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

90–983 PDF 2014

THE CHEMICALS IN COMMERCE ACT 

HEARING 

BEFORE THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON ENVIRONMENT AND THE 

ECONOMY 

OF THE

COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND 

COMMERCE 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

ONE HUNDRED THIRTEENTH CONGRESS 

SECOND SESSION 

APRIL 29, 2014 

Serial No. 113–141 

( 

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 .......................................................................................... 3 

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

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

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

opening statement ................................................................................................ 5 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 6 

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

California, opening statement ............................................................................. 6 

WITNESSES

James Jones, Assistant Administrator, Office of Chemical Safety and Pollution Prevention, Environmental Protection Agency .......................................... 8 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 10 

Answers to submitted questions ...................................................................... 174 

Calvin Dooley, President and Chief Executive Officer, American Chemistry 

Council .................................................................................................................. 48 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 50 

Beth Bosley, President, Boron Specialties, LLC, On Behalf of the Society 

of Chemical Manufacturers and Affiliates ......................................................... 64 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 66 

Mark Greenwood, Principal, Greenwood Environmental Counsel, PLLC .......... 70 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 72 

Len Sauers, Vice President, Global Sustainability, Product Safety and Regulatory Affairs, the Proctor & Gamble Company ................................................ 94 

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

Steven J. Goldberg, Vice President and Associate General Counsel, Regulatory and Government Affairs, BASF Corporation .......................................... 103 

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

Michael Moore, a State Senator from the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, 

On Behalf of the National Conference of State Legislatures ........................... 111 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 114 

Andy Igrejas, Director, Safer Chemicals, Healthy Families ................................ 153 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 155 

SUBMITTED MATERIAL

Discussion Draft of H.R. ———, the Chemicals in Commerce Act, submitted 

by Mr. Shimkus 1

Discussion Draft of H.R. ———, the Chemicals in Commerce Act, with 

amendments, submitted by Mr. Shimkus 2

1The draft bill is available at http://cradmin.clerk.house.gov/repository/IF/IF18/20140429/ 

102160/BILLS-113pih-TheChemicalsinCommerceAct.pdf. 2The draft bill with amendments is available at http://cradmin.clerk.house.gov/repository/ 

IF/IF18/20140429/102160/BILLS-113pih-DraftsComparisonofTheChemicalsinCommerceAct.pdf. 

Page

IV 

Letter of April 28, 2014, from Kevin H. Rhodes, President and Chief Intellectual Property Counsel, 3M Innovative Properties Company, to Mr. Shimkus 

and Mr. Tonko, submitted by Mr. Shimkus 3

Letter of April 17, 2014, from Eric T. Schneiderman, New York State Attorney General, et al., to Mr. Shimkus and Mr. Tonko, submitted by Mr. 

Shimkus 3

Letter of April 29, 2014, from Linda Lipsen, Chief Executive Officer, American Association of Justice, to Mr. Shimkus and Mr. Tonko, submitted 

by Mr. Shimkus 3

Letter of April 3, 2014, from Dominique Browning, Co-Founder and Senior 

Director, Moms Clean Air Force, to Mr. Shimkus, et al., submitted by 

Mr. Shimkus 3

Letter of April 16, 2014, from Elena Rios, President and CEO, National 

Hispanic Medical Association, to Mr. Shimkus and Mr. Tonko, submitted 

by Mr. Shimkus 3

Letter of April 1, 2014, from Michael A. Lenoir, President, National Medical 

Association, to Mr. Shimkus, et al., submitted by Mr. Shimkus 3

Letter of March 28, 2014, from Georges Benjamin, Executive Director, American Public Health Association, to Mr. Shimkus and Mr. Tonko, submitted 

by Mr. Shimkus 3

Letter of April 28, 2014, from Advocate Health Care, et al., to Mr. Shimkus 

and Mr. Tonko, submitted by Mr. Shimkus 3

Letter of April 28, 2014, from Pamela Miller, Executive Director, Alaska 

Community Action on Toxics, et al., to Mr. Shimkus, submitted by Mr. 

Shimkus 3

Letter of April 28, 2014, from Mr. Waxman and Mr. Tonko to Mr. Shimkus, 

submitted by Mr. Shimkus 3

Statement of April 27, 2014, by NORA, An Association of Responsible Recyclers, submitted by Mr. Shimkus 3

3The letters and the NORA statement are available at http://docs.house.gov/ 

Committee/Calendar/ByEvent.aspx?EventID=102160. 

(1) 

THE CHEMICALS IN COMMERCE ACT 

TUESDAY, APRIL 29, 2014 

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

The subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 10:17 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, 

Latta, Harper, Cassidy, McKinley, Bilirakis, Johnson, Barton, 

Upton (ex officio), Tonko, Pallone, Green, DeGette, Capps, 

McNerney, Dingell, Barrow, and Waxman (ex officio). 

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

Deputy Communications Director; Jerry Couri, Senior Environmental Policy Advisor; David McCarthy, Chief Counsel, Environment and the Economy; Tina Richards, Counsel, Environment; 

Chris Sarley, Policy Coordinator, Environment and the Economy; 

Tom Wilbur, Digital Media Advisor; Phil Barnett, Democratic Staff 

Director; Alison Cassady, Democratic Senior Professional Staff 

Member; Greg Dotson, Democratic Staff Director, Energy and the 

Environment; Caitlin Haberman; Democratic Policy Analyst; Ryan 

Schmit, Democratic EPA Detailee; and Alexandra Teitz, Democratic Senior Counsel, Energy and the Environment. 

Mr. SHIMKUS. I would like to call the hearing to order and recognize myself for 5 minutes for my opening statement. 

Since our March 12 hearing on the original discussion draft of 

the Chemicals in Commerce Act, we have been working on a bipartisan basis to find common—oh, my apologies. My apologies. My 

ranking member is not here. I was just busy. If Jerry would shut 

off my time? Again, my apologies to my colleagues. I was anxious 

to get started. So I will now open—start again my opening statement for this hearing. 

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

Since our March 12 hearing on the original discussion draft of 

the Chemicals in Commerce Act, we have been working on a bipartisan basis to find common ground. The revised discussion draft before you today contains several significant changes from the earlier 

version. I won’t itemize them now, but I will mention a few highlights. 

In Section 4, we have added new authority for EPA to require 

the development of new hazard and exposure information for priVerDate Mar 15 2010 14:56 Dec 03, 2014 Jkt 037690 PO 00000 Frm 00005 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 F:\113-141 CICA LEG. 2 ASK OK 12-3-14\113-141 CICA LEG. 2 PDF MADE WAYNE
2 

ority designation purposes. In Section 5, instead of requiring EPA 

to grant exemptions for byproducts from Section 5 notice requirements, the new draft gives the EPA discretion to decide whether 

to grant such an exemption. Section 6 includes several important 

changes. The draft now requires EPA to evaluate the risk of harm 

that a chemical substance poses to human health or the environment based upon four specific factors. One is the nature and magnitude of risk. Two is important—the impact on potentially exposed 

subpopulations. Three is whether harms has occurred. And, four, 

the probability that harm will occur from use of a chemical substance. 

The new draft also makes it explicit that in making such risk 

evaluations, EPA is not to consider economic costs or benefits. Section 6 also now includes a new alternative risk evaluation option 

for EPA to determine, at any time, that a chemical not designated 

as a high priority will not present a risk of harm in the absence 

of Section 6 restrictions on it. The section also now adds deadlines 

for EPA to make action on existing individual chemicals. EPA must 

complete a risk evaluation within 4 years after designating a chemical as high priority, and must promulgate any restrictive rule on 

an existing chemical within 3 years after finishing the risk evaluation. The revised draft would allow for extensions to factor in additional information, but the total of all extensions could not exceed 

3 years. 

With respect to preemption, we changed the effect of an EPA designation of a chemical substance as low priority. In the previous 

draft, a low-priority designation would have preempted any State 

regulation of a chemical substance. The revised draft limits the 

preemptive effect of a low-priority designation to State regulations 

established after the low priority designation, leaving in place 

State regulations in effect when the low-priority designation is 

made. 

We also want to ensure we are using a strong scientific process, 

which is why the revised draft streamlines the science and information quality provisions of the bill. Specifically, details about 

science, including a definition of ‘‘best available science’’ and some 

details on information, quality requirements are replaced by codification of five science assessment factors currently used administratively by the EPA. The revised draft also clarifies which decisions under TSCA must be made based on the weight of such scientific evidence. Today, we will get the reaction of the administration, and we welcome back our friend, Jim Jones, Assistant Administrator of the EPA, just for that purpose. We will also hear from 

a variety of stakeholders, many of whom will have to live with the 

Chemicals in Commerce Act once it becomes law. 

I appreciate all of our committee colleagues who have put so 

much time and effort into this legislative effort. TSCA reform is 

neither easy nor simple, and there is still no guarantee that we will 

succeed in forging a consensus bill this year. All I can promise is 

my best effort, working directly with my colleagues on both sides 

of the aisle to get there. 

And with that, I would—I have a couple—a minute left. No one 

seeking recognition on my side? I yield back my time and recognize 

Ranking Member Mr. Tonko from New York. 

3 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Shimkus follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF HON. JOHN SHIMKUS

Since our March 12 hearing on the original discussion draft of the Chemicals in 

Commerce Act we’ve been working on a bipartisan basis to find common ground. 

The revised discussion draft before you today contains several significant changes 

from the earlier version. I won’t itemize them now, but I will mention a few highlights. 

In Section 4 we added new authority for EPA to require the development of new 

hazard and exposure information for priority designation purposes. 

In Section 5, instead of requiring EPA to grant exemptions for byproducts from 

section 5 notice requirements, the new draft gives EPA discretion to decide whether 

to grant such an exemption. 

Section 6 includes several important changes. The draft now requires EPA to 

evaluate the risk of harm a chemical substance poses to human health or the environment based upon four specific factors: • Nature and magnitude of the risk; 

• Impact on potentially exposed subpopulations; 

• Whether harm has occurred; and 

• Probability that harm will occur from use of a chemical substance. 

The new draft also makes it explicit that in making such risk evaluations EPA 

is not to consider economic costs or benefits. 

Section 6 also now includes a new Alternative Risk Evaluation option for EPA to 

determine, at any time, that a chemical not designated as a high priority will not 

present a risk of harm in the absence of section 6 restrictions on it. 

The Section also now adds deadlines for EPA to take action on existing individual 

chemicals. EPA must complete a risk evaluation within 4 years after designating 

a chemical as high priority, and must promulgate any restrictive rule on an existing 

chemical within 3 years after finishing the risk evaluation. The revised draft would 

allow for extensions to factor in additional information but the total of all extensions 

could not exceed 3 years. 

With respect to preemption, we changed the effect of an EPA designation of a 

chemical substance as low priority. In the previous draft a low-priority designation 

would have pre-empted any State regulation of a chemical substance. The revised 

draft limits the preemptive effect of a low-priority designation to State regulations 

established after the low-priority designation, leaving in State regulations in effect 

when the low priority designation is made. 

We also want to ensure we are using a strong scientific process, which is why the 

revised draft streamlines the science and information quality provisions of the bill. 

Specific details about science, including a definition of ‘‘best available science’’ and 

some details on information quality requirements, are replaced by codification of five 

science assessment factors currently used administratively by EPA. 

The revised draft also clarifies which decisions under TSCA must be made based 

on the weight of such scientific evidence. 

Today we’ll get the reaction of the administration, and we welcome back our 

friend, Jim Jones, Assistant Administrator of EPA, for just that purpose. We’ll also 

hear from a variety of stakeholders, many of whom will have to live with the Chemicals in Commerce Act once it becomes law. 

I appreciate all of our committee colleagues who have put so much time and effort 

into this legislative effort. TSCA reform is neither easy nor simple, and there is still 

no guarantee that we will succeed in forging a consensus bill this year. All I can 

promise is my best effort working directly with my colleagues on both sides of the 

aisle to get there. 

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

Mr. TONKO. Thank you, Mr. Chair, for holding this hearing on 

the discussion draft for TSCA reform that was released last week. 

At the last hearing, we heard from witnesses from industry and 

the public health community on the initial proposal for revising 

TSCA. Initial reviews from industry witnesses were mixed but 

mostly favorable. The views of the public health, labor and environmental community were very critical. We have had a lot of helpful 

4 

testimony from our earlier hearings. Our staffs have been meeting 

for several months now. And of course, we have 40 years of experience with the existing law. 

While this new discussion draft incorporates some new language 

based on the ongoing discussions, it reflects very little progress on 

the core issues and problems with the Federal chemicals management program under TSCA. It does not incorporate changes to address the major areas of concern that Democrats have raised. In 

short, it is disappointing. 

I am willing to keep working on this. And I know the other 

Democratic members who are engaged in this process are also willing to continue. But time is short. We have little time left in this 

Congress, and we are going to have to engage in a more productive 

process if the goal is to produce a bill with real potential to become 

law. 

This discussion draft falls far short of providing the Environmental Protection Agency with the authorities they need to evaluate the potential risks associated with chemicals currently in commerce or those that are entering the market for the first time. 

At our last hearing, all the witnesses indicated that the safety 

standard in the bill should be determined on the basis of health 

and environmental information alone. Determining how you meet 

the standard, risk management should incorporate information 

about cost and benefits associated with alternate ways to reduce a 

chemical’s risks. This draft does not achieve that necessary distinction. What happened to the safety determination? The public does 

not have confidence in this program. A revision of TSCA must restore public confidence in the safety of chemical products. Public 

confidence is indeed good for business, essential for business. 

The stated purpose of the bill is to provide for the safe and efficient flow of chemicals in interstate and foreign commerce. But 

once you read beyond the findings, the word safety is not mentioned again until the section of the draft dealing with confidential 

business information. In that context, there is more emphasis on 

protecting intellectual property than ensuring that adequate health 

and safety information are available to risks or respond to an 

emergency. 

Mr. Chair, I hoped for more progress by this points. And I am 

sure we all did. But this proposal does more to maintain the status 

quo than it does to move us forward. In some respects, it weakens 

current law. The draft does not reflect compromise or balance the 

desires of all stakeholders. A balanced approach is needed to garner broad-based support. Of course, as the majority, you can find 

the votes to move a bill forward. But a partisan bill that does not 

incorporate even the most modest recommendations of the public 

health and environmental communities will not become law. A bill 

that does not provide EPA with the authorities needed to ensure 

that chemicals in commerce are safe, authorities that independent 

analyses by the Government Accountability Office has recommended, will not become law. A bill that broadly preempts 

State’s authorities to protect their citizens will not become law. 

