, and make a determination as to whether or not that risk 

met a safety standard. 

Mr. CASSIDY. I guess what I am after, the safety standard seems 

a nebulous thing to me. 

Mr. JONES. So—yes. 

Mr. CASSIDY. And so, again, this advocacy was just so passionate 

in their emotion, even though the retrogression analysis showed 

that the effect was nonexistent or minimal, if it existed. It just 

couldn’t be teased out. So would that—would this nebulous standard say, listen, best science shows that it is obesity, family history, 

alcohol and cigarettes. This marginal effect we can’t prove so we 

move on, or we just say, no, we have to say this is not safe? 

Mr. JONES. We have a pretty long record of how we calculate 

risk, and what we view to be risks that are beyond negligible. They 

involve using standards such as the increased lifetime cancer risk 

of a substance, they include calculations that we use for other 

kinds of effects where we look for a certain margin of exposure beVerDate Mar 15 2010 10:08 Oct 06, 2014 Jkt 037690 PO 00000 Frm 00046 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 F:\113-92 CHEM SAFETY ASK OK 10-2-14\113-92 CHEM SAFETY PDF MADE WAYNE
43 

tween the exposure level and when adversity occurs, and there is 

a general understanding about how we—— 

Mr. CASSIDY. So I think, I gather, that industry would be able 

to look at a basically kind of common-law standard, if you will, 

something that this—it isn’t nebulous, you are telling me, but there 

is something they could look at and say, below this threshold, we 

know we are OK? 

Mr. JONES. That is correct. 

Mr. CASSIDY. Then let me also ask, I was struck once in some 

hearings we had that the EPA’s current method of analysis does 

not take into account a threshold effect, that they extrapolate all 

the way down, if we know this level really causes damage, but we 

know at this level it is in the environment, and common exposure 

doesn’t cause damage. I am a doc, aflatoxin is a great example of 

something we are all exposed to, but it is only above the threshold 

has a problem, EPA, as I gather, does not take that into account. 

Mr. JONES. The vast majority of the chemical assessments we do 

are based on the threshold model that you are describing. A relatively small number, in particular, those that are carcinogens, 

where there has not been demonstrated the threshold that you are 

describing, we use the model that you are describing. That is a relatively small number of chemicals. 

That being said, we have gotten some advice from the NAS to 

begin to think about how to use models other than the threshold 

model that I just described. But right now, the vast majority of 

chemical assessments that we do rely on the threshold model that 

you are describing. 

Mr. CASSIDY. OK, I had a little bit of a different impression, so 

I am reassured regarding that. 

The subpopulation groups also seem to be something which is, 

you know, going to be difficult to define. I know that there are always two or three standard deviations out, somebody with a genetic predisposition to, fill in the blank. And it may be an environmental exposure will fill in the blank. You with me? Take type 1 

diabetes. 

Mr. JONES. Um-hum. 

Mr. CASSIDY. There seems to be a genetic component, but some 

interaction with the environment. How would you ever—it almost 

seems like if you really chase that out, you are always going to find 

some subpopulation with a genetic exposure which, combined with 

the environmental, is problematic. 

I know you have thought about this. What are your thoughts? 

Mr. JONES. So there are either a couple of things that we have— 

I like to give the example of what we have done in our pesticide 

program, which is a similar requirement around significant, highly 

exposed and vulnerable populations. We have literally identified 

the populations that we look at in terms of age, and we look at 

children at six-month intervals when they are very young, and 

then we go to 1-year intervals, and then we go to, you know, 

women of childbearing age and those over 50. And we also do it by 

race and ethnicity. And so we have defined them, we have taken 

comment on that, and it is then widely understood here are the 

populations below the general population that we are going to look 

at for every assessment that we do. 

44 

I would expect that we would do something similar here. They 

may not be the exact same subgroups that we would look at, but 

we would go through a process of identifying them and asking the 

public to give us feedback on it. The other thing is that we, as a 

general matter, use an uncertainty factor to capture the general 

variability within the population as it relates to intraspecies sensitivity. 

So that tenfold factor we use to try to broadly capture that phenomenon. When there is information that leads us to believe that 

for a specific effect, something beyond that 10 is necessary, then we 

use that to inform our assessment. 

Mr. CASSIDY. I will finish by saying your testimony is very reassuring, but I remember reading the National Academy of Science’s 

report on your formaldehyde report, and they really felt like the 

conclusions of the report were not based—were not supported by 

the data which had been amalgamated, thinking specifically of tumors in the nasal laryngeal area in rats, and yet EPA kind of 

swore by it. 

So thank you for your testimony, and I yield back. 

Mr. SHIMKUS. Don’t you hate these real smart members of Congress who ask these—make us all look bad? 

So last but not least, my colleague from the great State of Georgia, Mr. Barrow, for 5 minutes. 

Mr. BARROW. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you, Mr. Jones, 

for being here today. 

I know that the EPA hasn’t yet taken a position on S. 1009 all 

together—in its all together, but I want to see if we can’t draw 

some comparisons between current law and the proposal, and just 

get some idea where we can find some—for example, are there any 

areas of the bill that, in the opinion of the EPA, are better than 

current law? 

Mr. JONES. Yes. Mandating the Agency evaluating existing 

chemicals is a non-trivial improvement over the existing law. That 

is not something we are required to do right now. Giving the EPA 

the ability to require manufacturers to generate health and safety 

findings, using order authority, is dramatically more efficient than 

the process that we have under the existing law. And then the requirement that EPA make an affirmative finding for a new chemical before it enters commerce, I think is also a pretty significant 

improvement. 

Mr. BARROW. Flipside, any areas of the proposed legislation that 

in your opinion are worse than current law? 

Mr. JONES. Yes, I will say that the preemption provision is dramatically less—I think at the end of the day would be less protective than the current preemption under TSCA. 

Mr. BARROW. I am kind of reminded of Lincoln’s comment about 

liberty, you know, the sheep praises the shepherd for driving the 

wolf away from his neck, and the wolf condemns him for the same 

act. Clearly, we need a new word of liberty, you know, new agreement on what it means. So I want to talk about protection in this 

context, the interplay between Federal and State regulations that 

is a real major policy issue we have to deal with. 

One concern that I have is if funding for the big regulator, the 

national regulator, the EPA, is either chronically inadequate so 

45 

that the regulator is malnourished, or is highly sporadic as a result 

of politics, ranksmanship and shutdown or what have you. The concern I have is whether or not we will have effective regulation if 

we preempt State, and the only regulator who is left on the scene 

is unable to do his job. I have a concern about that, but I also have 

a concern about, you know, the regulator wanting to do its job. You 

know, a regulator that doesn’t want to do its job is like going bird 

hunting and having to tote the dog. But a regulator that can’t do 

its job is like going bird hunting without the dog. I am not sure 

which is better. Each is equally ineffective as far as the customer 

and the taxpayer is concerned. 

So help me understand, in your experience, what has been the 

benefit of the current regime of dual State and Federal regulations 

on the one hand, and what has been the cost of the current regime, 

and how would you suggest we go forward? 

Mr. JONES. I think the benefit is a good part of why we are here; 

that because the Federal law is ineffective, States have stepped 

into the breach and have been doing the work necessary to protect 

the people in their States, which has created an incentive on the 

part of the industry, in my view, to raise the bar of the Federal 

law so that States don’t feel compelled to step into the breach, because the Federal Government is ensuring the safety of their citizens. I think that is the—— 

Mr. BARROW. You described the ideal or optimal role of the State 

regulator as being a pride toward better action, better regulation 

nationwide is how you describe it. 