There is still time to produce a good bill. 

As I said earlier, I am willing to continue working on this with 

you. I believe the reform of TSCA is a worthy effort that we can 

5 

craft legislation that would be supported by a majority of our committee’s membership. I know the Democratic members want to 

keep working toward a compromised bill that we can support, that 

will be supported by this administration and the public interest 

community and industry, and that has a chance to become law. Let 

us get back to work on this. 

We have been very fortunate in having excellent witnesses on 

this topic. I look forward to today’s testimony, and I hope that today’s witnesses will provide us with additional suggestions on how 

to achieve a bill that will serve the public and serve this—the industry. Thank you all for participating in the important hearing. 

Again, Mr. Chair, thank you for hosting this hearing. 

Mr. SHIMKUS. I thank my colleague. I now turn to Chairman of 

the Full Committee Mr. Upton for 5 minutes. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. FRED UPTON, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF MICHIGAN 

Mr. UPTON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

You know, our work to reform TSCA indeed has come a long, 

long way. Member interest, direct involvement on a bipartisan 

basis has been encouraging and helpful. And I understand that we 

are not quite there yet. But today, we are going to get some constructive input from the administration, which is vital on any issue 

as important and as complex as TSCA reform. 

While we made changes from our earlier draft to the legislation, 

our overarching objectives remain the same. We want to reinforce 

public confidence in the safety of chemical substances contained in 

a wide variety of products that we encounter every single day. And 

we want to ensure the free flow of commerce among States and 

with our trading partners. 

The key focus of the legislation is on so called existing chemicals. 

These include the thousands of chemicals that have been on the 

market for decades, which have not gone through the TSCA new 

chemical review process. Some of these are particularly high priority, especially given human exposure to them. The draft legislation before us today is aimed at initiating a systematic process to 

review these chemicals and determine which uses of them are safe, 

and whether or not we need any requirements or restrictions. 

The workload requires both a high level of expertise and effective 

program management at the EPA. That is why we are especially 

glad to have Assistant Administrator Jim Jones today with us. We 

appreciate this technical assistance that you have provided thus 

far, and want to continue working closely with your agency as we 

complete work on this legislation. 

We also welcome our stakeholder panel. We need to hear from 

them how some of our ideas for structuring a legislation will play 

out in the real world. Does it reinforce public confidence in chemical safety? Does it encourage innovation and economic growth? We 

welcome constructive suggestions. 

I particularly want to thank Mr. Shimkus for his leadership on 

this issue and efforts to find bipartisan common ground. The law 

has not been updated in nearly 40 years. It has been a very challenging task. But this draft bill gets us closer towards our objective 

6 

of a commonsense law that indeed does protect the public health 

and further encourages our manufacturing renaissance. 

Yield back. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Upton follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF HON. FRED UPTON

Our work to reform TSCA has come a long way. Member interest and direct involvement, on a bipartisan basis, has been encouraging and helpful. Today we will 

get some constructive input from the administration, which is vital on any issue as 

important and complex as TSCA reform. 

While we have made changes from our earlier drafts of the legislation, our overarching objectives remain the same: we want to reinforce public confidence in the 

safety of chemical substances contained in a wide variety of products we encounter 

every day, and we want to ensure the free flow of commerce among States and with 

our trading partners. 

A key focus of the legislation is on so-called ‘‘existing chemicals.’’ These include 

the thousands of chemicals that have been on the market for decades, which have 

not gone through the TSCA newchemical review process. Some of these chemicals 

are particularly high priority, especially given human exposure to them. The draft 

legislation before us today is aimed at initiating a systematic process to review 

those chemicals and determine which uses of them are safe and whether we need 

any requirements or restrictions. 

That workload requires both a high level of expertise and effective program management at the Environmental Protection Agency. That’s why we are especially glad 

to have Assistant Administrator Jim Jones with us today. We appreciate the technical assistance EPA has provided thus far, and we want to continue working closely with the Agency as we complete work on this legislation. 

We also welcome our stakeholder panel. We need to hear from them how some 

of our ideas forstructuring the legislation will play out in the real world. Does it 

reinforce public confidence in chemical safety? Does it encourage innovation and economic growth? We welcome constructive suggestions. 

I thank Mr. Shimkus for his leadership on this issue and efforts to find bipartisan 

common ground. This law has not been updated in nearly 40 years. It has been a 

challenging task, but this draft bill gets us even closer toward our objective of a 

commonsense law that protects the public health and further encourages our manufacturing renaissance. 

Mr. SHIMKUS. The gentleman yields back his time. The Chair 

now recognizes the ranking member of the full committee, Mr. 

Waxman, for 5 minutes. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. HENRY A. WAXMAN, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA 

Mr. WAXMAN. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. 

When the subcommittee convened in March to examine the 

chairman’s proposal to reform the Toxic Substances Control Act, I 

said I wanted to work with the majority to see if we could reach 

a bipartisan agreement. My Democratic colleagues and I have been 

willing to be creative and bridge differences to make progress on 

this issue. We know that the Nation’s chemical safety net is broken 

and inadequate. 

Unfortunately, if the goal is a broadly supported bipartisan bill, 

this process is currently failing. To reach agreement, we need to acknowledge that industry cannot get its wish list. No one can. Environmental groups, public health organizations, labor unions and 

many others all have important interests at stake. And if we want 

a law, we will have to work together to address those concerns. 

Over the last few months, our staffs have met periodically to discuss TSCA reform. But these discussions have never turned into 

7 

negotiations. The majority has wanted to write the bill unilaterally. 

And there has never been an attempt to work out bill language together. It is the chairman’s prerogative to handle the subcommittee’s business in this way, but I think it is a mistake. 

Let us look at where the stakeholders are. Since our last hearing, 

six additional industry trade associations have announced their 

support for this process, though not necessarily for the draft itself. 

If the goal is building industry support, well, we are making 

progress. But the public health groups remain in strong opposition 

to the draft. They say the draft won’t protect public health and the 

environment, and in fact remains weaker than even the status quo 

of chemical regulation. Key unions and environmental groups share 

their concerns. And State governments are raising serious objections as well. 

A key premise of TSCA reform, which has been supported by almost all the stakeholders, is that the ‘‘cost-benefit’’ standard for 

regulating dangerous chemicals under current law is unworkable 

and should be replaced by a risk-based approach. But this draft retains the cost-benefit standard, leaving American families, and especially children, without adequate protection from the adverse effects of toxic chemicals. 

The draft contains sweeping preemption provisions that will preempt popular State and local laws throughout the country, including recently enacted laws relating to hydraulic fracturing. Although 

it has been requested a number of times, the majority still hasn’t 

explained which State and local laws they intend to target for preemption. The bill would even overturn recent reforms made by EPA 

to enhance transparency. Under these provisions, EPA would be 

prohibited from revealing the identity of chemicals that cause serious health and environmental harm. This will harm companies 

that are marketing safer consumer products and make it difficult, 

if not impossible, for consumers to protect themselves from toxic 

exposures. 

I want TSCA legislation to pass. The President’s Cancer Panel 

found that reform of the Toxic Substances Control Act is critically 

needed to reduce the incidence and burden of cancer in this country. Chemical exposures are ubiquitous in our society. According to 

the Centers for Disease Control, their most recent data says that 

75 percent of people tested have the commonly used chemical 

triclosan in their bodies. That chemical has been shown to interfere 

with hormone levels in animals. Seventy-five percent of people tested have this chemical in their body. The CDC also found five different PBDEs in more than 60 percent of participants. These 

chemicals have been linked to serious health concerns, including 

rising autism rates. And these chemicals are showing up in the 

bodies of Americans at levels 3 to 10 times higher than found in 

European populations. 

We need a law to protect the public from these exposures. But 

this process isn’t working. We need to bridge our differences, not 

accentuate them. I am not ready to give up, but I do have a suggestion. I think we should consider scaling back the ambition of this 

effort. Let us focus on where we can find agreement. Let us see if 

we can return to the drawing board and come up with a streamlined proposal that can truly be bipartisan. 

8 

I know I am echoing the sentiments expressed by the Ranking 

Member of the subcommittee. And, Mr. Chairman, I hope you will 

take them to heart. Yield back my time. 

Mr. SHIMKUS. The gentleman yields back his time, thanks you 

for your comments. The Chair now recognizes the Honorable Jim 

Jones, Assistant Administrator, Office of Chemical Safety and Pollution Prevention of the United States Environmental Protection 

Agency. Your full statement’s in the record. You have 5 minutes. 

And welcome. 

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 the 

opportunity to discuss reform of chemicals management in the 

United States. 

It is clear that there is wide agreement on the importance of ensuring chemical safety and restoring the public’s confidence that 

chemicals used in the products they and their families use are safe. 

This administration also believes it is crucial to modernize and 

strengthen the Toxic Substances Control Act to provide the EPA 

with the tools necessary to achieve these goals and ensure global 

leadership in chemicals management. 

We continue to be encouraged by the interest in TSCA reform indicated by the introduction of several bills in recent years, the 

hearings on TSCA-related issues such as this one that are being 

held, and the bipartisan discussions that are taking place. Key 

stakeholders share common principles on how best to improve our 

chemicals management programs. 

We at EPA remain committed to working with this committee 

and others in both the House and the Senate, members of the public, the environmental community and the chemical industry, the 

States, and other stakeholders to improve and update TSCA. 

Chemicals are found in almost everything we buy and use. They 

can be essential for our health, our wellbeing and our prosperity. 

However, we believe it is equally essential that chemicals are safe. 

While we have a better understanding of the environmental impacts, exposure pathways and health effects that some chemicals 

can have than we did when TSCA was passed, under the existing 

law it is challenging to act on that knowledge. 

TSCA gives the EPA jurisdiction over chemicals produced and 

used in the United States. However, unlike the laws applicable to 

drugs and pesticides, TSCA does not have a mandatory program 

where the EPA must conduct a review to determine the safety of 

existing chemicals. In addition, TSCA places burdensome legal and 

procedural requirements on the EPA before the Agency can request 

the generation and submission of health and environmental effects 

data on existing chemicals. It is also proven challenging to take action to limit or ban chemicals that the EPA has determined to pose 

significant health concerns. 

The EPA believes it is critical that any update to TSCA includes 

certain components. In September of 2009, the administration announced principles to update and strengthen TSCA. These include 

9 

the need to provide the Agency with tools to quickly and efficiently 

obtain information from manufacturers that is relevant to determining the safety of chemicals. The EPA should also have clear authority to assess chemicals against the risk-based safety standard 

and to take risk management actions when chemicals do not meet 

the safety standard, with flexibility to consider children’s health, 

economic costs, social benefits and equity concerns. 

The principles further state that both chemical manufacturers 

and EPA should assess and act on priority chemicals, both existing 

and new, in a timely manner. This means that the EPA should 

have authority to set priorities for conducting safety reviews on existing chemicals based on relevant risk and exposure considerations. Clear and enforcable and practicable deadlines applicable to 

the Agency and industry should be set for completion of chemical 

reviews, in particular those that might impact sensitive subpopulations. Legislation should also provide the EPA with tools to ensure 

the protections put in place are carried out and provide a level 

playing field for the companies that comply. 

On April 22, 2014, the revised version of the Chemicals in Commerce Act discussion draft was released by Chairman Shimkus. 

While the administration has not yet developed a formal position 

on the discussion draft, there are several important observations 

that I would like to offer. As stated in the principles above, we feel 

strongly that updated legislation should include improvements that 

will provide the EPA with the ability to make timely decisions if 

the chemical poses a risk and the ability to take actions appropriate to address that risk. The current discussion draft does not 

include a mechanism that would provide for the timely review of 

the existing chemicals that may pose a concern, which we believe 

is vitally important to assuring the American public that chemicals 

they find in the products they buy are safe. 

As stated earlier, the use of Section 6 of TSCA to limit or ban 

a chemical that poses a significant risk has been a major challenge. 

By including a standard very similar to the current TSCA Section 

6 authorities, the bill fails to address another key element of meaningful chemical safety reform. In the administration’s third principle, which states that when addressing chemicals that do not 

meet the safety standard, risk management decisions should take 

into account cost and availability of substitutes, as well as sensitive 

subpopulations and other factors. The draft bill’s unreasonable risk 

standard does not align with the approach delineated in the principles. 

The new chemicals provision in Section 5 of the current discussion draft also does not align with the principles in that they do 

not require that the EPA conclude that new chemicals are safe and 

do not endanger public health and the environment, elements of 

principle two and another keystone of credible chemicals management. 

Mr. Chairman, thank you again for your leadership on TSCA reform. I would be happy to answer any questions that you or members of the subcommittee have. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Jones follows:] 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

Mr. SHIMKUS. Thank you very much, Mr. Jones. And, before I 

start, we gave your staff a head’s up. And I think they have a copy 

of the draft bill. And I would ask that they give that to you, as I 

will probably refer to some pages in my opening questions. And I 

would like to recognize myself for the first 5 minutes. 

Your written testimony suggests the discussion draft does not 

have a risk-based standard for review of chemicals that does not 

consider cost or benefits, and suggests that the standard in the discussion draft is very similar to current Section 6. 

Let us take a look at Section 6(b) in the discussion draft. That 

is page 35, lines 15 to 22. And again, we gave your folks a heads 

up that we would be doing this. 

[The discussion drafts are available at http://docs.house.gov/Committee/Calendar/ByEvent.aspx?EventID=102160.] 

So, in the old draft, that was a ‘‘safety determination.’’ The new 

draft puts focus on risk by calling it more appropriately a ‘‘risk 

evaluation.’’ Do you agree that the new draft takes the phrase of— 

and I quote—‘‘unreasonable risk’’ out of Section 6(b), don’t you? 

Mr. JONES. Out of Section 6(b), I believe that that is accurate. 

Mr. SHIMKUS. So that is a yes? 

Mr. JONES. Yes. 

Mr. SHIMKUS. Instead, Section 6(b) of the discussion draft requires the EPA to evaluate a chemical for significant risk of harm 

to human health or the environment, isn’t that correct? That is 

page 35, line 15 to 22 also. 

Mr. JONES. That is correct for Section 6(b). Yes. 

Mr. SHIMKUS. Thank you. And it lays out explicit factors to 

weigh in making the risk evaluation, is that correct? 

Mr. JONES. That is correct. 

Mr. SHIMKUS. And that on page 37, line 16, and page 38, line 10, 

EPA is directed not to consider costs and benefits at this stage, 

isn’t that correct? 

Mr. JONES. That is correct. 