Mr. JONES. Um-hum. 

Mr. BARROW. As being basically a driving force for getting—— 

Mr. JONES. I think that they have been the driving force in the 

chemical space that has been basically the only regulation. 

Mr. BARROW. Aren’t you—don’t you share the concerns though of 

others though that if you do have a nationwide standard, if the regulator is malnourished or underfunded, that that could be a problem as well, they can’t keep up with the demand? So you don’t 

want to replace something bad with something that—— 

Mr. JONES. No, exactly. 

Mr. BARROW [continuing]. Does not exist. 

Mr. JONES. It is a challenging dynamic that you are trying to ultimately achieve, where the absence of action on the Federal Government doesn’t mean nobody gets protected, that it keeps—the potential threat of that happening keeps people like me on top of our 

job, moving the ball forward, which also creates the dynamic where 

the States feel like they don’t feel like they need to regulate because it is going to be taken care of at a national level. And I think 

that is very—— 

Mr. BARROW. We should understand—you can understand that 

even if you are doing a good job at the national level, there could 

be some States you just want to regulate a whole lot more? 

Mr. JONES. That absolutely I think would be the case. 

Mr. BARROW. And the problem we have is not the fact that we 

have two regulators in any given one place. 

Mr. JONES. Right. 

46 

Mr. BARROW. We only have 51 regulators as far as the country 

as a whole is concerned. You recognize the challenge and burden 

that is to industry. 

Mr. JONES. That is right, and I think that that is the flipside of 

the—that is why I think it has been so hard for people to come together to figure out what is exact—what is that sweet spot there. 

It is untenable to try to sell a product in the United States, and 

you need to meet 51 or 57 different requirements. At the same 

time, you don’t want to leave everybody unprotected because people 

here are not able to get their job done, or don’t have the tools to 

get their job done. And trying to find that sweet spot, I think is 

very challenging. 

Mr. BARROW. Thank you. With my—with that, my time is up. 

Mr. SHIMKUS. Gentleman yields back his time. 

And I—just a point. I think there are only like four States who 

really have the capability or are involved in this space, versus the 

other ones that aren’t. And when we had ECOS testifying, many 

States had no capability to do this intensive evaluation. So I just 

throw that in. 

Mr. Jones, a delightful testimony. I usually don’t say that very 

often. Great job. I think you could see from the interest by members present that there is a desire to try to get this right, and find 

the sweet spot, and I hope we can continue moving forward. You 

are a great credit to the Agency, and we thank you for joining us. 

And we dismiss you and ask the final panel to come forward. 

We would like to welcome the third panel here, and many of you 

have been sitting in the room for a couple of hours now, so we appreciate your diligence and we look forward to your testimony. I 

think the first two panels went real well, and we look forward to 

yours. 

So I will just do the introductions as your opening statements are 

called for. It is great to welcome back Cal Dooley, former colleague, 

now President and CEO of the American Chemistry Council. Obviously, your full statement has been submitted for the record. You 

have 5 minutes. 

STATEMENTS OF CAL DOOLEY, PRESIDENT AND CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER, AMERICAN CHEMISTRY COUNCIL; ERNEST 

ROSENBERG, PRESIDENT AND CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER, 

AMERICAN CLEANING INSTITUTE; RICHARD A. DENISON, 

SENIOR SCIENTIST, ENVIRONMENTAL DEFENSE FUND; 

DEAN C. GARFIELD, PRESIDENT AND CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER, INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY INDUSTRY COUNCIL; 

ANDY IGREJAS, DIRECTOR, SAFER CHEMICALS, HEALTHY 

FAMILIES; AND WENDY E. WAGNER, JOE A. WORSHAM CENTENNIAL PROFESSOR, UNIVERSITY OF TEXAS SCHOOL OF 

LAW 

STATEMENT OF CAL DOOLEY 

Mr. DOOLEY. Thank you, Chairman Shimkus, and Ranking Member Tonko, and all the members of the committee. I appreciate this 

opportunity to be testifying on behalf of the American Chemistry 

Council, our member companies, as well as 800,000 men and 

women who work every day in the business of chemistry. 

47 

ACC and our member companies are absolutely committed to the 

modernization and the reform of TSCA that will enhance the public 

confidence in the safety of our chemicals, and allow our industry 

and our customer base throughout the value chain to continue to 

be on the forefront of developing innovations that improve our everyday lives. 

You know, some of you were in attendance at a hearing that this 

committee had in 2010 on a bill that was introduced to reform 

TSCA by Congressman Waxman. If you were here at that hearing, 

it was actually one that was fairly contentious, and Richard 

Denison and I were passionate defenders of our constituencies, but 

unfortunate, you know, that contentious dialog we had there was 

a reflection of what—the failure to find a common ground or a balanced approach to a comprehensive TSCA reform. It is unfortunate 

over the last few years, even on the Senate hearings where Mr. 

Denison, representing EDF, and I have testified, we were also very 

polarized and very contentious in some of our dialog. And that was 

a reflection of the failure for Republicans and Democrats to come 

together to find a balanced comprehensive reform to TSCA that 

could secure bipartisan support. 

You know, that all changed just this last year when, thanks to 

the leadership of Senator Lautenberg and Senator Vitter, they 

brought together diverse constituencies to work out some of our differences, and develop not a perfect bill by either of our perspectives, or any of our perspectives, but develop a balanced approach 

that could provide for meaningful improvements to TSCA regulations. And it was really that balanced approach that was also 

groundbreaking in that we were able to develop the support of 25 

members of the U.S. Senate, equally split, well, 12 to 13, between 

Republicans and Democrats. Again, unprecedented. And I really 

appreciate the work that this committee has done to try to find 

ways which we can build upon the progress that was achieved in 

the Senate, because our industry, and the value chain at large, has 

also increased their support in TSCA reform, because it is not only 

the chemical industry, it is the information technology industry, 

there is actually now an alliance of about 100 different associations 

representing everyone from the retail federation to toy manufacturers to automobile manufacturers, technology, semiconductors, that 

have all come together to support the CSIA, because they see it as 

a balanced and a meaningful reform of the existing TSCA legislation. 

Also unprecedented is not only industry, but you also have organized labor that has joined in support of TSCA reform. You have 

the electrical workers and IBW, the North American Building 

Trades, the machinists, aerospace, transportation, and the ironworkers have also joined in support. 

So the message here is is that, you know, something that is positive is happening here. We have also heard in some of the comments of Jim Jones as well as Administrator Gina Jackson that the 

CSIA really does set the foundation for meaningful progress to see 

reform of TSCA today. It is also, I think, important that when you 

look at the comments by former Administrator Christine Todd 

Whitman, and Charlie Auer who was manager of the TSCA Program under President Bush, as well as Steve Owens who was 

48 

President Obama’s appointment that had jurisdiction over TSCA 

reform, that have also came and support and endorse CSIA. And 

they did so because they recognize that they address many of the 

problems that they had concerned with implementation of TSCA. 

It requires a systematic evaluation of all grandfathered chemicals 

for the first time. It prioritizes chemicals for EPA reviews so chemicals with the greatest need get the first and greatest attention. It 

gives EPA more efficient authority and ability to get the data that 

they need to make the determinations, and it requires EPA to 

make more information available to the public, a leading goal of environmental advocates and industry alike. 

You know, we recognize at ACC that there are some members in 

the NGO community that would like to see some reforms and some 

modifications of the existing law, but when we look at the 5 issues 

that they surfaced early on, we think that those can be addressed 

in a meaningful and appropriate way that can build and improve 

upon CSIA, but does not, I guess, disrupt or create an imbalance 

in this coalition that could put us back into the gridlock that has 

been characterized in our ability, or our lack of ability, to achieve 

TSCA reform over the past better part of 37 years. 