Mr. SHIMKUS. And that on page 38, line 11 through 23, Section 

6(b) includes requirements that EPA consider the likely impact of 

the chemical to potentially expose subpopulations, isn’t that correct? 

Mr. JONES. That is correct. 

Mr. SHIMKUS. So there are some things that you like about this 

revised draft? 

Mr. JONES. Yes. Absolutely, there are things that I like 

about—— 

Mr. SHIMKUS. Thank you. I think the surprising thing was in 

your opening statement, there was no acknowledgment and some 

of my colleagues on the other side make no acknowledgment of 

some significant movements that have been made in some of these 

areas. Your written statement suggests that the discussion draft 

version of Section 5 is weaker than existing Section 5. And we hear 

that from my friends on the other side. So isn’t the ‘‘may present 

determination’’ in Section 5(c)(3) of the discussion draft—that is 

page 22—the exact same as what is contained in current Section 

5(e)? 

21 

Mr. JONES. Well, that may well be the case. I don’t have existing 

TSCA in front of me. But if you would like, I could talk about why 

I think that—— 

Mr. SHIMKUS. Well, is ‘‘may present’’ in this draft, and is ‘‘may 

present’’ in current law in Section 5? 

Mr. JONES. It is. 

Mr. SHIMKUS. OK. 

Mr. JONES. But the subsequent findings that the EPA needs to 

make—— 

Mr. SHIMKUS. Well, that is what we will follow-up on in these 

questions. Isn’t the Section 5 rulemaking authority substantially 

similar to what EPA currently has available to it under Section 

5(e) or 5(f) on page 23? 

Mr. JONES. I think the existing TSCA Section 5(e) standard allows the Agency much more flexibility to prevent a chemical from 

getting on the market—— 

Mr. SHIMKUS. So your testimony is that this is where it might 

be weaker, because you do not think that this language that we 

have is substantially similar to current Section 5? 

Mr. JONES. That is correct. 

Mr. SHIMKUS. OK. And we would then ask for you what kind of 

language would the EPA propose to clean that up? 

Mr. JONES. Yes. Sure. 

Mr. SHIMKUS. Because with all due respect to my friends on the 

minority side, we have been asking for months for language and 

never received any language from anyone on the minority side. So 

it is tough to negotiate when we propose language and we don’t receive any in return. 

Let me go to—please state whether you support or oppose the following policy choices in the discussion draft, expanding EPA’s existing TSCA authority to require new testing by manufacturers and 

processors via rule, order or consent agreement. Does this draft do 

that? 

Mr. JONES. Yes, it does. 

Mr. SHIMKUS. And isn’t order the ability to do an order—a significant improvement over current law and— 

Mr. JONES. Yes. 

Mr. SHIMKUS [continuing]. And previous drafts? 

Mr. JONES. Yes, it is. 

Mr. SHIMKUS. So that is a good thing? 

Mr. JONES. Yes, it is. 

Mr. SHIMKUS. All right. Thank you. And you are smiling. I like 

that. Providing this testing authority for prioritization if existing 

information is not sufficient, does this draft do that? 

Mr. JONES. It does. 

Mr. SHIMKUS. Another good thing? 

Mr. JONES. That is a good thing. Yes. 

Mr. SHIMKUS. Providing this testing authority for performing a 

risk evaluation on high-priority chemicals, does this draft do that? 

Mr. JONES. Yes, it does that. 

Mr. SHIMKUS. Providing this testing authority to ensure compliance with control measures for new and existing chemicals, does 

this draft do that? 

22 

Mr. JONES. You know, Chairman Shimkus, I can’t remember specifically whether it does that, as I don’t recall that. 

Mr. SHIMKUS. OK. But you can see my line of—— 

Mr. JONES. Yes. 

Mr. SHIMKUS. The answer is, we believe it does. My time has expired. I would like to know—I have two more questions. But I do 

not have time—I will let Mr. Tonko now ask questions for 5 minutes. 

Mr. TONKO. Assistant Administrator Jones, there are many serious issues with this bill, but I would like to focus on the expansive 

preemption provisions. Later today, State Senator Michael Moore 

from the National Conference of State Legislators will testify that, 

and I quote, ‘‘States have enjoyed a long history of co-regulation 

with the Federal Government in environmental protection and 

have made sound policy decisions benefiting the American public.’’ 

He goes on to say that the discussion draft will, and I quote, ‘‘strip 

State’s residents of protections enacted by their elected officials.’’ 

And again quote, ‘‘leave everyone more susceptible to increased 

harm from toxic chemicals.’’ Mr. Jones, do you agree that the 

States play an important role in protecting human health and the 

environment from exposure to toxic chemicals? 

Mr. JONES. I do agree with that. 

Mr. TONKO. The preemption language in the discussion draft is 

sweeping in scope. We looked at the type of State or local laws and 

regulations that could be affected. The list is staggering. So, Mr. 

Jones, would you agree that the preemption language in this discussion draft is very broad? 

Mr. JONES. I would agree it is very broad. 

Mr. TONKO. In fact, this language is drafted so broadly that State 

and local regulations of hydraulic fracturing and the chemicals 

used in hydraulic fracturing could be preempted. Section 17 preempts State and local governments from establishing or implementing a law or regulation requiring the development or submission of information relating to a chemical substance. This could 

have serious consequences for State requirements for well operators to disclose the chemicals used in hydraulic fracturing fluids. 

So, Mr. Jones, do you agree that the preemption language could 

jeopardize State laws requiring the oil and gas industry to disclose 

the chemicals used in their hydraulic fracturing? 

Mr. JONES. Yes, Congressman Tonko, I believe that 17(a)(1)(4) 

right off the bat will preempt some existing disclosure requirements. And then other elements of the provision would do it prospectively. So I think there will be some right off the bat that are 

preempted for some number of chemicals, and then prospectively 

there will be continuing additional chemicals preempted. 

Mr. TONKO. Thank you. And what other—what about other 

States or local laws that are simply notices or disclosures about 

chemicals? It seems to me they would also be in question. Would 

you agree? 

Mr. JONES. Yes. 

Mr. TONKO. With respect to the identified problems with TSCA, 

lack of public confidence, lack of public information about chemicals, timely action to address chemical risks, would you say this 

23 

sweeping preemption provision is likely to do more or do less to address these issues? 

Mr. JONES. I think that it will—over time, the role of States will 

be diminished. And I think that that will decrease the pressure on 

the Agency to move forward as aggressively as I think the drafters 

were hoping. 

Mr. TONKO. And Section 17 preempts any State or local requirement that prohibits or restricts the use of a chemical substance for 

so called intended conditions of use. The bill includes disposal of a 

chemical as an intended use. As a result, this language could even 

override State or local laws that limit how drillers dispose of chemical laid and waste water from hydraulic fracturing operations. In 

New York, for example, numerous counties have passed laws prohibiting out-of-State well operators from disposing of hydraulic 

fracturing waste water in county municipal water treatment 

plants, or using the waste water to treat local roadways in winter. 

Mr. Jones, are these the type of restrictions that could be preempted by this measure? 

Mr. JONES. As I was saying earlier on some of the issues like notification, I think 17(a)(1)(B)(4) actually will do that for a number 

of chemicals. And then other provisions would—could do that prospectively, depending on decisions made at the EPA after the law 

was passed. 

Mr. TONKO. Thank you. And since we have not received any specific examples of State and local regulations that are hampering 

the $770 billion United States chemical business, I find this debate 

quite confusing. States have moved to regulate chemicals in response to public concern because the Federal program is not functioning properly. Instead of blocking the States from responding to 

public concerns about chemicals, I believe we should address the 

real problem of inadequate authorities from your Agency. Do you 

agree with that assessment? 

Mr. JONES. I would agree with that. 

Mr. TONKO. Frankly, with a stronger Federal program, I believe 

there would be less public pressure to enact State and local laws 

for chemical regulation. Public health, labor and environmental 

groups have stated that this draft would, and I quote, ‘‘curtail functioning State programs in exchange for a Federal program that will 

continue to be dysfunctional.’’ And I don’t think we ought to let 

that happen. 

With that, Mr. Chair, I yield back. 

Mr. SHIMKUS. The gentleman yields back his time. The Chair 

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

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

Jones, thank very much for being with us today. I appreciate your 

testimony. 

In your November 13 testimony, you testified that current TSCA 

places challenges—legal and procedural requirements—on the 

Agency before it can require industry to generate and submit the 

health and environmental effects information and data on existing 

chemicals. Does the Section 4 of the April discussion draft improve 

the Agency’s ability to require the submission of hazard and exposure data and information by authorizing the EPA to obtain it by 

rule, consent, agreement or issuing an order? 

24 

Mr. JONES. Yes, it does. 

Mr. LATTA. You say it does. Thank you. Does the April discussion 

draft eliminate the need for EPA to find a substance poses an ‘‘unreasonable risk’’ before requiring new data to be developed? 

Mr. JONES. That is correct. Yes. 

Mr. LATTA. OK. And also in your testimony, you discuss how 

there are 84,000 chemicals listed on the TSCA inventory. And 

EPA’s most recent snapshot of chemicals actually in commerce 

from the 2012 chemical data reporting, the CDR roll, captured 

7,674 chemicals from 2011. Do you believe that the 7,674 number 

is accurate of the current TSCA inventory, or where do you believe 

that number would be today? 

Mr. JONES. Thanks. The 7,000 number are chemicals that are 

produced greater than 25,000 pounds per year at any given facility. 

The 84,000 number are those chemicals that have ever been on the 

inventory. So the actual number of chemicals in commerce would 

fall between those two. I think that the 7,000 number captures 

those that are produced at relatively large quantities. There are 

clearly going to be some number of compounds that are manufactured at less than 25,000 pounds or at a single facility that are just 

not required to report under the CDR. 

Mr. LATTA. OK. And then when we talk about that 84,000 number, is that correct or is that misleading? 

Mr. JONES. It depends on how one uses it. We don’t think it reflects the number of chemicals in commerce. It reflects the number 

of chemicals that ever have been placed on the TSCA inventory. So 

we think it doesn’t reflect the number of chemicals in commerce. 

Mr. LATTA. OK. And then you also mentioned in your testimony 

on page 2, I saw that the 60,000 or so chemicals that were grandfathered in 1976. How long would you estimate it would take to 

evaluate those 60,000 chemicals? 

Mr. JONES. Well, yes. That sort of goes back to your earlier observation about the 7,400 number. 

Mr. LATTA. Um-hum. 

Mr. JONES. I think that that represents the universe of chemicals 

we would want to keep our sights on first, because they are the 

ones that are being produced at relatively large quantities. And for 

that universe, I think it would take some time for the Agency to 

get through all that—— 

Mr. LATTA. Well, on an estimate, just—not just on the 60,000, 

but on that 7,674 number, how long—just say, you know, ballpark 

estimate would that take? 

Mr. JONES. It would take several decades to get through a number of that size. 

Mr. LATTA. OK. Like 30 years then, when you say several? 

Mr. JONES. That’s not an—— 

Mr. LATTA. OK. Any idea—what would the cost be to do that 

evaluation on those—not on the 60,000. Now, we’re just going back 

to the 7,600. 

Mr. JONES. So in the early years, because we are required to set 

priorities, we would be doing the harder things first. And so we 

would be doing fewer of them in early years. I think after we got 

through the first thousand or so, I think you would see the number 

we would complete in a given year could potentially increase very 

25 

dramatically so that you would see in the latter years a much higher number of chemicals being assessed than you would see in early 

years, even though you might have the same number of dollars 

being spent in any given year. We have not costed out what it 

would take to get through all of the chemicals. The discussion draft 

actually doesn’t require us to operate at any pace. And so it would 

be hard to estimate what it would take to get through when you 

don’t have a pace that you are mandated to work through. 

Mr. LATTA. And also doesn’t the State preemption under the discussion draft only kick in if EPA hasn’t taken action on a particular chemical? 

Mr. JONES. Well, that is the—and it may have been a drafting 

issue. I just don’t—I don’t know. But I have referred to it a number 

of times. And I am sorry if I am misstating it. But the provision 

in 17(a)(1)(B), and I believe it is (4), actually preempts a State if 

the Agency, before passage of the law, has issued an order, a consent agreement, or a rule under Sections 5 or 6. And that is a rather large universe of chemicals that is particular under Section 5. 

So again, I am not really sure what that provision was designed 

to do. But the way we are reading it, it preempts things from the 

date that the law passed for anything that already has a significant new use rule, anything that already has a consent agreement. 

Other than that provision, what you said, Congressman, is accurate. It is prospective action on the part of the EPA. 

Mr. LATTA. Thank you very much. And, Mr. Chairman, my time 

has expired, and I yield back. 

Mr. SHIMKUS. The gentleman yields back his time. The Chair 

now recognizes the ranking member of the full committee, Mr. 

Waxman, for 5 minutes. 

Mr. WAXMAN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. For decades, the Toxic 

Substances Control Act has operated under an unreasonable risk 

standard, which requires EPA to perform a cost-benefit analysis to 

determine whether or not a chemical is to be regulated. This approach has proven unworkable. Only five chemicals have been regulated under Section 6 of TSCA since 1976. 

Mr. Jones, you testified in November that EPA needs to have 

clear authority to assess chemicals against a risk-based safety 

standard and to take risk management actions when the chemicals 

do not meet that standard. Costs would still come into play in figuring out how best to regulate a chemical, but we shouldn’t use 

cost to determine whether the public should be protected from a 

chemical exposure. Not only has EPA endorsed this risk-based approach, so have a broad range of stakeholders. 

At our last hearing in March, there was unanimous agreement 

among the witnesses that chemicals should be held to a risk-based 

safety standard. Mr. Jones, does the revised draft use a risk-based 

safety standard, or does it maintain a cost-based approach to risk? 

Mr. JONES. It, Congressman, takes a risk/cost balancing, which 

is pretty much the standard in TSCA right now. 

Mr. WAXMAN. So if this language were enacted, EPA would have 

to balance the economic cost of regulating against the adverse 

health and environmental effects of a chemical before establishing 

any protections, is that right? 

Mr. JONES. That is correct. 

26 

Mr. WAXMAN. I would like to explore how this would work in the 

real world. Let us say that this language is enacted and EPA evaluates a toxic chemical. Let us say that EPA determines that the 

chemical causes cancer. Before EPA would be able to take any action at all to limit the chemical’s use in children’s products, for example, EPA would need to weigh the cost to the industry of such 

action, is that right? 

Mr. JONES. That is correct. 