You know, I will be pleased to respond in detail to a lot of the 

questions you have, but my message here is, is that, you know, this 

bill isn’t viewed by being perfect by industry, and I know Dr. 

Denison will say it is not viewed as perfect by the Environmental 

Defense Fund, but all of you that are serving in Congress today, 

just like I served for 14 years, know that there are very few perfect 

pieces of legislation from one constituent’s interest. The only way 

we are going to see progress in enacting TSCA reform is it is going 

to take a balanced, comprehensive approach, and I hope that we 

use the CSIA as that foundation. I know that there are opportunities to make those modest and marginal reforms that will address 

some of those legitimate issues, but we have to be concerned of the 

delicate balance that we have in place here, and assure that we 

don’t disrupt that. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Dooley follows:] 

49 

50 

51 

52 

53 

54 

Mr. SHIMKUS. Gentleman’s time expired. 

Chair now recognizes Mr. Ernie Rosenberg, President and CEO 

of the American Cleaning Institute. 

STATEMENT OF ERNEST ROSENBERG 

Mr. ROSENBERG. Thank you, Chairman Shimkus, Ranking Member Tonko, members of the subcommittee. My name is Ernie Rosenberg, thank you, and I am the President and CEO of the American 

Cleaning Institute. 

Our member companies have facilities in the Congressional districts of two thirds of the subcommittee membership, and the—our 

members’ products are in every home in the country. 

Strengthening the Toxic Substances Control Act is a top priority 

for our member companies. That is why I am here today. A 

strengthened TSCA has the potential to promote consumer and environmental protection, while enabling innovation for new and improved products. That is why we support the Chemical Safety Improvement Act. 

This legislation provides a strong roadmap for action in the 

113th Congress. We commend the bipartisan efforts that led to the 

development of this measure, and especially the work of the late 

Senator Frank Lautenberg and Senator David Vitter. Twenty-five 

Senate Republicans and Democrats are cosponsors of what is truly 

bipartisan legislation. 

A lack of confidence in TSCA has prompted States, local jurisdictions and businesses to restrict certain chemicals. These actions, 

unfortunately, create a regulatory and business climate that is 

driven by perceived safety concerns, not by sound science. 

Allow me to highlight three important reasons for strengthening 

TSCA. First, a credible Federal program is crucial to having both 

a national market and improve public confidence in EPA’s regulatory program. Second, TSCA must account for ongoing improvements in scientific methods and processes being developed by universities, the government and industry. This information must be 

considered by EPA when making safety assessments and determinations. Third, TSCA has fostered innovative chemical developments in the United States. We must ensure that this continues in 

the years ahead. Cleaning product manufacturers are leaders in 

the development of green chemistries that have led to significant 

energy savings, water savings and reductions in waste generation 

in the United States. The development of concentrated laundry and 

household cleaning products allows products that pack greater 

cleaning power in much smaller packaging to provide the benefits 

I have mentioned, and this represents just a few of the innovative, 

convenient and greener products that are available to consumers 

today. TSCA’s new chemicals program encourages speed to market 

for such innovative products because of the rigorous and flexible 

way the law addresses this task. EPA relies on the strong interaction between government industry to make this happen, and has 

since the—since I was the manager of the program at the very beginning. The Chemical Safety Improvement Act preserves the efficiencies in the new chemicals review process, which are widely acknowledged to work well and are critical to innovation. To remain 

55 

innovative, we need strong protection for confidential business information. 

A strengthened TSCA can and must be risk-based, and must 

be—must use the best science. EPA must be able to get the information it needs to make an informed chemical assessment and 

risk-management decisions. The Chemical Safety Improvement Act 

strengthens TSCA. It removes barriers to EPA data gathering and 

regulatory actions. I would call upon EPA to evaluate the safety of 

chemicals already in use, and enable the EPA to identify and act 

on chemicals that may pose significant safety concerns. 

EPA’s enhanced ability to obtain data would encourage industry 

to provide health and safety information to the Agency without regulatory delays, and with fewer demands on Agency resources. 

CSIA also allows more data to make—be made available to the 

public. For the law to be credible, this is critical. It would also open 

up lines of communication between the States and EPA, and allow 

EPA to share information with them, including confidential business information, something TSCA does not currently allow. CSIA 

would allow EPA to meet its regulatory obligations, and restore 

confidence in the Agency’s ability to do so. 

For the law to become more credible, changes to TSCA must be 

practical, achievable and workable. 

ACIA again thanks you for the opportunity to testify today, and 

I look forward to your questions. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Rosenberg follows:] 

56 

57 

58 

59 

60 

61 

62 

63 

64 

65 

66 

67 

Mr. SHIMKUS. Thank you, Mr. Rosenberg. 

Now I would like to recognize Dr. Richard Denison, Senior Scientist from the Environmental Defense Fund. 

STATEMENT OF RICHARD A. DENISON 

Mr. DENISON. Thank you, Chairman Shimkus, Ranking Member 

Tonko, and other members of the committee for your interest in 

this issue, and for the opportunity to share EDF’s perspective on 

this bipartisan legislation, the Chemical Safety Improvement Act. 

I have four key points I would like to make today. 

First, we have a major political opening to address an urgent 

health concern, and to fix a law that everyone believes needs reform. Second, the bill before us has many of the elements needed 

for effective reform, and a concern for moving reform forward. 

Third, the bill also has serious problems that must be remedied. 

And fourth, those problems, while serious, are fixable. 

The need for reform is more urgent than ever, with science increasingly linking exposures to certain chemicals to serious health 

effects. 

My organization has been working to reform TSCA for more than 

20 years, and I personally for well over a decade. The law simply 

does not work. It is not protecting the health of Americans, it 

doesn’t provide the information companies need to make sound decisions, and it doesn’t give consumers and the market the confidence that companies need to run their businesses. 

In May of this year, we saw a breakthrough with the introduction of CSIA. The bill is both a promising start and far from perfect. It contains many elements of TSCA reform that need significant changes to actually deliver those reforms. I am convinced the 

problems can be addressed while retaining the bipartisan support 

needed to pass legislation. 

Let me note several ways in which CSIA addresses major flaws 

in current law. For the first time safety reviews would be required 

for all chemical—in order to be made and sold. Also for the first 

time—gain access to confidential business information. 

CSIA would address the two main reasons the TSCA safety 

standard has failed. It would generally replace the current cost 

benefit standard with a requirement for a health-only standard, 

and it strikes the least burdensome requirement for TSCA regulations that has, as Mr. Jones said, become a recipe for paralysis by 

analysis. 

CSIA would also fix TSCA provisions that thwart EPA’s ability 

to get new data on a chemical. It could issue test orders and avoid 

a regulatory process that takes many years. And it strikes the 

catch 22 under TSCA that requires the EPA first show evidence of 

risk in order to require testing. But the bill would also erect some 

major barriers to EPA effectively and efficiently using these new 

tools. The safety standard does not ensure protection of vulnerable 

populations, including pregnant women, infants, workers who may 

be more exposed or more susceptible to the effects. The bill would 

not ensure that all information claimed confidential actually warrants trade secret protections. It would weaken current TSCA by 

barring the testing of new chemicals, or ones lacking enough data 

to screen their safety. This means EPA would either have to give 

68 

a pass to data poor chemicals that may post a risk, or waste time 

scrutinizing chemicals that more data would show pose little risk. 