Mr. WAXMAN. So this proposal would require EPA to look at the 

cost to industry in determining whether to protect our kids from 

chemicals that cause cancer, is that accurate? 

Mr. JONES. We would have to take into consideration the cost to 

industry and any broader societal costs as well. 

Mr. WAXMAN. OK. I think many in the public would listen to this 

discussion and find this proposal morally questionable. I share 

those concerns, and we don’t need to take this approach. Time and 

again, we have shown that when there is a clear goal for protecting 

health, industry has the creativity and know how to get the job 

done. I am also concerned whether the approach in this draft is 

even workable. Is EPA good at projecting industry innovation? Will 

EPA give the proper weight to industry costs? 

Mr. JONES. That is a great question, Congressman. We tend to 

have a very difficult time predicting where innovation is going. So 

we often, almost always, will predict the cost in the absence of innovation, and then just straight line it out. Our experience, however, has shown that industry is incredibly innovative, and rarely 

do those costs hold over time. They typically drop off quite dramatically as industry innovates, and those costs go away. 

Mr. WAXMAN. So as a result, when you look at the costs, you end 

up overstating those costs because you really can’t predict whether 

they are going to be innovative enough to hold down the costs? 

Mr. JONES. That is correct. 

Mr. WAXMAN. Do you think that we can protect our kids and 

keep industry’s costs manageable if we use a risk-based standard 

that sets a clear goal of protecting health and the environment? 

Mr. JONES. I believe we can. Just to be clear, the administration 

principle thinks there should be risk-based standards, that cost 

should be a factor in how we achieve the standard. But it has a 

role, as opposed to having a balancing of trying to numerically 

quantify the monetary value of the benefits with the monetary 

value of the costs. 

Mr. WAXMAN. But not in setting the standard itself? 

Mr. JONES. In setting the standard, we think we need to have 

the flexibility to consider costs in the setting of the standard. 

Mr. WAXMAN. But you would set the standard with the expectation that the standard would be met, and you are not looking at 

just what the industry says the cost will be because you can take 

into account if you have the flexibility that almost always in the 

environmental area that costs are less than what is predicted in 

the beginning? 

Mr. JONES. The goal would always be to achieve the safety standard. We would want to be able to consider if the scenario where 

there is a very high cost for very marginal changes in safety that 

we may have a little lower bar in that kind of a context. We would 

27 

want—we would not want to be precluded from having a cost consideration. 

Mr. WAXMAN. OK. Let me just say in closing, Mr. Chairman, that 

I think there is a consensus outside this room that the safety 

standard in TSCA should be risk-based. I am disappointed the 

draft doesn’t reflect that consensus. I understand there will be a 

markup of this bill later in the month, and I hope we will be able 

to focus on areas of agreement and abandon these controversial 

proposals. Yield back my time. Thanks. 

Mr. SHIMKUS. The gentleman yields back the time. The Chair 

now recognizes Chairman Emeritus Mr. Barton, for 5 minutes. 

Mr. BARTON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. We just heard from the 

chairman emeritus on the Democratic side, or the former chairman 

and the current ranking member. I am the former chairman, the 

chairman emeritus on the majority side. So you kind of get the 

good, the bad and the ugly here, I guess. Mr. Waxman seems to 

think that this discussion draft is too strong. And he talked about 

the risk-based standard approach that he would prefer. I think 

quite frankly Mr. Shimkus and Mr. Upton and their staffs are trying very hard to find the middle of the road approach. And I have 

some unease that maybe they are going too far to the left, quite 

frankly. But I understand what they are attempting to do. So you 

get both sides of it in these two rounds of questioning. 

My first question to you as an Assistant Administrator of the Office of Chemical Safety, is that a Senate confirmation position, or 

is that a political appointee but not Senate confirmed? 

Mr. JONES. It is a Senate confirmed position. 

Mr. BARTON. It is Senate confirmed. And what did you do before 

you assumed this position? 

Mr. JONES. I have been a career employee at the EPA until Administrator Jackson asked me if I would be interested in the Senate confirmed position—— 

Mr. BARTON. So you have a—I would assume you have a technical background in this field in—— 

Mr. JONES. I actually have a policy and economics background. 

Mr. BARTON. OK. OK. I didn’t—I wasn’t here when you gave 

your opening statement. I would assume that EPA either has no 

position or is moderately opposed to this, is that fair? 

Mr. JONES. We have identified a number of areas that we think 

are not in alignment with the administration principles that we 

have pointed out. 

Mr. SHIMKUS. If the gentleman would yield just for a second? 

But—and being fair, you also identified a lot of ‘‘yes’’ answers to 

my questions on positive movements of this bill, would that be correct, Mr. Jones? 

Mr. JONES. That is correct. Yes. 

Mr. SHIMKUS. Thank you. 

Mr. BARTON. Well, I would hope so. Well, given how hard you are 

working to make it acceptable, I think that is a good thing. If 

this—if what the chairman has suggested in this—these proposed 

changes stick, what would the recommendation be in terms of passage if we get it out of committee and to the floor? 

Mr. JONES. Well—— 

Mr. BARTON. Do you think the administration would be—— 

28 

Mr. JONES. And I think the administration would like to see a 

bill that aligns with its principles. And I think that the areas 

where I have pointed out that are not in alignment are a big 

enough deal that there would be—the administration would have 

some problems with the ones—— 

Mr. BARTON. What is the biggest problem in the discussion draft? 

Mr. JONES. I think the safety standard is probably the biggest 

one. The new chemicals issue I pointed out is probably second. And 

then the pace of the Agency working on existing chemicals, are 

probably the biggest areas. 

Mr. BARTON. If you go out into the real world, I think that the 

industry that TSCA regulates have really, really tried to do the 

right thing. Where do you see the biggest problem? Is it noncompliance with the existing regulations, or is it new—just is it the new 

chemicals coming online that are the biggest problem, or are existing chemicals not—the industry not properly evaluating under current law? 

Mr. JONES. That is a great question, Congressman Barton. I 

couldn’t agree with you more. As a matter of fact, until this hearing was called, I was supposed to be in Bentonville, Arkansas, 

today at Walmart, who I think has been a real leader in this space 

in trying to get ahead on safer chemicals. I think some of the companies coming behind me in the next panel have been real leaders. 

New chemicals, I don’t believe, is where the challenge has been. I 

think it has been with existing chemicals. And there, I think it is 

a subset of existing chemicals. We looked at about 1,000 chemicals 

of that entire universe that Congressman Latta pointed out as 

chemicals that have expressed some hazard that we think it is 

really important for the Agency to evaluate for safety assessment 

purposes. But because we never have done that, unless a retailer 

who is telling you they won’t accept it, I don’t know why a company 

wouldn’t continue to manufacture those. So I think it is existing 

chemicals. And there, I think it is actually a relatively—relatively 

narrow subset. I am talking about 1,000 and not, you know, 40,000 

or 20,000. 

Mr. BARTON. Right. 

Mr. JONES. It is still a big number. But I agree that I think 

many consumer facing companies and retailers have been way out 

front on this issue, much further out front than we have. 

Mr. BARTON. My time has expired. But, Mr. Chairman, I want 

to commend you and the ranking subcommittee member, Mr. 

Tonko. It sure looks to me like you all are trying to find a middle 

approach. And I am supportive of that. But I do, from the right, 

want to say let us don’t throw the baby out with the bath water, 

because we still want to—if we are going to get a revision, it needs 

to be something that will work in the real world. And I am leery 

of continuing to give EPA too much discretion, because I think the 

more explicit we can be with what they should do, the greater the 

probability is that they will do their regulatory function in a fair 

manner. And with that, I yield back. 

Mr. SHIMKUS. The gentleman yields back his time. The Chair 

now recognizes the gentleman from Michigan, Mr. Dingell, for 5 

minutes. 

29 

Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Chairman, I thank you for your courtesy. I 

commend you for the hearing. And I am very pleased to see you 

working on this legislation. 

Back in 1976, I submitted report language in regard to weaknesses that exist in the current Toxic Substances Control Act. I 

stated it was essential for the protection of public health and the 

environment that EPA have a firm mandate for a comprehensive 

approach to protection from hazards due to chemical substances, 

and that such success would only lead to legislative directives and 

adequate funding support. 

Mr. Jones, you stated in your testimony that in order to be successful, EPA must have the resources it needs to protect the American people from exposure to harmful chemicals. I am satisfied that 

that has been a lack that you have confronted down there. Now, 

under CICA, does EPA have appropriate resources to quickly and 

efficiently implement the various framework, process, criteria and 

guidance provision which must be in place prior to EPA beginning 

action on specific chemicals, yes or no? 

Mr. JONES. I think it is more a question, Congressman Dingell, 

of the years which were provided is probably a little bit too short. 

Mr. DINGELL. OK. So you are telling me ‘‘no’’ on this. And I am 

asking you to submit to us additional information—— 

Mr. JONES. Sure. 

Mr. DINGELL [continuing]. So that we will have a clear picture 

of what the needs are. And I ask unanimous consent that that, Mr. 

Chairman, and other matters be inserted into the record in the appropriate fashion and place. 

Mr. SHIMKUS. Without objection, so ordered. 

[The information appears at the conclusion of the hearing.] 

Mr. DINGELL. Now again, Mr. Jones, once EPA is able to take action on specific chemicals under CICA, does the EPA have the resources needed to quickly and efficiently determine prioritizations, 

assessments, determination and risk managements, yes or no? 

Mr. JONES. I am sorry, Congressman. Those are a little more 

than yes or no questions. But the bill doesn’t require—— 

Mr. DINGELL. Just yes or no. 

Mr. JONES. Well, the bill doesn’t require—— 

Mr. DINGELL. And I am asking you to submit in greater detail, 

because we don’t have a lot of time to toe dance around on this. 

Mr. JONES. I would say yes, but the number we would do would 

be I think disappointingly small. 

Mr. DINGELL. Well, that is almost a comical answer here. Now, 

EPA has over 84,000 chemicals listed in its TSCA inventory, and 

a little over 200 have been acted on in 37 years. It doesn’t make 

it look like you have authority here, or that you have resources. 

EPA has identified an initial work plan of chemicals for assessment 

which includes 83 substances in addition to identifying several 

hundred chemicals on the safer chemical ingredients list. Is that 

true, yes or no? 

Mr. JONES. Yes. 

Mr. DINGELL. All right. Under current TSCA, does EPA have the 

appropriate resources to complete more than 20 risk assessments 

per year on existing chemicals? 

Mr. JONES. No. 

30 

Mr. DINGELL. Please answer yes or no. 

Mr. JONES. No. 

Mr. DINGELL. Would you respond in addition for the record on 

that matter? 

Mr. JONES. Yes. 

Mr. DINGELL. Now, what kind of resources would EPA need in 

order to perform the 20 or more additional risk assessments per 

year, please submit that for the record. 

Mr. JONES. Sure. 

Mr. DINGELL. So we have a decent appreciation of our needs 

here. Now, as you know, I have had the privilege to live in the 

Great Lakes region, home for 20 percent of the world’s fresh water 

supply, as well as tremendous hunting and fishing and recreational 

areas. Many of my constituents have voiced concerns that CICA 

does not ensure adequate public health and safety standards needed for high-risk toxic chemical contamination found in this region. 

Would EPA be better able to regulate new and existing chemicals 

if they were granted authority to set priorities for conducting safety 

reviews based on relevant risks and exposure conditions, yes or no? 

Mr. JONES. Yes. 

Mr. DINGELL. Would you please submit amplification for the 

record on that? 

Mr. JONES. Sure. 

Mr. DINGELL. Now, if both chemical manufacturers and EPA had 

the ability to assess and act on priority chemicals like those potentially found in the Great Lakes, would EPA be better able to regulate these chemicals in timely manner, yes or no? 

Mr. JONES. Yes. 

Mr. DINGELL. Now, would you please submit amplification on 

that for the purposes of the record? 

Mr. JONES. Yes. 

Mr. DINGELL. Now, it is my concern that if Congress fails to provide necessary funding to a new TSCA program, public health protections will be left without legs to stand on. As I mentioned in a 

number of previous hearings, any overhaul of this law must be a 

broad bipartisan one. It is my hope that this subcommittee will 

find a process to ensure that all stakeholders have the opportunity 

to see their concerns reflected in a final bill. I continue to be committed to fulfilling this need, and I intend to work with my colleagues in creating reform that industry, consumers, environmental 

and public health groups desperately want and need. And you, Mr. 

Chairman, I commend you for your legislation and for the hearings. 

I thank you. These are questions that have got to be answered if 

we are proceeding in the proper way on this. This is a piece of legislation that has sat around, and I think will probably sit around 

until hell freezes over if something is not done about it. So thank 

you for your leadership. 

Mr. SHIMKUS. I thank my colleague. And the Chair now recognizes the gentleman from West Virginia, Mr. McKinley, for 5 minutes. 

Mr. MCKINLEY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Let me just begin by 

applauding you. Your line of questioning at the beginning of this 

hearing was—they were right on. You were able to demonstrate 

31 

that there has been progress made with it. And I appreciate that. 

I think they were very good questions with that. 

I am just curious, Mr. Jones, Mr. Tonko has said that this current draft weakens current law. I heard Mr. Waxman say that it 

doesn’t protect public health. I heard him them go on to say that 

it may even be—chemicals may be contributing to the rate of autism in this country. Do you agree with all those three statements? 

Mr. JONES. We have been trying to evaluate—— 

Mr. MCKINLEY. Let us take it—yes or no? 

Mr. JONES. We have been trying to evaluate this and other forms 

of legislation—— 

Mr. MCKINLEY. Yes or no, please. Do you agree with it that it 

is—it weakens current law? 

Mr. JONES. I don’t think I would take an opinion on that. 

Mr. MCKINLEY. OK. Does it—has it weakened public safety, public health? 

Mr. JONES. It does not advance public health in the way that we 

think it—— 

Mr. MCKINLEY. Does it have a link to autism? 

Mr. JONES. One of the problems that we have in the chemical 

space is that because there’s not been enough data generated, it is 

hard to make statements with respect to issues like that. 

Mr. MCKINLEY. I have heard—and I am just curious. If it does 

any of those three, who is responsible for that? Is it the industry? 

Is—are we developing a profile across America? Is that what is trying to come out of this Congress is the chemical industry is trying 

to weaken existing law? It wants to increase autism? It wants to 

increase—decrease public health? Is that what you see in an overview of 30,000 feet what this bill does? 

Mr. JONES. I see an honest effort on the part of a lot of people 

to make improvements, and I see disagreements amongst stakeholders as to whether or not it is—— 

Mr. MCKINLEY. But if the threat continues to be that it is doing 

these and other things, you are saying about safety and new chemicals, if it has—are we—I want to make sure I understand your testimony and those from the other side of the aisle. That this is the 

chemical industry itself is causing these problems? Because if it is 

not the chemical industry, then it is our staff is writing these 

things to decrease public safety and public health and weaken the 

current law? Who has got the—who wrote the words to make it 

negative? 

Mr. JONES. You know, I am on the outside here. And I am not 

holding the pen. And I can’t speak to the motivations, nor do I 

choose to try to understand really the motivations. 

Mr. MCKINLEY. Do you really think the chemical industry is trying to hurt the public health? 

Mr. JONES. No, I don’t. 

Mr. MCKINLEY. OK. Do you think it is trying to weaken current 

law? 

Mr. JONES. You know, I think those are questions for the chemical industry who are coming up right behind me. I—— 

Mr. MCKINLEY. No. I know it is your opinion. I—maybe we will 

ask them later. But do you really think they want to weaken current law? 

32 

Mr. JONES. Again, I don’t—— 

Mr. MCKINLEY. Yes or no? 

Mr. JONES. I have been in this game for quite a long time, and 

I don’t attempt to understand all of the motivations behind all of 

the players. I try to evaluate what the facts are in front of me and 

make informed decisions based on that. 

Mr. MCKINLEY. Do you really think that the rate of autism is 

going to be affected by this TSCA reform legislation? 

Mr. JONES. I think that if we had better health and safety data 

we would be making more informed and protective decisions 

around chemical safety in the United States. 

Mr. MCKINLEY. I would be curious to see—my grandson’s autistic. And in a number of meetings and discussions we have had with 

doctors about this, they have never talked about the chemical industry being behind this. I just wonder perhaps if this is just one 

more scare tactic to try to cause consternation and confusion in our 

economy right now, because we have not heard that. So this was 

the first time I have heard that today. And shame on people if they 

are using a scare tactic to try to get something, because I think 

this committee has done a yeoman’s job in trying to correct the 

problems. And I don’t think it is the chemical industry that is trying to weaken any of these provisions. I think there is another 

agenda out there. And I would sure like to understand. I hope that 

you will be able to submit something to explain why people think 

the chemical industry wants to put the health of this Nation at 

risk. 

Mr. JONES. I could only speak to what the administration’s attempting to achieve, which is to strengthen the chemical safety 

laws in the United States. 

Mr. MCKINLEY. Thank you. I yield back my time. 

Mr. SHIMKUS. The gentleman yields back his time. The Chair 

now recognizes the gentleman from New Jersey, Mr. Pallone, for 5 

minutes. 

Mr. PALLONE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Over the last few 

months, my staff has been at the table with your staff to discuss 

the draft Chemicals in Commerce Act and work towards the compromise bill. Changes have been made since the initial draft. But, 

unfortunately, the version before us today does not reflect sufficient 

input from Democratic members, including myself. 

At the last TSCA hearing on March 12, every witness in attendance stated the chemicals in commerce should be held to a riskbased standard without consideration of cost. But, unfortunately, 

the draft before us does not meet that standard. Further, vulnerable populations are not sufficiently protected under the risk management standard in the draft. 

So, Mr. Chairman, obviously reforming TSCA is crucial to protecting Americans from unsafe chemicals, and I am disappointed in 

the current draft before us today. And I would simply ask that before the subcommittee moves to markup this bill that you work to 

address the concerns raised by myself and other Democratic members. 

I had—— 

Mr. SHIMKUS. Would the gentleman yield for one second? 

Mr. PALLONE. Oh, certainly. Sure. 

33 

Mr. SHIMKUS. And I would ask that my friends on the other side 

start sharing some language with us, which we have been asking 

for for probably six weeks. 

Mr. PALLONE. OK. Thank you. Let me ask some questions of Mr. 

Jones. 

The Toxic Substances Control Act requires that when EPA needs 

to regulate a chemical, it must use the least burdensome option. 

And this least burdensome requirement is widely recognized as one 

of the biggest obstacles to effective implementation of TSCA. Since 

EPA’s failed attempt to regulate asbestos in the corrosion proof fittings decision, EPA has been saddled with performing time and resource intensive cost-benefit analysis on every potential alternative, not just as on a regulatory control option selected. So, Mr. 

Jones, you referred to this problem as paralysis by analysis in the 

past. Is this a problem that should be addressed in TSCA reform? 

Mr. JONES. It absolutely is a problem that should be addressed 

in TSCA reform. 

Mr. PALLONE. Now, the draft removes the language least burdensome, but replaces it with a new requirement for cost effectiveness. 

So in your assessment, does this draft risk recreating the problems 

of the least burdensome requirement with this new cost effectiveness requirement? 

Mr. JONES. Thanks, Congressman. I think it would be important 

in legislation to be clear about how expansive the cost effective 

analysis would need to be. What we would be worried about is that 

a court would decide that all 12 or so options of risk management 

had to be evaluated for us to be able to say that the one we selected was cost effective. Another reading would be as long as we 

have looked at a couple of options that that bound the options that 

we would have achieved the cost effective. Cost effective is a relative term inherently. So I think it would be useful to have clarity 

on that point so that we don’t have the same kind of paralysis by 

analysis that least burdensome created. 

Mr. PALLONE. Well, would the EPA be able to act move effectively, but still adequately, considering the effects of its actions if 

this cost effective requirement were to be deleted? 

Mr. JONES. That would be a way to achieve that objective. 

Mr. PALLONE. All right. The bill also establishes a new requirement that when EPA decides to limit the use of a chemical for a 

specific use, the Agency has to determine that alternatives are 

technically and economically feasible. And this puts EPA in the position of having to project market innovation, rather than relying 

on the market to develop safer alternatives as necessary. So do you 

have concerns about that requirement? 

Mr. JONES. I think that you are right that that has—there is an 

anti-innovation aspect of that that we have seen over and over 

again in many, many different contexts, the ability of the American 

industry to innovate things that may not have been available at 

any given time. And our ability to predict that is very limited. 

Mr. PALLONE. So, Mr. Jones, when you look at the provisions we 

just discussed, are you concerned that they could have the effect of 

protecting the market position of dangerous chemicals and articles, 

rather than spurring innovation? 

Mr. JONES. Yes. 

34 

Mr. PALLONE. Yes. OK. Well, as I had previously mentioned, I 

think they should be removed from the draft to enable the EPA to 

act and to encourage innovation. Those are my questions. Thank 

you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. SHIMKUS. I thank my colleague. The Chair now recognizes 

the gentleman from Pennsylvania, Mr. Pitts, for 5 minutes. 

Mr. PITTS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Jones, are you familiar with Canada’s approach when it prioritized 23,000 chemicals on 

its domestic substances list several years ago? 

Mr. JONES. I have some familiarity with the Canadian approach. 

Yes. 

Mr. PITTS. Well, after Canada completed its prioritization, it set 

aside approximately 19,000 chemicals as essentially low priority. 

Canada does not intend to conduct risk assessment on those substances, unless new information indicated a need to reevaluate that 

approach. Does the April draft provide the Agency authority to 

similarly review chemical substances in U.S. commerce and identify substances that may not warrant a reevaluation? 

Mr. JONES. It does. I would not be able to speak to the standard 

that Canada used to call something a lower priority versus the 

standard that has been in the discussion draft, because we have 

just not—we have not thought about it in that context. 

Mr. PITTS. Well—— 

Mr. JONES. But we would be able to set priorities. 

Mr. PITTS. Well, in the proposed assessment of grandfathered 

chemicals, do you believe some form of prioritization would be key? 

Mr. JONES. I think it is very important. 

Mr. PITTS. Yes. Now, your prepared statement seems to suggest 

that you want a registration and licensing program under TSCA for 

new chemicals, do I understand you correctly? 

Mr. JONES. No, I don’t. I just think it is important for the Agency, before a chemical moves to the market, to speak to its safety. 

Mr. PITTS. Do you believe that EPA will be able to make screening level priority determinations for most existing chemicals based 

on information that is currently available to the Agency? 

Mr. JONES. I believe that there are enough existing chemicals 

that, for the first probably dozen years, we will be able to focus our 

work on those chemicals for which we can make such determinations. And then I think we will need to be in the mode of data gathering for chemicals that are not well characterized. 

Mr. PITTS. Do you think the Agency would have any difficulty 

showing why available information on a chemical is insufficient for 

priority setting or risk evaluations? And, hence, why new information might be needed by the Agency for one of the regulatory purposes outlined in Sections 4—Section 4(a)(1)? 

Mr. JONES. I think we would be able to do that. Yes. 

Mr. PITTS. In your testimony on November 13 before this subcommittee, you testified that a necessary improvement to TSCA is 

a mandatory program that gives the EPA the authority to review 

the safety of existing chemicals. Does the April discussion draft include such a program? 

Mr. JONES. It moves in that direction. What I think it is lacking 

is a requirement the Agency set a certain number of high priorities 

every year. Once a chemical is determined a high priority, we are 

35 

then on a pace. We have 4 years to do a safety assessment, and 

then 3 years after that to do risk management. But the Agency 

could choose to have a very, very low number of chemicals set as 

high priority. And thinking—creating something that creates that 

constant forward motion with some robust number I think would 

be important. 

Mr. PITTS. Is a 4-year deadline to complete risk evaluations, established in Section 6, sufficient time for the Agency? 

Mr. JONES. Yes, it is. 

Mr. PITTS. Does the April draft provide flexibility—enough flexibility to take into account a range of considerations when chemicals 

do not meet a safety standard, including children’s health, economic costs, social benefits, equity concerns? Does that draft provide the flexibility to the Agency that you desire in Section 6? 

Mr. JONES. I think it requires a determination that this cost-benefit balancing we think will make it hard to be effective and is not 

as health-protective as we would like it to be. 

Mr. PITTS. And does the discussion draft prohibit EPA from considering cost and benefits when making a risk evaluation on a 

chemical substance? 

Mr. JONES. It prohibits us in the risk evaluation phase, yes. 

Mr. PITTS. In the risk—yes. My time is up. Thank you, Mr. 

Chairman. 

Mr. SHIMKUS. The gentleman yields back his time. The Chair 

now recognizes the gentleman from California, Mr. McNerney, for 

5 minutes. 

Mr. MCNERNEY. Well, I thank the chairman. Mr. Jones, in your 

testimony, you mentioned that the TSCA does not require the EPA 

to conduct a review and determine the safety of existing chemicals? 

You mentioned that the EPA—that the TSCA places burdensome 

legal and procedural requirements on the EPA before the Agency 

can request health and environmental effects on existing chemicals? 

Mr. JONES. Correct. 

Mr. MCNERNEY. So my question is, the Chemicals in Commerce 

Act gives the EPA 90 days to develop a profile of a particular chemical substance and a potential for exposure to humans and the environment. As of today, could the EPA meet this 90 day timeframe? 

Mr. JONES. For new chemicals, we currently meet that timeframe 

in the vast majority of chemicals we are looking at. New chemicals. 

Mr. MCNERNEY. OK. Thank you. Would asking companies to provide the EPA with a minimum data set assist the Agency in making timely, informed determinations on these chemicals? 

Mr. JONES. We don’t believe a standardized minimum data set 

is warranted for new chemicals. And—or for existing chemicals, for 

that matter. 

Mr. MCNERNEY. Do you believe it would be beneficial for the 

United States to use the European model as a template? 

Mr. JONES. No, but I believe it would be beneficial to use the 

data generated for purposes of the European model. 

Mr. MCNERNEY. Oh. 

Mr. JONES. That would be very beneficial to chemical safety in 

the United States. 

36 

Mr. MCNERNEY. Is that permitted in the Chemicals in Commerce 

Act? 

Mr. JONES. It is not prohibited. The—some of the problems that 

we are dealing with relate to the way in which the European model 

was created. And some of the agreements manufacturers who 

joined consortia have with respect to when they can provide data. 

But the U.S. law, I don’t believe can require another government 

to give us something, or a company who doesn’t operate here to 

give us something. So I think these are some issues that just need 

to get worked through. 

Mr. MCNERNEY. Is there an opportunity in the Chemicals in 

Commerce Act to do that? 

Mr. JONES. I think it is worth exploring. 

Mr. MCNERNEY. Thank you. We have heard from the GAO and 

other stakeholders throughout this process that the EPA needs 

more information and testing. But these so called scientific standards in the new draft simultaneously restrict the EPA’s testing authority while establishing a mandatory duty to the EPA to consider 

a prescriptive list of elements when evaluating studies and tests. 

Mr. Jones, if enacted, would the scientific standards language provide additional opportunities for litigation, in your opinion? 

Mr. JONES. I think it would. I think it deserves some looking at 

to make sure there aren’t—that I would expect—unintended consequence. 

Mr. MCNERNEY. Increased litigation could result in scientific 

issues being resolved in the courtroom. 

Mr. JONES. That is correct. 

Mr. MCNERNEY. Are judges well-equipped to make decisions 

about scientific issues? 

Mr. JONES. I am not—I would prefer not to—I think in general, 

they would prefer that they are made in agencies like the EPA. 

Mr. MCNERNEY. Right. So we should be concerned about putting 

courts in the position of rendering judgments on scientific matters? 

Mr. JONES. Yes. 

Mr. MCNERNEY. Thank you. Mr. Chairman, I yield back. 

Mr. SHIMKUS. The gentleman yields back his time. The Chair 

now recognizes the gentleman from Georgia, Mr. Gingrey, for 5 

minutes. 

Mr. GINGREY. Mr. Chairman, thank you. And, Administrator 

Jones, I wanted to ask you a series of questions about fees and fee 

structures. So all of these will be quick questions. And first of all, 

how does the Agency—how does the EPA—currently collect user 

fees under TSCA? 

Mr. JONES. We right now have authority to collect them only for 

the pre-manufacture notices, the new chemicals. And it is a relatively small amount of money, partly because that money goes directly to the Treasury. EPA does not get those fees right now, and 

it is only for pre-manufacture notices. 

Mr. GINGREY. Well, that leads to the second question. Does the 

EPA anticipate that user fees would be additive or replacement for 

some of your existing funds, as appropriated? 

Mr. JONES. I believe if the Congress’ intent was that we move 

quickly and do many chemicals that they would need to be additive 

to our existing resources. 

37 

Mr. GINGREY. What is your budget breakdown by category for the 

individual sections of TSCA? 

Mr. JONES. Funny you should ask that. 