And the bill lacks deadlines and has so many procedural requirements that just getting the system up and running would take 

years. 

My testimony includes an analysis I have done that is quite optimistic in terms of time frames that shows that more than 7 years 

would be required to get to the first safety determination for a 

chemical. 

Finally, the bill’s sweeping preemption of State authority needs 

to be significantly narrowed so that, for example, States can continue to act until and unless EPA takes final action on a chemical, 

and can, with good cause, obtain waivers that allow them to go further than a State than EPA—control of chemical risks. 

Mr. Chairman, let me end on a positive note. The bipartisan bill 

offers major political opportunity and conserves the basis for talks 

to move reform forward, and while its deficiencies are serious, as 

I mentioned before, I believe they are all fixable. I am encouraged 

that the informal negotiations on the bill that have been occurring 

in the Senate already appear to be moving in the right direction, 

but there is more work to be done. I urge the subcommittee to 

build on the foundation laid by S. 1009 to pass meaningful TSCA 

reform legislation in this Congress. The health of—and I thank you 

for your time today. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Denison follows:] 

69 

70 

71 

72 

73 

74 

75 

76 

77 

78 

79 

80 

81 

82 

83 

84 

Mr. SHIMKUS. Thank you, Dr. Denison. 

Now I would like to recognize Mr. Dean Garfield, President and 

CEO of the Information Technology Industry Council. 

Sir, welcome. 

STATEMENT OF DEAN C. GARFIELD 

Mr. GARFIELD. Thank you, Mr.—Chairman Shimkus, Ranking 

Member Tonko, members of the committee. 

On behalf of the 54 of the most dynamic and innovative companies in the world, as well as the nearly 6 million people who work 

in the tech sector, we thank you for hosting this hearing and asking us to testify. 

We have submitted our testimony for the record, so rather than 

repeat it, I will highlight three elements of that testimony. 

First, we strongly support this bipartisan and bicameral effort to 

reform TSCA. We think it is a unique opportunity to advance our 

human health and environmental shared interests. The tech sector 

takes very seriously its role as corporate and environmental stewards, whether it is in product design where we are driving down 

the energy usage of our products, or in sourcing where we are developing and promulgating responsible sourcing, paradigms and 

programs, or in our recycling and reuse programs that we have all 

across the world. We view these issues as first priorities and intend 

to stay engaged. And so thank you for your efforts. 

Second, we think this regulatory reform creates an opportunity 

to develop regulatory processes that are timely, transport and 

based on sound science. In that regard, we will be placing particular emphasis and paying a lot of attention to how you deal with 

the issue of chemicals and articles. In particular, we think it is 

very important for Congress to give guidance to the EPA in that 

area, but at the same time, we don’t think it should be done in an 

import/export control fashion, and, in fact, we think the current 

process whereby the EPA has a case-by-case analysis is one that 

is appropriate and should be continued. 

Finally, we strongly agree with Chairman Shimkus’ opening 

statement that TSCA reform can and should be an opportunity to 

enhance rather than inhibit innovation. With that in mind, we 

think it is important for three things to occur. One, as the previous 

witness, Mr. Jones, pointed out, we think that the approach and direction to EPA has to include some important time limits, particularly as it relates to dealing with innovative or new uses of chemicals. Second, dealing with covered—I am sorry, dealing with confidential business information is critically important. Intellectual 

property is key, the lifeblood of the tech sector, and so ensuring 

that confidential business information is maintained as confidential 

is critically important to us. And third and final, the issue of preemption is also critically important. We recognize that the States 

have an important role to play in these processes and in setting 

standards, at the same time, we develop locally and disseminate 

globally. And so dealing with 50 or 51 different standards around 

human health and environmental safety is simply untenable and 

unworkable for us. 

85 

Thank you again for the opportunity to testify, and I look forward to your questions. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Garfield follows:] 

86 

87 

88 

89 

90 

91 

92 

93 

Mr. SHIMKUS. Thank you, sir. 

Now I would like to turn to Mr. Andy Igrejas, National Campaign Director of the Safer Chemicals, Healthy Families. Welcome. 

Mr. IGREJAS. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman and Mr. 

Tonko. 

Mr. SHIMKUS. Check your microphone. 

Mr. IGREJAS. Thank you. Sorry about that. 

Mr. SHIMKUS. That’s all right. 

STATEMENT OF ANDY IGREJAS 

Mr. IGREJAS. Safer Chemicals, Healthy Families is a coalition of 

450 health and environmental organizations, industrial unions and 

steel and automobiles, as well as businesses, some large, some 

small, from around the country. There is a broad political spectrum, actually, of membership in the organization in the coalition. 

We came together in 2009 to achieve reform of the Toxic Substances Control Act, and we agree with the sentiment and we are 

hopeful that that day could soon be at hand with the legislation 

that has been introduced, but I would have to say that we believe 

that legislation is not yet balanced. It needs a lot of work in order 

to become balanced, and it needs clearer benefits for public health 

and the environment sooner, and it needs a clearer break with the 

dysfunctional past of TSCA, that I think has been surfaced in your 

own analysis and your own oversight of TSCA. 

I want to put the focus back on public health because it is that 

concern, the mainstream health professional and public health 

community conclusion that, from pediatricians, obstetricians, others, endocrinologists, that chemicals are contributing to the burden 

of disease in this country; the diseases that affect millions of American families, and TSCA reform is fundamentally a solemn exercise 

in trying to make progress in preventing that effect. 

The groups like the Autism Society, Learning Disabilities Association, breast cancer groups and others who are in the coalition 

are here because of that, and it is what is driving the public concern that is changing the marketplace and driving the States right 

now. And so we need to make progress on that, that is very clear. 

And I think you had the right idea when you started with the examination of what was wrong with TSCA, what didn’t work and 

why. And you saw, I think, in the testimony that the law never 

really got off the ground, that the procedures and the standards 

proved to be unworkable, they got tied in knots, EPA, trying to regulate asbestos. When they were finally done, they were thrown out 

of court, and the law didn’t make much other progress. And it is 

a shame that Mr. Dingell is gone because his amendment is one 

of the clearer parts of TSCA that did do something; the PCB ban. 

And because of all that, the fact that TSCA didn’t restrict the 

States turned out to be one of its major blessings, one of its only 

benefits, because States have been able to make process in the interim. 

Nevertheless, we are hopeful that the bill can be improved based 

on the testimony of the Senators and our own engagement with the 

Senators’ offices and with yourself, being invited here. And I want 

to highlight a few areas, there are more in the testimony, for the 

94 

purposes of helping focus improvement and getting to a more balanced bill. 

First is the standard. The core idea of the Chemical Safety Improvement Act that the—is that the standard is fixed in the unreasonable risk standard. We believe that it is not. The attempt to fix 

it is to apply qualifying language for how it should be used in Section 6, but the standard is also used in other sections of the bill. 

And the related issue of the least burdensome requirement, while 

that phrase is excised from the bill, a sort of fraternal twin appears 

that you have heard Jim Jones reference that has basically the 

same effect. And the bottom line for us is that the—under the bill, 

our analysis is EPA could still not ban asbestos under this new bill, 

and that is a problem. 

So I think that baggage of TSCA is something to really think 

clearly about, and we need to break with it in this new bill. It is 

otherwise going to weigh down this new bill. The clearest—cleanest 

way to do that would be a new standard, but if not, if that can’t 

be done, fixing this standard so that it is clearly defined as a 

health-only standard would go a long way to dealing with this 

problem. 