Mr. GINGREY. If that is going to take too long, I will just skip 

down to the next—— 

Mr. JONES. I got it right here. Yes. So we spend about 16—just 

under $17 million for new chemicals, about $28 million for existing 

chemicals, and $12 million or thereabouts on the information systems that service both those. 

Mr. GINGREY. So what is the EPA budget in both funding and 

full-time equivalent for the chemical review under Section 5? 

Mr. JONES. Ballpark, about $16.7 million. 

Mr. GINGREY. I am sorry. How much? 

Mr. JONES. Sixteen—just under 17 million, $16.7 million for Section 5. 

Mr. GINGREY. And what would the Agency expect the outlays to 

be under the new TSCA Section 4 authority? 

Mr. JONES. I am sorry. Could you ask that again? 

Mr. GINGREY. What would the Agency expect the outlays to be 

under the new TSCA Section 4 authority? 

Mr. JONES. You know, we spend about $12 million now in data 

gathering, but we have not costed out under the—you know, the 

discussion draft what we would spend under that authority. Interestingly, we would probably be getting more data. But it would be 

cheaper to get it, because the orders are much cheaper to do than 

rulemakings are. 

Mr. GINGREY. How about Sections 6, 8 and 14? 

Mr. JONES. So—and I have costs for what we are spending now 

on Section 6 and the other existing chemicals programs. But we 

have not costed out what it would be under the discussion draft. 

But I—it does allow me to make some general ballpark estimates 

of what a chemical under the provision would cost us. 

Mr. GINGREY. Let me try this one, too. Evaluate, let us say, 20 

chemicals per year. How much money and staff would you—do you 

think you would need? 

Mr. JONES. I think early days where we are trying to work on 

the more difficult ones first, because the higher priority ones would 

be the more difficult ones—— 

Mr. GINGREY. Sure. 

Mr. JONES. I think about a million dollars per chemical, so $20 

million. Over time, $20 million will go a lot farther than that as 

the chemicals get easier to do. But at the beginning, I would say 

20 chemicals—— 

Mr. GINGREY. Yes, that sort of leads to the rest of that question. 

What would you need to evaluate 50 chemicals, 100 chemicals? And 

is there an economy of scale? 

Mr. JONES. There definitely would be—partly it would be more 

efficient as we learned. And then there would be this other phenomenon whereby the farther down we got with chemicals, they 

would get easier to do. And so it would become cheaper per chemical. That would take a little while to get to that point, but that 

would certainly happen. 

38 

Mr. GINGREY. And my final question for you, if the Agency got 

new fee authority provided in the discussion draft, how would you 

implement it? 

Mr. JONES. That is an interesting question. In the other part of 

my operation, which is the pesticides program, we have fee authority. And the way it actually came about—and actually you have 

some panelists on the next panel who participated in it—is the 

stakeholders, the NGOs, and the industry actually came up with 

the construct. It gets into very great detail, but that is what they 

wanted. They wanted a lot of detail with respect to it. Whether 

the—you had a scenario where stakeholders developed the fee 

structure, or you gave EPA the authority—if we had the authority, 

we would get together with the stakeholders to figure out how to 

do something that was fair and equitable. 

Mr. GINGREY. Mr. Jones, thank you. Mr. Chairman, I yield back. 

Mr. SHIMKUS. The gentleman yields back his time. The Chair 

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

Mr. GREEN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And we have other committee hearings going on, so you are going to see us jumping 

around and—but I want to thank both Chairman Shimkus and 

Ranking Member Tonko for holding the hearing today on the updated Chemicals in Commerce Act discussion draft. And I particularly want to thank the Chair, and appreciate your patience and 

leadership in working with us on the drafts. Ultimately, we want 

to get to a bill. And, hopefully, we will get there. But I also want 

to thank Assistant Administrator Jones and the witnesses on the 

second panel for joining us. 

Mr. Jones, I need just—some of these are yes or no. If enacted, 

would the discussion draft—the latest one, as written—increase 

EPA’s authority to protect human health and the environment from 

harmful chemicals over current law? Would the second draft be 

better than current law? 

Mr. JONES. It has—there are marginal areas of improvement, as 

particular data gathering authority. 

Mr. GREEN. OK. 

Mr. SHIMKUS. So, that is a ‘‘yes’’? 

Mr. JONES. I would—— 

Mr. SHIMKUS. This is important. It is a ‘‘yes’’ or ‘‘no’’? 

Mr. GREEN. What it means if it is a ‘‘yes,’’ we are going in the 

right direction. 

Mr. JONES. You are moving in the right direction. 

Mr. GREEN. OK. Does the discussion draft provide EPA with full 

and complete authority to obligate companies to provide toxicity 

data? 

Mr. JONES. Yes. 

Mr. GREEN. OK. The discussion draft actually does that? 

Mr. JONES. Yes. 

Mr. GREEN. OK. Does the discussion draft provide the necessary 

authorities to protect vulnerable populations such as children, 

pregnant women and workers from harmful exposure to toxic 

chemicals? 

Mr. JONES. It requires us to include them in our safety evaluations. 

39 

Mr. GREEN. OK. Does the EPA currently look at the aggregate 

exposure of chemicals today in meeting the current safety standard? If not, do you believe that the Agency should have that authority to do so? 

Mr. JONES. In the toxics program, we have just started doing 

chemical assessments and have so far not aggregated all sources of 

exposure. I think that that is the direction that we need to move 

in though. 

Mr. GREEN. OK. Do you know if the discussion draft has—addresses that? 

Mr. JONES. I don’t believe it mandates that we aggregate all exposures. But I will need to confirm that. 

Mr. GREEN. OK. In the discussion draft, would information 

claimed as confidential business information be allowed as evidence 

in a court of law? 

Mr. JONES. I can’t answer that question. Sorry, Congressman. 

Mr. GREEN. OK. Would amending TSCA so it would have judicial 

standard review found in the Administrative Procedures Act enhance the law’s protection of human health? 

Mr. JONES. The substantial evidence I believe is the judicial 

standard in the discussion draft. 

Mr. GREEN. That is in the discussion draft. But if it was changed 

to be similar to what the Administrative Procedures Act, would 

that enhance the law’s or the discussion draft’s protection of 

human health? 

Mr. JONES. And I am not able to answer that question. 

Mr. GREEN. OK. Has the Agency ever reconsidered exemptions 

for chemicals regulated under Section 5 of current TSCA? And if 

so, what chemicals, and would a status reconsideration—has the 

Agency reconsidered exemptions for chemicals under Section 5? 

Mr. JONES. We have added the number of exemptions under Section 5. 

Mr. GREEN. OK. So if chemicals—can you name those chemicals, 

or give us a status of that reconsideration—— 

Mr. JONES. There would be categories of chemical—categories 

that included exemptions over time. 

Mr. GREEN. OK. 

Mr. JONES. And we can describe what those categories are. 

Mr. GREEN. In your testimony, you state that EPA should have 

the flexibility to consider, among other things, equity concerns, 

which—when making a risk management action. Could you explain 

what you mean by equity concerns, and why are they important to 

the administration—to the Agency? 

Mr. JONES. So the benefits of decisions don’t always—aren’t always enjoyed equally across society. And just understanding where 

those—where the benefits fall and where the costs fall so that we 

have our eyes wide open when we are making decisions. 

Mr. GREEN. OK. Well, Mr. Chairman, this is the first time I 

think in a long time I have any time left. Does anybody on our side 

need another half a minute or so? I yield back my time. 

Mr. SHIMKUS. The gentleman yields back his time. The Chair 

now recognizes the gentleman from Ohio, Mr. Johnson, for 5 minutes. 

40 

Mr. JOHNSON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Jones, I understand that printed circuit board manufacturers recently met with 

EPA officials to discuss TSCA reporting obligations on byproducts 

sent for recycling. 

Mr. JONES. Yes. 

Mr. JOHNSON. Now, the good news is this meeting has been characterized to me by those manufacturers as a constructive step in 

addressing industry’s concerns that TSCA reporting on byproducts 

is unnecessarily burdensome and complex. So I would simply like 

to ask today for your commitment to continue working closely with 

industry over the next month to determine how reporting on byproducts sent for recycling can be reduced or eliminated. 

Mr. JONES. I think we are going to—I know we are going to continue to have some discussions, both inside and with the manufacturers to get this to a better place. I don’t think it will be a place 

that has absolutely no reporting, but the reporting may fall in a 

completely different group than where it is at. 

Mr. JOHNSON. Well, we are looking for commonsense. And I appreciate it. 

Mr. JONES. I agree with that. 

Mr. JOHNSON. That is what I heard from the industry. So I appreciate that. I fear that if EPA continues to seek information 

through TSCA which duplicates reporting under other statutes and 

therefore is of minimal regulatory value, byproducts manufacturers 

who currently recycle may choose to landfill that waste in order to 

avoid the regulatory burden and enforcement liability. You know, 

we should do all that we can do encourage recycling of those secondary materials—— 

Mr. JONES. Yes. 

Mr. JOHNSON [continuing]. Which are often rich in metals and 

other valuable materials, by establishing sensible and non-overlapping reporting regimens that minimize the burden on industry. It 

ought to be a business friendly environment. 

Mr. JONES. I think we can figure out a—— 

Mr. JOHNSON. I would very much like to work with you in concert with manufacturers to more closely align TSCA reporting with 

the goal of supporting byproducts recycling. While I believe this 

committee is prepared to legislatively remedy this issue, I hope we 

can all agree then that an administrative remedy is the preferred 

short-term solution. So can I have your commitment to work with 

the industry and our committee today to determine how this can 

be resolved as quickly as possible? 

Mr. JONES. Yes, you can. 

Mr. JOHNSON. Well, those were easy questions, weren’t they? 

Mr. JONES. They were. 

Mr. JOHNSON. Good deal. All right. Thank you. Mr. Chairman, I 

yield back. 

Mr. SHIMKUS. The gentleman yields back his time. The Chair 

now recognizes the gentlelady from Colorado, Ms. DeGette, for 5 

minutes. 

Ms. DEGETTE. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. And thank 

you, Administrator Jones, for coming. You know, I have to say that 

I—that there are members on both sides of the aisle, as you know, 

who have been working together on trying to find consensus on this 

41 

bill. And we have been meeting for quite some time, Mr. Green and 

me and Mr. Tonko and the chairman and others. And we have 

made a big investment of our time and effort into trying to untie 

this very complicated knot. But I would agree that time is running 

short. And I would also agree with what you said, Mr. Administrator, that this latest discussion draft is moving the ball forward 

a little bit. But I still think we need to have some substantive 

changes before we get to that sweet spot. And I also agree with the 

chairman that I think at this point, the—this side of the aisle, my 

side of the aisle needs to put some specific language forward. So, 

Mr. Chairman and Mr. Tonko, I look forward to working with both 

of you so that we can get some language that will help address the 

concerns that we still have. 

The one issue—I always try to not repeat what everybody else 

said. And I think there is—but I do have concerns with some of the 

other issues other members have raised. But something we haven’t 

talked a lot about yet today is Section 14 of the discussion draft, 

confidential information. Under the current law, if a company designates certain information as confidential business information, 

the EPA has to shield that information from the public. And because company’s claims don’t have to require justification and there 

is no penalty for over claiming, virtually everybody agrees there 

has been a lot of misuse of this provision. 

Now, in the proposed draft, this trend continues. There is no upfront substantiation required for confidential business information, 

except in this specific identity of a chemical. So this is what I want 

to ask you about. 

There is also a new restriction in the latest draft that places on 

EPA’s ability to share the most critical piece of chemical information, health and safety studies. While current law provides that 

health and safety studies can never be claimed as CBI, the new 

draft would allow companies to keep secret the identity of chemicals implicated in a health and safety study. So that is what I want 

to ask you about, Mr. Jones. Isn’t it true that the Agency has been 

tightening its policies on CBI in an effort to increase transparency? 

Mr. JONES. That is correct. 

Ms. DEGETTE. And in 2010, didn’t the Agency issue a policy that 

it would generally deny confidentiality claims for the chemical 

identities and health and safety studies? 

Mr. JONES. That is correct. 

Ms. DEGETTE. And so the proposal we are examining today 

would essentially overturn these 2010 reform efforts, is that correct? 

Mr. JONES. Yes. 

Ms. DEGETTE. Now, would that be consistent with the administration’s principles on TSCA reform? 

Mr. JONES. No, it wouldn’t. 

Ms. DEGETTE. Now, what is the problem with in allowing companies to keep chemical identities secret in health and safety studies? 

Mr. JONES. So although the public would have access to a toxicological study, let us say a study on developmental effects or cancer reproductive effects, they wouldn’t be able to discern what 

chemical was associated with the effect. 

42 

Ms. DEGETTE. So they wouldn’t know what chemicals to avoid, 

is that right? 

Mr. JONES. They wouldn’t know what chemicals to avoid. 

Ms. DEGETTE. Right. Now, we heard from others that a generic 

name for a chemical is sufficient. Now, in your review, has that 

been the case? 

Mr. JONES. It can be, but it really is a function of how much information is conveyed in the generic name. 

Ms. DEGETTE. OK. Now, the latest draft attempts to resolve the 

problems with generic names by introducing a new term, unique 

identifier, so that the administrator may disclose the maximum 

amount of information about the chemical structure. Will this get 

at the problem? 

Mr. JONES. Well, a unique identifier is important, but it may— 

you can have a unique identifier that actually doesn’t really tell the 

public or anyone else about the key element of the structure that 

they might be concerned about. 

Ms. DEGETTE. OK. Now, are there cases where the only appropriate unique identifier would be the actual identity of the chemical? 

Mr. JONES. Well, you could just make up a name, and that would 

be a unique identifier. 

Ms. DEGETTE. I guess so. OK. So, Mr. Chairman, I think this is 

one issue we can really continue to work on, because I think you 

are trying to make some effort. But I think we need some more 

work. And I look forward to continuing to participate in this effort. 

And I yield back. 

Mr. SHIMKUS. The gentlelady yields back her time. I thank her 

for her questions. The Chair now recognizes the gentleman from 

Louisiana, Dr. Cassidy. 

Mr. CASSIDY. Hey, sir. Whenever I go to a TSCA hearing, my 

head always ends up being turned around, because it seems as if 

people are disagreeing on things which should be common ground. 

So let me kind of see if you can get my head turned on right. And 

I don’t mean this to challenge, I just mean this to whatever. I read 

on page 36 that—or beginning perhaps page 35—that you are supposed to—the EPA would do a high-priority risk evaluation. And 

among other things, determine the hazard. Hazard being, if you 

will by definition, or risk—determine the risk, which is by definition hazard times exposure. 

Mr. JONES. Um-hum. 

Mr. CASSIDY. OK. And then once determining that, going over to 

maybe the next subsection, subsection C, there is a method by almost a graduated scale. You can say listen, it is a high risk, but 

there is—so it is never—you are never going to be exposed under 

these circumstances, so don’t worry about it. And you keep on kind 

of working your way all the way to where there is a total ban. Now, 

that seems the way it should work. 

Mr. JONES. Um-hum. 

Mr. CASSIDY. Would you agree with that? 

Mr. JONES. That we should be making risk-based determinations, 

yes. 

Mr. CASSIDY. And that there should be some latitude for EPA to 

make a determination as to what is the potential exposure. If the 

43 

potential exposure is nil, it sure may be a great hazard, but exposure if nil so therefore we are OK with it. 

Mr. JONES. Anything times zero is zero. 

Mr. CASSIDY. All the way up until oh, my gosh, we just need to 

totally eradicate this from society? 

Mr. JONES. Correct. 

Mr. CASSIDY. Now, that seems that mechanism is laid out here. 

And it seems like that is what we should—that is the paradigm we 

should be employing. Would you agree with that? 

Mr. JONES. I think that the risk evaluation side is laid out that 

way. When it gets to actually what EPA should do as it relates to 

regulating, it no longer follows that paradigm but says the Agency 

should look at the risks, compare them to the benefits, and only if 

the benefits outweigh the risks should the Agency regulate. And 

then there are some other things—— 

Mr. CASSIDY. If the benefit of regulation outweighs the risk? 

Mr. JONES. The health benefits needs to outweigh the cost. 

Mr. CASSIDY. So we had something that came up last year, and 

it is the Safe Drinking Water Act bill. But it comes to mind where 

apparently in a previous Congress, lead was not allowed in drinking water except when it involved a bidet, toilet, or some other device, because the brass fittings there have a little bit of lead and 

they have your bidet apparently really sealed tightly. But it didn’t 

allow fire hydrants. And EPA put out a rule that they were not 

going to allow the use or I guess the sale or manufacturing of fire 

hydrants. Now, that is kind of like one of those death of commonsense—— 

Mr. JONES. Um-hum. 

Mr. CASSIDY [continuing]. But EPA rightly said this is the statute. It doesn’t give us wiggle room. Now, in that case, wouldn’t it 

have been nice to have a risk benefit analysis that would have said 

really your exposure of drinking water from a fire hydrant or so 

minimal, et cetera, we can waive this and not require literally an 

act of Congress in order to preserve it. Is that a fair—— 

Mr. JONES. Well, that is why the administration’s articulated a 

view that the standard ought to be risk-based, but we should be 

able to consider costs. Which in the scenario you described would 

have allowed you that wiggle room to do something that, on the 

face of it, it sound like it wasn’t the smart thing to do, which is 

very different from actually being able to say I have monetized the 

benefits and they numerically outweigh the monetization of the 

costs. Which in a perfect world would make sense, but we rarely 

have the kind of information that really can lead to accurate decisionmaking in that context. 

Mr. CASSIDY. But how else then do you do it? 

Mr. JONES. If you are able to consider costs in your risk management, you can make choices as to whether or not you think, as the 

costs of achieving the ideal level of safety may be such that you 

may not want to get to that level of safety but a little bit below 

that—— 

Mr. SHIMKUS. Would the gentleman yield? 

Mr. CASSIDY. Yes. 

Mr. SHIMKUS. Doesn’t the Presidential Executive Order require 

you to do that anyway? 

44 

Mr. JONES. The Executive Order requires us to do cost-benefit 

analysis, but—and we do that even in statutes that are—have risk 

only standards—— 

Mr. SHIMKUS. So it is not like a crisis of monumental proportions 

that you do a cost-benefit analysis in evaluating risk? 

Mr. JONES. No, but it matters in terms of ultimately the judicial 

review that occurs, which the OMB requirement is irrelevant to the 

judicial review. It is the statute that governs that. 

Mr. SHIMKUS. I would yield back to my colleague. Thank you. 

Mr. CASSIDY. And I am sorry. I got all my pages—my staple 

came off, and it is—and my staples are apart. But it did seem as 

if there is a graduated way in which the EPA would be able to do 

some sort of cost-benefit analysis and ultimately—and concluding 

with the total banning of the substance. But I am hearing from you 

that you either don’t want that authority or that you think you 

should have the authority. What am I hearing? 

Mr. JONES. We don’t think that the decision framework should 

be that you have to show that the benefits outweigh the costs, as 

we don’t think that the information that we will generally have 

available allows that balancing to be as accurate as people would 

hope it would be. 

Mr. CASSIDY. I don’t think people are talking about scientific precision. I think they are talking about some sort of weighing of commonsense. 

Mr. JONES. Courts have generally found that if you can’t show 

that the actual dollar value of the human health benefits aren’t literally bigger than the dollar value of the cost—— 

Mr. CASSIDY. Can I have a little bit—one extra question? So my 

frustration is obviously this leads to where we are going to ban 

something even though it costs a million dollars to ban it, and 

there is only a buck of—if you totally discharge the responsibility 

for coming up with such a thing—don’t want the authority, then 

you actually come into a situation where there is the death of commonsense, where you really need to no longer sell fire hydrants because we can’t quantitate the relative exposure. Now, we can’t have 

it both ways. We can’t say give you a little bit of wiggle room so 

that we are not banning fire hydrants, and on the other hand saying oh, my gosh, we don’t want that authority because we don’t 

have the ability to pull off the analysis. 

Mr. SHIMKUS. Gentleman—— 

Mr. JONES. Well, it is very different from saying I would like to 

be able to consider costs, so I don’t do something like you just described, versus I have to literally calculate the human health benefits, which are nearly impossible to do most of the time. And I have 

to show that that number is bigger than the cost, which is usually 

easily able to calculate but often overestimated. 

Mr. SHIMKUS. The gentleman’s time has far exceeded. And I 

know—I hope you will come back for the second panel, which I 

think we’ll have a further discussion on this. The Chair now recognizes the gentlelady from California for 5 minutes. 

Mrs. CAPPS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And thank you, Mr. 

Jones, for your testimony today, for being with us. Many stakeholders have raised concerns about the need to protect vulnerable 

populations in any modernized TSCA. It has been a point I have 

45 

made in our previous hearings on this topic. I think it is absolutely 

essential. 

If we reform TSCA but fail to adequately protect children, pregnant women or seniors, we have really failed. As you know, vulnerable populations include infants and children, the elderly, the disabled, the workers and those living near chemical facilities. In 

their 2009 report, Science and Decisions, the National Academies 

of Science recommended that all vulnerable populations should receive special attentions at all stages of the risk assessment process. 

In its current form, the discussion draft only examines potentially exposed subpopulations when evaluating the risk of existing 

chemicals. But the draft does not direct the EPA to protect any of 

these risks when they are identified. It strikes me as a glaring 

oversight. 

Mr. Jones, you previously testified that a chemical should not be 

able to pass the safety standard under reformed TSCA if it is dangerous to a vulnerable population. But my understanding is that 

this revised draft does not provide this guarantee. Instead, it uses 

a cost-benefit standard to direct EPA to balance the health risks 

to vulnerable subpopulations against the cost to the industry to 

take protective action. Is it your opinion that this is an accurate 

statement? Or if not, would you correct me? 

Mr. JONES. The only modification I would make is that it is not 

just the cost to the industry but any costs to society. 

Mrs. CAPPS. OK. 

Mr. JONES. Otherwise, I think your characterization is accurate. 

Mrs. CAPPS. OK. So that means if we enact this proposal, we 

couldn’t tell parents that the law always puts the health of their 

children first, right? 

Mr. JONES. That is correct. 

Mrs. CAPPS. Does the administration support this approach, or 

does it think the law should require that children and vulnerable 

populations are protected from toxic chemicals? 

Mr. JONES. We prefer the latter. 

Mrs. CAPPS. Mr. Chairman, this proposal doesn’t make sense to 

me. For the last 40 years, we have had a law that does not adequately protect children, seniors, and other vulnerable populations. 

Why would we want to pass another law that simply continues that 

failed approach? And I yield back. 

Mr. SHIMKUS. The gentlelady yields back her time. Seeing no 

other members present, we want to thank you—oh, no. I am sorry. 

Mr. Bilirakis is now recognized from the State of Florida for 5 minutes. 

Mr. BILIRAKIS. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. The first 

question, does this section of the April discussion draft improve the 

Agency’s ability to require the submission of hazard and exposure 

data and information by authorizing EPA to obtain it by rule, consent agreement or issuing an Order? 

Mr. JONES. Section 4 does that, yes. 

Mr. BILIRAKIS. Say that again. 

Mr. JONES. Section 4 does that, yes. 

Mr. BILIRAKIS. Very good. Does the expansion of testing authority to cover the chemical prioritization process provide the Agency 

46 

sufficient flexibility to obtain additional information necessary to 

take—to make decisions in priorities? 

Mr. JONES. Yes, it does. 

Mr. BILIRAKIS. OK. Thank you very much. I appreciate—thank 

you. I yield back, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. SHIMKUS. The gentleman yields back. 

Mr. TONKO. Mr. Chair? 

Mr. SHIMKUS. The gentleman—for what purpose does the gentleman ask recognition? 

Mr. TONKO. Right. If I might, you have mentioned a number of 

times that you would like to see language from our side of the 

aisle. There seems to be an implication that somehow we have refused to engage in the process. I just want to clarify the record. 

After you released your discussion draft in March, our staff sat 

down on a bipartisan basis to discuss it. Our staff identified 12 

areas where we needed to have further discussion in order to reach 

a bipartisan agreement. Staff discussed these issues. With many of 

the issues, your staff informed our staff that changes would not be 

possible. In other cases, I am told your staff expressed some receptivity, but they did not want to work out language with us. Our 

staff offered to go to legislative counsel with your staff to work together on the text, but that offer was refused. So if this is a misunderstanding and you would like our staff to work out language 

together, I would suggest we direct them to do so. We are happy 

to engage, and I hope there is sufficient flexibility to address the 

stakeholders’ concerns. 

Mr. SHIMKUS. If the gentleman would yield? 

Mr. TONKO. I will yield. 

Mr. SHIMKUS. Yes, this has been an interesting process for me 

in that we have worked diligently with members, with staff, with 

full committee staff, sometimes with individual staffs at other 

times. We continue to have asked for language. We have not received language. We can go through this process of junior high, he 

said what to who and who is talking to who, and why aren’t they 

doing this to the other person? I am telling you, it is a tad frustrating. All we are trying to do is drop a draft of a bill. We have 

accepted language. We have moved the process forward. We want 

to continue to do that. We hope that you will work with us in that 

process. But there is a time when members need to talk to members. And with all due respect to our staff who are very, very 

smart, if there is a problem with this process, then you can walk 

down the hall. You can pick up the phone. We can meet with our 

staff together, which we have done with some members. So we are 

moving forward. We appreciate the help and support. And if there 

has been frustration, it is just this is a very difficult process. Many 

of us are not lawyers. And this thing has not been revised since 

I was in high school. We can do better, and that is all we are trying 

to do. 

Mr. TONKO. Right. And all I am asking is that if there is a request to have us sit down and work out language, let us come to 

the table together and get that done. This is much more serious 

than junior high. And if the request for language is made, let us 

come to the common table. They did not—as I am told, there was 

not a receptivity to work out language with us. And I am just askVerDate Mar 15 2010 14:56 Dec 03, 2014 Jkt 037690 PO 00000 Frm 00050 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 F:\113-141 CICA LEG. 2 ASK OK 12-3-14\113-141 CICA LEG. 2 PDF MADE WAYNE
47 

ing that we come to the table, get that done, because time is fleeting. 

Mr. SHIMKUS. All I have said, I have asked for language for two 

months from the minority staff and have not received any language. 

Mr. TONKO. OK. 

Mr. SHIMKUS. So—— 

Mr. TONKO. I was told that that was not the case. So let us meet 

at the table and produce the language. 

Mr. SHIMKUS. That is the case. And I want to again thank Mr. 

Jones for his time. This is a difficult process. We appreciate your 

testimony, long. And you can see the members were well prepared 

by directed comments, directly to the draft bill. We appreciate your 

forthright answers. We know it is not done. It is not perfect. We 

encourage you and ask you to continue to be involved and engaged 

in this process, because we can get to a better product by working 

together. So with that, we would like to dismiss you and we would 

like to ask for the second panel to sit down. 

I think we are going to hire Mr. Dooley to be a good staffer. He 

knows the ropes. If we can get the door closed? Again, we want to 

thank you. Hopefully you have found the first panel interesting, 

educational, enlightening. And we do appreciate you coming for 

this second panel. In the sake of time, we want to continue to go 

forward. 

I will introduce everybody first and then call you individually for 

your opening statements. I think that is, for me, the most expeditious way of—from my left to right, we are joined by the Honorable 

Cal Dooley, President and CEO of American Chemistry Counsel, 

former colleague, great friend. And we appreciate you being here. 

Dr. Beth Bosley, President, Boron Specialties, on behalf of the 

Society of Chemical Manufacturers and Affiliates. Again, thank you 

for being here. 

Mr. Mark Greenwood, Principal of Greenwood Environmental 

Counsel. Sir, welcome. You have testified before. So we—good to 

see you again. 

Dr. Len Sauers, Vice President of Global Sustainability for Proctor & Gamble Company. Again, another familiar face. 

Mr. Steven Goldberg, Vice President and Associate General 

Counsel, Regulatory & Government Affairs for BASF. You have 

also been here before. 

Mr. Andy Igrejas—— 

Mr. IGREJAS. Igrejas. 

Mr. SHIMKUS. Igrejas. Oh, you are over there? OK. We have got 

our things mixed up—National Campaign Director of Safer Chemicals, Healthy Families. Another familiar face. 

And the Honorable Michael Moore on behalf of the National Conference of State Legislators. Sir, welcome. So we will start with Mr. 

Dooley. Your full statement is in the record. You are recognized for 

5 minutes. And thank you for coming. 