Another problem that has been mentioned is vulnerable populations and aggregate exposure. Maybe aggregate exposure hasn’t 

been mentioned yet. These are core concepts to the American Academy of Pediatrics’ recommendations on reform, and I think they 

should be embraced more tightly in the bill. The bill mentions them 

but does not really require them to be dealt with as a fundamental 

part of reform. And I think if you don’t do that, you will be left 

with safety determinations that simply don’t reflect the fact that 

children, it is just a plain medical fact, are more susceptible to 

these chemicals than people in heavily-impacted communities are, 

and that people are exposed to the same chemical from more than 

one source at a time. And so you need to add up those exposures 

when you are figuring out what is happening to them, and the protective measures, the risk-management measures, need to reflect 

that. 

So if we don’t do that, we will simply be getting the determinations wrong, and they won’t really be protecting the public, and I 

think you want to be able to claim otherwise when we are done 

with this exercise. 

I want to highlight a couple of issues where the bill actually goes 

backwards and we think does new harm. The first is the issue of 

frameworks which has been mentioned. The bill requires a lot of 

new frameworks. It delays the start of the program for several 

years. We believe that that sounds too much like the old TSCA. We 

want less red tape put in front of EPA taking action, not more. 

Also States’ rights. That has been mentioned earlier. The bill infringes on them to a great degree in a way that we think goes 

against the record. I think you noticed in your comments earlier 

that not a lot of States have taken the fundamental action, but at 

least they have made progress on chemicals while the Federal Government was tied up in red tape. And our fundamental interest in 

preserving States’ ability, both the progress they have made and 

their ability to make new progress, really is Mr. Barrow’s hunting 

dog analogy that no one expected TSCA to not work out the way 

95 

that it did, and any problems in this new law, whether the funding 

or anything else at implementation, we want that safety valve that 

the States can still take action and can still make progress. 

So I will mention the other provisions that are in my—just briefly. It is CBI, I think they need a new balance on CBI, deadlines, 

the funding mechanism, broader authority to require testing, but 

the bottom line position is all of these issues, we think, can be 

solved. Some of them can be solved quite simply, but our main 

message is that they really have to be solved for this bill to be balanced. 

So thank you very much. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Igrejas follows:] 

96 

97 

98 

99 

100 

101 

102 

103 

Mr. SHIMKUS. Thank you. 

And now I would like to turn to Wendy Wagner, Joe A. Worsham 

Centennial Professor at the University of Texas School of Law. 

Welcome and your statement, you have 5 minutes. 

Ms. WAGNER. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Ranking 

Member Tonko and—— 

Mr. SHIMKUS. And you may want to pull that microphone a little 

bit closer. 

STATEMENT OF WENDY E. WAGNER 

Ms. WAGNER. That is nice. I have an Ethel Merman voice, so it 

is good to need a microphone. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman and Ranking Member Tonko and the 

members of the subcommittee. I am pleased to testify here today. 

My focus is going to be a little bit different than some of the 

other panelists. I am going to focus on the good science provisions 

of Senate Bill 1009. 

I have studied the use of science by regulatory agencies, particularly EPA, for over 20 years, written a couple of books, dozens of 

articles, I have also done some empirical analyses. And based on 

this extensive study, when I look at the good science provisions in 

Senate Bill 1009, I see that they are just as likely to undermine 

the scientific rigor of EPA’s decision making as to enhance it. And, 

in fact, I think if you show the good science provisions to the National Academies, they would identify some fundamental problems 

with the way the bill proceeds, particularly with the idea that the 

scientific information available to EPA should be restricted by 

terms set by Congress with regard to what constitutes acceptable 

science. 

Now, I raise a number of issues in my written testimony. I am 

just going to highlight three here today. 

The first—there are over 40 pages by my count of good science 

provisions in the bill, but I am not sure what the underlying problem is that those 40 pages are trying to address. There are really 

serious problems with TSCA and EPA’s implementation of TSCA, 

to be sure. I am not aware in the literature though of problems 

with EPA’s failure to use the best available science in its regulation. 

Second, as I read it, the bill reduces rather than enlarges the information available to EPA to regulate using this best available 

science gateway with the three-prong requirements. There are a 

number of features of the best available science. Just to take one 

as an example, according to the best available science, all the information used by EPA in its safety assessments and safety determinations needs to have peer-reviewed data. Now, even with a liberal interpretation of what peer-reviewed data is, and there could 

be a lot of disagreements about what that is, even with a liberal 

interpretation, I read that as having the potential to exclude a lot 

of industry submissions over the last 40 years. The substantial risk 

reports under AE, for example, I am not sure those would clear just 

that one barrier in best available science. Even the test data provided by the manufacturers over the last 30 years, I am not sure 

that would clear some of the best available science requirements. 

If EPA wants to bring these industry submissions up to the standVerDate Mar 15 2010 10:08 Oct 06, 2014 Jkt 037690 PO 00000 Frm 00107 Fmt 6602 Sfmt 6602 F:\113-92 CHEM SAFETY ASK OK 10-2-14\113-92 CHEM SAFETY PDF MADE WAYNE
104 

ards of best available science, it is my reading of the bill that the 

burden would be on EPA. They would need to make sure the industry submissions meet all the various requirements. 

More to the point, the problem with TSCA has been the EPA 

doesn’t have enough information to assess chemicals. It can’t regulate chemicals if it doesn’t have this information. So legislation that 

actually further restricts the information available to EPA to do assessments seems to me to be moving in exactly the wrong direction. 

I am also not sure what the scientific pedigree is for this best 

available science provision written in the Senate Bill 1009. It 

doesn’t align with the National Academy’s reports I have seen, at 

least. 

Third, the good science provisions, and this has come up before, 

are loaded with ambiguities. Lawyers, including the students I 

teach, have a term for this. When you have a mandatory provision 

that is very ambiguous, it creates what is called an attachment 

point, because high stakes, litigious groups can latch onto those attachment points and hold the Agency’s feet to the fire in litigation. 

By my count, the good science provisions in Senate Bill 1009 contain dozens of attachment points. The administrative literature 

also reveals that when an agency has a statute ladened with all 

these attachment points that invite litigation, not only will be—it 

be embroiled in litigation, but it is likely to seek to compromise 

with the high-stakes, most-litigious groups. It is actually not necessarily either because the agency is captured, it simply wants to 

get some rules through the process, so it needs to engage in these 

compromises. One of my worries when I look at this is who will 

these high-stakes litigious groups be. I am concerned it won’t be 

the best manufacturers in the United States who make the safest 

and most effective chemicals. The manufacturers taking advantage 

of these attachment points, I am concerned, will be the manufacturers that make the least effective and most toxic chemicals. 

Now, despite the fact that these good science provisions are loaded with attachment points that are likely to lead to litigation and 

delay, as you have heard, except with one exception, I think, there 

are no deadlines at all in the statute—I am sorry, in Senate Bill 

1009, not the statute. That was not a fraudulent slip. The bill also 

provides absolutely no mechanisms for ensuring the transparency 

of whatever side deals in compromises take place. 

In my view, the basic goal of chemical policy should be to get 

safer, more effective chemicals out of our manufacturers. The bill 

does not provide these kinds of incentives. 

If the bill became law as-is, I don’t see any possibility of a race 

to the top among the manufacturers in the United States who 

make chemicals. Instead, the bill is ladened with a maze of procedural requirements for EPA, with landmines for litigation at every 

turn. I think we can do better. 

Thank you. I look forward to your questions. 

[The prepared statement of Ms. Wagner follows:] 

105 

106 

107 

108 

109 

110 

111 

112 

113 

114 

115 

116 

117 

118 

119 

120 

121 

122 

123 

124 

125 

Mr. SHIMKUS. Thank you very much. 

Now I will recognize myself for 5 minutes for the first round of— 

or the round of questionings. 

And my first question I want to direct to Mr. Dooley, Mr. Rosenberg and I think Mr. Garfield. And it is based upon the question, 

let me start this, is based upon the question that I asked Mr. 

Jones. And many witnesses have testified before our committee on 

the strengths and successes of existing TSCA Section 5 provisions 

for new chemicals and new uses of existing chemicals. 

Are the changes to TSCA Section 5 in the Senate bill needed and 

why? Cal, if you would start. 

Mr. DOOLEY. ACC, you know, supports the provisions of the 

modifications of Section 5 in CSIA. We recognize that it is important, even with the new chemicals, that you do have provisions 

that do allow for EPA to make an affirmative determination that 

the new chemical will likely meet the safety standard, and that we 

accept that it is an obligation upon the industry and the manufacturer to provide that information and to allow them to make that 

determination. 

Mr. SHIMKUS. Mr. Rosenberg? 

Mr. ROSENBERG. EPA—thank you. EPA has asked hundreds of 

manufacturers for data in the new chemical program since its inception. Without exception, those data have either been provided or 

the premanufacturer notice was withdrawn. So the deficiencies, if 

you will, in Section 5, in my view, go to where you end up if you 

really want to regulate a new chemical, and you end up in Section 

6. Section 6 has the least burdensome alternative hurdle, which I 

completely agree with Jim Jones, is an unmanageable hurdle for 

the Agency. 

So the changes that are made in Section 5 in the bill do one important thing. They do what we are really looking for, which is create a more credible program. And the fact that there is an affirmative determination gives, at least most people, a level of comfort 

that things haven’t just gone through because the deadline expired. 

Mr. SHIMKUS. Mr. Garfield? 

Mr. GARFIELD. We are still doing some analysis on this, but we 

are also comfortable with the more—with the creation of a more 

credible program. The two concerns are ones that have been highlighted before; one, making sure that the timeline and deadlines 

that have been set are ones that are actually effectuated, and then 

two, making sure that confidential business information is—continues to be protected. 

Mr. SHIMKUS. Do you three feel that this would—has a chance 

to harm innovation? 

Mr. DOOLEY. Well, there is always, you know, that potential if 

EPA, you know, didn’t take any judicious approach, but I would say 

that with our experience, and is very consistent with what Mr. 

Rosenberg said, is that EPA’s current administration of the new 

chemicals act has been pretty effective, in that it has resulted in, 

you know, the U.S. being at the forefront of bringing new chemicals 

on the market that are being used safely, that are ensuring that 

we are at the forefront in developing innovations, and that is validated by the number of patents that we receive, the disparity in 

terms of the number of new chemicals and new innovations 

126 

brought into the marketplace in the U.S. versus our competitors in 

the EU. 

And so we also know that, you know, that, you know, that there 

are going to be some provisions, perhaps even under the Administrative Act, that can give us a recourse if EPA oversteps their 

bounds, even in the request of some information. 

Mr. SHIMKUS. Mr. Rosenberg? 

Mr. ROSENBERG. Thank you. The innovation is a delicate thing, 

and it depends on what kind of market the chemical is going to 

have, how much volume it will have, as—and how innovative it is, 

as to what cost you can bear in going through a regulatory program. Any screening program for chemicals that EPA has will put 

some drag on innovation because some companies or some chemicals won’t be able to bear the cost, but this is a good compromise. 

This is analogous to what happens in other parts of the world. In 

no part of the world that I am aware of, including Europe, does the 

Agency have to make an affirmative finding of safety before a new 

chemical gets to the marketplace. EPA has the strongest power because it is a premanufacturing requirement, not a premarketing requirement. So nothing—there is no economic value of the chemical 

yet if it hasn’t hit the market, whereas in Europe, you can go to 

the market without—by just filing a piece of paper. 

Mr. SHIMKUS. And speaking to innovation, I would not want to 

leave Mr. Garfield without a chance to respond. 

Mr. GARFIELD. I also agree it is a reasonable compromise that 

will be impacted perhaps more by EPA’s practice. So in reality, the 

way this works, including the deadline, is that when you come up 

against the deadlines, EPA and a company will negotiate a suspension of that deadline to ensure that the progress continues to be 

made in resolving the open issues. And so in part, a lot of this will 

depend on whether EPA stays true to the deadlines that you have 

offered or whether they do not. 

Mr. SHIMKUS. My time has expired. Chair now recognizes Mr. 

Tonko for 5 minutes. 

Mr. TONKO. Thank you, Mr. Chair. 

We heard from EPA earlier that cost-benefit analysis should not 

play a role in the determination of whether a chemical meets the 

safety standard under a reformed TSCA. The bill before us continues to use the unreasonable risk standard that has historically 

implied a cost-benefit analysis. A number of stakeholders are on 

record supporting a safety standard that focuses exclusively on 

risk, not cost-benefit analysis. For example, ACC’s 2009 principle 

state, and I quote ‘‘consideration of the benefits of chemicals being 

evaluated, the cost of methods to control their risks, and the benefits and costs of alternatives, should be part of EPA’s risk management decision making, but should not be part of its safe use determinations.’’ In other words, the determination of whether a chemical meets the safety standard for a particular use should not involve a cost-benefit analysis. 

Mr. Dooley, does ACC still support that principle for TSCA reform? 

Mr. DOOLEY. Yes, we do. If you had—you know, if you really look 

at, you know, our policy is, and if you look at the CSIA, is that 

there is not a requirement to do a cost-benefit analysis on the 

127 

prioritization, nor is there a consideration of the cost-benefit analysis in the safety assessment. But when you get to the safety determination, when EPA is making a decision that for some intended 

use, that there needs to be a restriction, a regulation or perhaps 

a ban, then we think it is appropriate that you do a cost-benefit 

analysis of that specific action by EPA, because you might have an 

instance there where, let us just say it is mercury in a compact fluorescent bulb, you know, something that, you know, an innovation 

that is, you know, contributing to significant energy savings. That 

mercury is a critical component of that technology. If you had EPA 

that would choose to ban mercury because it is potentially a hazardous exposure, and they didn’t go through and do a cost-benefit 

analysis, or are there other alternatives that could contribute to 

the same environmental benefits and energy efficiency benefits, it 

would result in bad regulation from our perspective, and bad public 

policy. 

Mr. TONKO. Thank you. 

Dr. Denison, do you think that cost-benefit analysis should be 

kept out of the safety standard in a reformed TSCA? 

Mr. DENISON. Yes, I do, Mr. Tonko. I think the—I have a different reading than Mr. Dooley of what the bill requires because 

I think he stated that the—that cost-benefit analysis should come 

in at the point of the safety determination. I think the safety determination needs to be a health-based, risk-based determination on 

the science. 

Now, the factors that Mr. Dooley mentions are appropriate to 

consider in determining how to address a risk for a chemical that 

fails a safety standard, and the bill needs to make that demarcation quite clear. That is actually how I read ACC’s principles back 

in 2009. 

Mr. TONKO. Thank you. And, Mr. Igrejas, does the Safer Chemicals, Healthy Families Coalition have concerns that the unreasonable risk standard in the bill before us will not be a pure health 

standard? 

Mr. IGREJAS. Absolutely. We read the bill as not having effectively separated out the cost benefit from the risk decisions, and 

also retaining the least burdensome requirement, which is related 

but separate for bans and phase-outs. 

Mr. TONKO. And should any TSCA reform bill this committee 

considers be absolutely clear that cost-benefit analysis is not a part 

of the determination that a chemical meets safety standard? 

Mt. IGREJAS. We believe it should be. 

Mr. TONKO. S. 1009 also leaves in place the substantial evidence 

standard for judicial review that played a significant role in the asbestos decision. 

Ms. Wagner, how common is that heightened standard of review 

in the environmental law context? 

Ms. WAGNER. Typically, the Agency is held to an arbitrary and 

capricious standard, so it is very unusual. 

Mr. TONKO. Will that standard of review make it harder for EPA 

to prevail in court when it takes action under TSCA than under 

other environmental statutes? 

Ms. WAGNER. It is definitely a higher burden. I think the case 

law is a little murky. Some courts actually don’t seem to use subVerDate Mar 15 2010 10:08 Oct 06, 2014 Jkt 037690 PO 00000 Frm 00131 Fmt 6602 Sfmt 6602 F:\113-92 CHEM SAFETY ASK OK 10-2-14\113-92 CHEM SAFETY PDF MADE WAYNE
128 

stantial evidence differently than others, but some do. On balance, 

it is likely to be a higher burden. 

Mr. TONKO. Thank you. There is a strong public interest in improving EPA’s ability to take action under TSCA to address the serious risks we face from chemical exposures. We have better working models for dealing with risks and other environmental laws, 

the pesticides laws, for example. Any TSCA reform bill, in my opinion, considered by this committee should remove the known obstacles to TSCA implementation, such as the cost-benefit analysis 

component of the safety standard, and this heightened standard of 

judicial review. 

And with that, I believe my time is up and I yield back. 

Mr. SHIMKUS. Gentleman yields back his time. 

The Chair now recognizes, I believe, Mr. Green from Texas for 

5 minutes. 

Mr. GREEN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

My first series of questions I want to ask, and they are just yes 

or no, for all witnesses. Briefly, do you believe that LautenbergVitter is an improvement over current law or is status quo preferable? 

Mr. Dooley? 

Mr. DOOLEY. Yes. 

Mr. ROSENBERG. Yes, it is an improvement. 

Mr. DENISON. Mr. Green, in some respects yes, in other respects 

no. 

Mr. GREEN. OK. Mr. Garfield? 

Mr. GARFIELD. My answer is the same. In some respects yes, in 

other respects no, but in the respects where it is no, it can be improved. 

Mr. GREEN. Mr. Igrejas? 

Mr. IGREJAS. I say no. 

Ms. WAGNER. With respect to the good science provisions, no. 

Mr. GREEN. OK. Well, for all the witnesses, in your opinion, are 

the issues raised in today’s hearings on Lautenberg-Vitter issues 

that can be improved through clarification, or are they issues that 

fundamentally cannot be corrected? Why don’t I ask the last four 

since you all are the ones that said it wasn’t an improvement? 

Mr. DENISON. Congressman, I do believe the problems can be corrected, and that is based on a number of years of dialogue with 

other stakeholders, including the two gentlemen to my right here. 

So I think there are solutions at hand if we can get down to the 

hard work of negotiating this through and finding the right balance. 

Mr. GREEN. OK. I guess the reason I asked that to start with is 

that, you know, we know the law from 1976 is old and we need to 

update it, but believe me, in a Republican Congress, we are not 

going to get to where a lot of folks would want to be, but I just 

want to make sure we move that ball down the field, and that includes passing it through the Senate, because I represent a very 

urban district in East Harris County that has chemical plants refineries, and people who live along those fence lines. And so that 

is why I would like to improve the law to the best we can get politically through the House and the Senate. 

129 

Mr. Dooley, you—can you explain the—and expand on ACC’s 

views on the EPA’s authority to require testing of chemicals? Is 

it—in particular, does ACC support changes to the EPA’s current 

authority to test existing chemicals, and what changes and why? 

Mr. DOOLEY. Yes, we do support, and that is what I think was 

one of the, you know, the fundamental, you know, positives about 

this legislation is, for the first time, those, you know, 60,000 or 

however many grandfathered chemicals will be subject to 

prioritization and to a safety assessment. And we support those 

provisions, and—as well as provisions that would give the ability 

for EPA under new chemicals to have—facilitate their ability to access the data that they need to make a determination whether or 

not those chemicals do meet the new safety standard. 

Mr. GREEN. OK. And I know the ACC’s position on the safety 

standard in both current TSCA and in a modernized TSCA. Is the 

safety standard in Lautenberg-Vitter identical to the current standard in TSCA? 

Mr. DOOLEY. No, it is significantly different in that in the new 

CSIA—rather, the CSIA—— 

Mr. GREEN. Um-hum. 

Mr. DOOLEY [continuing]. Is that the safety standard of an unreasonable risk to human health and the environment from the exposure to its intended use is the standard there. It does not in any 

way require a cost-benefit analysis as you do under existing law. 

So it will make a, you know, significant—it is a significant difference from the existing standard. 

Mr. GREEN. And EPA and other areas in environment, do they 

also conduct cost-benefit analyses? 

Mr. DOOLEY. I am not—— 

Mr. GREEN. OK. 

Mr. DOOLEY [continuing]. Sure if I—I need to do a little more research on that one. 

Mr. GREEN. And one of the issues is that the Lautenberg-Vitter 

would—has an addition of deadlines compared to TSCA. Is that a 

benefit as compared to—a benefit from the additional deadlines? 

Mr. DOOLEY. Well, you—the issue of deadlines has been a subject 

of a lot of conversation with Administrator Jones that was here 

today. You know, from an ACC perspective, you know, we have no 

objection to deadlines, but we think the deadlines need to be reasonable. And I thought it was interesting when Administrator 

Jones was making his statement today, he said he needed deadlines. But the people that we need the information on, what is the 

appropriate deadlines, is the EPA. You know, we need the information from them in terms of how many chemicals do you think is appropriate of the 60,000 that you want to have go through a 

prioritization and safety assessment, and perhaps a safety determination. How many of those can you do, and how many FTE’s do 

you need to do, and what is a reasonable time frame to do those. 

I think what is difficult for members of Congress in constructing 

this legislation is to develop arbitrary deadlines that you would 

think EPA can meet. What the legislation attempts to do is put the 

onus and the burden on EPA to set deadlines that they are compelled to meet, which would then be informed upon the capacity 

130 

and the expertise that they have to carry out the provisions of 

CSIA. 

Mr. GREEN. OK. Mr. Denison, your testimony discussed the process for evaluating new chemicals. How would EPA determine if a 

chemical is likely safe under this legislation? 

Mr. DENISON. Congressman, the details of that are left to EPA, 

I think, not specified in the legislation in any detail, but I think 

the key here is that there is first the affirmative requirement that 

evidence of safety be available on a chemical in order for that 

chemical to be sold. And second, that the bar is actually intentionally, I think, lower than it is for a chemical that is already on 

the market. So the difference between likely meets the safety 

standard and meets the safety standard reflects the fact that that 

chemical is in an early stage of development, it has not yet been 

on the market, and, therefore, the amount of information and the 

amount of ability to demonstrate definitively its safety is appropriately less. But the key difference from current law is, as Mr. 

Jones stated, changing from a passive system where unless EPA 

finds a problem, that chemical simply can come onto the market, 

to one that requires EPA to affirmatively find some evidence of 

safety as a condition for market entry, and that is a key change. 

Mr. GREEN. How does giving EPA the authority to issue orders 

for testing requirements as found in Lautenberg-Vitter an improvement over the present law? 

Mr. DENISON. Congressman, the length of time that EPA has to 

take to get a rule through to require testing averages about 5 

years. An order could be issued within a few months. We think 

that is a significant improvement. The only problem I would flag 

here is that, while the bill makes it easier for EPA to get information, it limits the points in time in the process when it could do 

so. So, for example, if EPA has a new chemical or a chemical that 

it is trying to prioritize, and it finds it doesn’t have enough data, 

the bill actually strips the current authority EPA would have to require testing at that stage in the process. We think that is a problem. 

So there are some positive aspects of the bill in this regard; order 

authority and the removal of the requirement to first show risk, 

but there is also some restrictions on EPA’s current authority to actually require testing. 

Mr. GREEN. Mr. Chairman, I know you have been very kind 

and—but obviously we need to deal with that as a committee when 

we—to address that. Thank you. 

Mr. SHIMKUS. That is because I have great affection for my colleague from Texas. 

So now I would like to recognize my colleague from New Jersey, 

Mr. Pallone, for as much time as he wants to consume. How about 

that? 

Mr. PALLONE. Well, I won’t use too much, I promise, but thank 

you, Mr. Chairman. I am pleased the committee has convened this 

hearing, and I certainly appreciate the efforts of my late Senator 

from New Jersey, Senator Lautenberg, to bring both sides together 

on this critical issue. 

I have met with stakeholders in the environmental community 

and in the chemical industry, and we can all agree that the status 

131 

quo is not working. The GAO has included the current TSCA statute in its high-risk series over the last several years, citing EPA’s 

lack of authority to limit exposure to chemicals that may pose substantial health risks. And I believe there are many other issues 

that all stakeholders can agree upon, including striking the language that compels the EPA to pursue the least burdensome requirement that is so strict, it prevented EPA from regulating asbestos. 

So, Mr. Chairman, I hope to work with you and our colleagues 

to craft a bipartisan bill. And I just wanted to ask two questions, 

if I could. 

First is posed to Mr. Denison, and that is, you state in your testimony that, and I quote, ‘‘by EPA merely designating a chemical as 

high or low priority, all States would be precluded from imposing 

a new requirement on the chemical.’’ 

So my question is, do you feel this preemption mechanism is triggered too early in the process, and if so, what type of timeline, if 

any, do you consider practical? 

Mr. DENISON. I do, Congressman. I think the extent to which the 

law will restrict States’ ability to act needs to be placed at the end 

of the process of EPA’s evaluation and determination of the safety 

of a chemical, and where necessary, the promulgation of a rule that 

applies the appropriate restrictions. If that preemption kicks in 

earlier in the process, as it does for new requirements under the 

bill, the concern I have is that States would not be able to act, and 

then the incentives for dragging out the length of time it would 

take to get from simply EPA prioritizing a chemical to that final 

action, the incentives would be to drag that out as long as possible. 

So we need a system that provides incentives for efficient and effective action, and I worry that provision in particular would run 

counter to that. 

Mr. PALLONE. Do you want to talk about a time—a different 

timeline any more than you have, or—— 

Mr. DENISON. Yes. I think the—those triggers for preemption 

need to occur at the final action of the Agency. If it finds a chemical meets a safety standard, that would be the final action. If it 

finds a chemical doesn’t meet the safety standard, the final action 

would be the promulgation of that rule that imposes the appropriate risk management, and that should be the trigger for preemption. 

Mr. PALLONE. All right, thank you. 

And then my second question, Mr. Chairman, is to Mr. Igrejas. 

I hope I am pronouncing it. 

As we work to reform TSCA, I believe one of the most important 

issues is protecting vulnerable populations, such as infants and 

those living near chemical facilities. In New Jersey, as you know, 

we have a combination of both a large number of chemical facilities 

and a high population density. So the consequences of insufficient 

protection are dire. And so I wanted to ask you, you mentioned in 

your testimony that you think, and I quote, ‘‘intent and language 

do not match up regarding protecting these populations.’’ So what 

do you suggest to ensure the bill works to protect vulnerable populations such as children and those living near the chemical facilities? 

132 

Mr. IGREJAS. Sure. Thank you very much. I think vulnerable 

populations could be clearly defined first, a definition of what it includes; children, pregnant women, heavily-exposed individuals in 

communities, and then they should be explicitly required to be included in the safety determination and protected by any risk-management measures. That would play the issue out, so to speak, so 

that we know the decisions that are made, the measures that are 

taken are protecting the vulnerable populations. 

Mr. PALLONE. OK, but nothing more in terms of specifics at this 

point, other than the definition or how—— 

Mr. IGREJAS. The definition and clear language that they are included in not just the assessment phase, which is in the bill now, 

but in the determinations and risk-management measures. 

Mr. PALLONE. OK. All right, that is it, Mr. Chairman. I didn’t 

use my 5 minutes. Thank you. 

Mr. SHIMKUS. Well, I thank my colleague. And I was going to 

ask, because it was very interesting, I appreciate you all being 

here. Maybe we have gone around, but I think we have fleshed out 

as much as we can right now, and I am sure we will see some of 

you through our offices as we continue this process. 

Just some final comments. It is really hard for me to believe that 

the product in the Senate bill is not better than the current law. 

I mean on the face of it, it—a bill that is—a law that is 37 years 

old and has not been changed, and has proven to be not effective, 

something has to be better than nothing. I think that is where 

there is some commonality in moving forward. 

The second thing is, this risk-based issue, there is—I guess my— 

there is—Cal brought up a good issue about the compact fluorescent bulbs, and what is the environmental benefit or societal benefit of maybe a hazardous chemical that is used in a product that 

benefits mankind. I am not a climate guy here, everybody knows 

that, but if you are, you like compact fluorescent bulbs, and there 

is a—some people would believe there is a great return on—in fact, 

we had debated that in our Cap and Trade Bill on that very same 

issue. 

So there are issues there. Preemption is going to be a contentious 

issue, and the—and—but I would like people to start talking to us 

about deadlines because it seems like, through the three panels, 

well, at least the second two, deadlines was a consistent theme. 

And I am—Ms. Wagner, I think your testimony was very intriguing, and I think we are going to look further into your comments 

and try to flesh out some of that stuff. 

I have a unanimous consent request that all members of the subcommittee have 5 days to submit an opening statement for the 

record. So ordered. I would like to ask unanimous consent to insert 

letters into the record from the California EPA, Breast Cancer 

Fund, National Conference of State Legislatures, two from the Environmental Working Group, a letter from 35 Senators and lawyers, from 25 medical professionals, and remind—without objection, 

so ordered. 

[The information appears at the conclusion of the hearing.] 

Mr. SHIMKUS. And I would like to remind subcommittee members 

they have 10 days to submit questions for the record. Without objection, so ordered. 

133 

Thank you. With that, we want to thank you for your testimony. 

Please keep working with us. I think there is some great interest 

to try to move forward, and hopefully throughout this process we 

can get through the finish line. 

And with that, I will call this hearing adjourned. 

[Whereupon, at 1:07 p.m., the subcommittee was adjourned.] 

[Material submitted for inclusion in the record follows:] 

134 

135 

136 

137 

138 

139 

140 

141 

142 

143 

144 

145 

146 

147 

148 

149 

150 

151 

152 

153 

154 

155 

156 

157 

158 

159 

160 

161 

162 

163 

164 

165 

166 

167 

168 

169 

170 

171 

172 

173 

174 

175 

176 

177 

178 

179 

180 

181 

182 

183 

184 

185 

186 

187 

188 

189 

190 

191 

192 

193 

194 

195 

196 

197 

198 

199 

200 

201 

202 

203 

204 

205 

206 

207 

208 

209 

Æ