48 

STATEMENTS OF CALVIN DOOLEY, PRESIDENT AND CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER, AMERICAN CHEMISTRY COUNCIL; BETH 

BOSLEY, PRESIDENT, BORON SPECIALTIES, LLC, ON BEHALF 

OF THE SOCIETY OF CHEMICAL MANUFACTURERS AND AFFILIATES; MARK GREENWOOD, PRINCIPAL, GREENWOOD ENVIRONMENTAL COUNSEL, PLLC; LEN SAUERS, VICE PRESIDENT, GLOBAL SUSTAINABILITY, PRODUCT SAFETY AND 

REGULATORY AFFAIRS, THE PROCTOR & GAMBLE COMPANY; STEVEN J. GOLDBERG, VICE PRESIDENT AND ASSOCIATE GENERAL COUNSEL, REGULATORY AND GOVERNMENT AFFAIRS, BASF CORPORATION; MICHAEL MOORE, ON 

BEHALF OF THE NATIONAL CONFERENCE OF STATE LEGISLATURES; AND ANDY IGREJAS, DIRECTOR, SAFER CHEMICALS, HEALTHY FAMILIES 

STATEMENT OF CALVIN DOOLEY 

Mr. DOOLEY. Thank you, Chairman Shimkus and Ranking Member Tonko. Thank you for the opportunity to testify about the latest 

draft of the Chemicals in Commerce Act. The ACC greatly appreciates the time and effort that you and your staff have devoted to 

his critical issue. And we believe this draft addresses key issues 

and questions that have been raised by a variety of stakeholders, 

and questions that have been raised by a number of members of 

this committee at the February 27 hearing on the previous draft. 

You know, I think if you look at some of the modifications in this 

draft, they responded to some of the concerns that Member Tonko 

offered about the preemption of State laws. This draft provides for 

a robust national chemical regulatory program, while also maintaining abilities of States to protect their citizens when EPA has 

not acted. 

Unlike the earlier draft, a low priority designation of a chemical 

by EPA will no longer preempt existing State laws. Only a final 

EPA decision after a risk evaluation of a high-priority chemical will 

preempt a State regulation or law. 

And, Congressman DeGette, you asked about EPA’s testing authority. This draft greatly strengthens the EPA’s ability to demand 

more data by allowing EPA the demand further testing for purposes of prioritization. And this is also a major change from the 

earlier version. 

Our colleague, Congressman Green, asked about TSCA’s safety 

standards should be based solely on health and exposure. And this 

draft clarifies that only hazard use and exposure considerations 

may be applied to determine the risk associated with an intended 

use of chemical. Cost benefit considerations are only considered in 

the risk management phase of the regulation. 

And, Congressman Capps, who has a great concern about vulnerable subpopulations, this draft explicitly requires EPA to consider 

exposures to infants, children, pregnant women, workers and the 

elderly during the prioritization process and throughout the risk 

evaluations. 

And Congressman Pallone has asked about TSCA’s current requirement to apply the least burdensome option. He mentioned 

that in his questions earlier today. This draft eliminates the least 

49 

burdensome requirements, enhancing EPA’s ability to efficiently 

and effectively impose regulations on chemicals. 

This legislation—or draft legislation provides a national approach to ensure the safety of chemicals in commerce. It empowers 

EPA to evaluate the risks associated with the exposure to a chemical, to determine if the cost—or the risk of exposure can be safely 

managed, and to also assess whether the cost and benefits of the 

restrictions on the use of a chemical are in the interest of consumers. 

I think it is instructed to see how the CICA could apply to the 

use of this fluorescent—CFL fluorescent light bulb. This light bulb 

uses about a quarter of the energy and lasts about 10 times as long 

as a traditional light bulb. But, you know, widespread adoption of 

CFL’s are helping to reduce energy demand, reduce carbon emissions and are reducing energy costs for consumers. But there is a 

small amount of mercury that is required to make these highly efficient bulbs effective. Under CICA, EPA would certainly find mercury to be a high-priority chemical based on hazard. EPA then 

would conduct a risk evaluation as to determine whether mercury 

used in this CFL posed a significant risk. Finding that EPA would 

next consider whether the exposure to mercury in this bulb could 

be managed to protect against an unreasonable risk of harm to 

human health and the environment. In EPA’s development of regulations on the use of mercury in this bulb, they would consider the 

cost and benefits of allowing mercury to be used, and whether 

there were alternatives. This approach is a compelling from a public policy perspective as EPA would be ensuring the risk of exposure to mercury was acceptable in this bulb, while encouraging the 

development of a product that has significant societal and environmental benefits. This example of the CFL bulb also demonstrates 

why preemption provisions of CICA are sound public policy. 

Unfortunately, many State regulatory programs are based solely 

on whether a chemical can cause harm in any circumstance. This 

means that if a State—my home State of California decided to impose a blanket ban on the use of mercury, CFLs could not be sold 

there. This would have a significant negative consequences, and 

innovators and companies throughout the country would be reluctant to invest in the development and manufactured of advanced 

products such as this bulb if it was banned in what is the fifth 

largest economy in the world. 

The current draft of the Chemicals in Commerce Act is a positive 

contribution to reforming TSCA, and we believe it provides a roadmap to legislation that the American Chemistry Counsel can 

strongly support. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Dooley follows:] 

50 

51 

52 

53 

54 

55 

56 

57 

58 

59 

60 

61 

62 

63 

64 

Mr. SHIMKUS. Thank you. Time has expired. The Chair now recognizes Dr. Bosley for 5 minutes. 

STATEMENT OF BETH D. BOSLEY 

Mr. BOSLEY. Thank you, Chairman Shimkus, Ranking Member 

Tonko and members of the subcommittee. I am pleased to be back 

in Washington to share my perspective as a small business owner 

and on behalf of the Society of Chemical Manufacturers and Affiliates regarding the April 18 discussion draft of the Chemicals in 

Commerce Act. 

You and your staffs have been doing great work on TSCA reform, 

and TSCA very much appreciates it. I would particularly like to 

thank you for recognizing that TSCA is as much about products as 

it is about health and the environment. It is an important interrelationship we need to protect against unreasonable risks, but we 

also need to be able to make—keep making the products that make 

every other aspect of our society useful. 

As we work towards strengthening EPA’s authority to regulate 

industrial chemicals, we must be careful that it does not come at 

the expense of innovation. This is how we create and sustain jobs. 

It is also how we can develop greener chemicals and bolster public 

confidence. 

You have obtained positive approaches from the February 27 

draft on issues that matter most to SCMA. You have also made additional improvements in several other areas. There are some aspects of the current draft that concern us, and we would like some 

clarification on those. 

Regarding new chemicals and CBI, timely approval of new 

chemicals and reliable protection of trade secrets are SCMA’s two 

top priorities, because they are critical to facilitating innovation. 

And the draft makes some changes to new chemicals in commerce—provisions of the bill, but these two sections continue to be 

very, very workable. 

As you continue to deliberate these sections, consider that new 

chemicals do tend to be greener. Note also that if a manufacturer 

does not have test data, EPA will continue to use precautionary approaches involving potential exposures, modeling tools and data on 

analog chemicals before a chemical ever reaches commerce. If the 

Agency then still feels like it needs measured data, it can request 

it and often does. 

Finally, companies regularly continue to test chemicals, even 

after EPA approves them. 

Regarding existing chemicals, the new draft contains an additional requirement for EPA to review available information on a 

chemical, including any screening level information, before requiring testing. We support this change. It only makes sense that EPA 

leverage all the available data and information before pursuing potentially burdensome testing regimens. 

Prioritization, repeatedly—or relatedly, the prioritization process 

in the bill now allows EPA to require development of additional 

data to determine whether a substance falls into a high-priority 

bucket in cases where existing information is insufficient. This is 

a great improvement. 

65 

We also believe that enhanced process of reporting is an important aspect of any new bill. In the same way EPA can see additional toxicity data to prioritize a chemical, we would like to see 

language specifically authorizing the EPA to require processors to 

report use and exposure data for particular product categories, especially where commercial or consumer uses can be significant. We 

understand this is a challenging issue, but is essential to well informed risk evaluations. 

As I have mentioned in prior testimony, the bill should also expand TSCA’s Section 8(e) to authorize submission of non-adverse 

data and to require EPA to take that data into account when 

prioritizing and evaluating chemicals. Presently, Section E is biased toward only adverse data, because that is all that we can submit. Such an enhancement would greatly increase the amount of 

data submitted under this authority, which can only improve the 

EPA’s understanding of chemical hazards. 

Regarding deadlines, SCMA has called for a mandate for EPA to 

remove a minimum number of chemicals, or some percentage of 

chemicals, over time in order to assure that it will act more expeditiously on existing chemicals. And it has thus far. While the bill 

does not yet do that, it does include deadlines for reviewing existing chemicals. I think the deadlines may be too generous in aggregate. It would give EPA a total of up to 10 years from release of 

a high-priority determination to issue a final rule and posing risk 

management requirements or restriction. I think 4 years for the 

risk evaluation is probably too long. Something like 18 to 24 

months should be workable. 

We noticed that the phrase in Section 6 and 9 is significant risk, 

and we look forward to understanding your intent here. I think it 

is probably improvement over unreasonable risk. 

Risk management now, this bill clearly separates the risk evaluation and risk management steps, and it makes even clearer the 

former is purely a health-based standard. We think this is good 

and still leaves the bill with fewer steps than in the Senate bill. 

As for the risk management process, we support the bill’s requirement that restrictions of chemicals be cost effective. However, 

we are concerned that the bill would allow EPA to ban a chemical 

even when it concludes there was no technically or economically 

feasible safer alternative. The draft drops the definition of best 

available science and the concept contains there, and they don’t appear elsewhere in the bill. We are disappointed by this, because the 

credibility of EPA risk evaluations will depend on the strength of 

the science supporting them. 

We are pleased to see that the bill did retain language on good 

science and the requirement that EPA evaluate chemicals by 

weight of that evidence. I would think both sides of the aisle would 

agree that the only—would only defeat our common goal of enhancing public confidence if EPA could be accused of cherry-picking 

data or methods. 

In conclusion, the bill represents an improvement over the status 

quo and shows continued promise for a bipartisan solution. We appreciate your intense focus on TSCA reauthorization and remain 

committed to helping in any way we can. 

[The prepared statement of Ms. Bosley follows:] 

66 

67 

68 

69 

70 

Mr. SHIMKUS. Thank you very much. Mr. Greenwood, you are 

recognized for 5 minutes. 

STATEMENT OF MARK GREENWOOD 

Mr. GREENWOOD. Chairman Shimkus, Ranking Member Tonko, 

members of the committee, thank you for the opportunity to testify 

today. I am Mark Greenwood. I am an environmental lawyer. I 

have been working on TSCA for over 25 years. As part of that, I 

was the chief lawyer for the TSCA program from 1988 to 1990. I 

was director of the Office of Pollution Prevention Toxics from 1994, 

and advised clients on these issues for over 20 years. 

What I would like to do is offer some comments of the strengths 

of this bill in the context of some of the historical issues that have 

occurred in the TSCA program. And I really would like to respond 

to something that I think is a fairly puzzling characterization I 

have heard that somehow this discussion draft is worse than the 

current law. And just as kind of a reality check and—I thought I 

would reflect back on 1990 when I started as an office director at 

EPA. And if they could have given me a choice between the law 

that was there on the books, which by the way is the law we have 

today, and this discussion draft, which would I have preferred to 

do the best job I could to protect the American people from chemical risk? I found it very easy. I would select the discussion draft. 

It has in it key elements that will increase the protection, the 

ability of EPA to act in ways that I think are extremely important. 

I have documented those in my written testimony. I will highlight 

just a couple of points in the interest of brevity. 

For Section 6, which we know is the centerpiece of the existing 

chemical program, as others have mentioned, your draft removes 

the least burdensome requirement provision. That was the most 

difficult problem that came out of the asbestos corrosion proof fitting decision. You have removed it. It removes the specter of that 

decision from the program. 

A second one that is very important is prioritization. One of the 

curses that TSCA is that is has always been the statute, particularly in Section 6, that can do anything but has a mandate to do 

nothing. And that has been a problem institutionally. EPA and the 

TSCA program has always had problem getting more resources for 

the program. It has had a problem getting its regulations through 

the review process. We often saw the phenomenon which I experience several times when new political leaders would come into 

EPA, they look at this wonderful new tool and say this can be used 

for this special project. And that special project then disappeared 

when they left. And the career people at EPA were left with another failed project. 

I think what happens with this prioritization system is it creates 

a system that legitimizes the establishment of a long-term agenda 

for this program, which it desperately needs, and allows the program to have a sustained effort to implement that agenda. 

The third thing which I think you have added, which is an improvement over other drafts, is this distinction in the safety standard/now risk evaluation and risk management provisions to distinguish what you call a significant risk and an unreasonable risk. 

And what is important there is probably less the specific words of 

71 

the standard than the fact that you articulate the considerations 

that go into that decision. And they are very distinct. So you do 

have a significant risk decision that looks solely at health and environmental factors, and explicitly says that costs and benefits are 

not part of that decision. And I thank you for Jim Jones recognized 

that that is an important change. 

Similarly, in the risk management area, you have tried to clarify 

what factors should be considered. Previously, there was some 

overlapping factors that you have taken out. I think it is a big improvement. 

The second area I want to address is actually confidential business information, which has often been identified as a systematic 

problem with TSCA. Now, this perception I think unfortunately can 

be traced back to some events that occurred during my tenure at 

EPA. Back in 1990, we decided to create a new strategy for the program in which we tried to, as we said, go public with the information that we had about health and environmental risks of chemicals. It was very much aligned with—at that time with the public 

right to know programs. We were in charge of the toxic release inventory. And we thought that was a good thing to do. Now, in 

going on and doing this, I am afraid we kind of stirred a rather 

serious debate. And we have had a debate on CBI reforms and CBI 

changes, which have gone on for many years. It was not productive. 

It was very polarized. The debate was not very well explained. 

However, a group of people working on this bill, in the Senate and 

in the House, have come together. NGO groups are involved. Industry was involved, to come up with some commonsense reforms 

which I think, as a package, have really advanced this debate, and 

I think can resolve a lot of the issues that have plagued the program for over 20 years. So in a sense, you had a guerilla war for 

the last 20 years on this topic. And you have the ability in enacting 

this to perhaps ratify the TSCA CBI treaty of 2014 and resolve this 

war. And that has got to be a success story in any case. 

Thank you for your time. 

[The prepared statement Mr. Greenwood follows:] 

72 

73 

74 

75 

76 

77 

78 

79 

80 

81 

82 

83 

84 

85 

86 

87 

88 

89 

90 

91 

92 

93 

94 

Mr. SHIMKUS. I thank you. And now, I would like to recognize 

Dr. Sauers for 5 minutes. 

STATEMENT OF LEN SAUERS 

Mr. SAUERS. Um-hum. Chairman Shimkus, Ranking Member 

Tonko, members of the subcommittee, thank you for inviting me to 

testify today. My name is Len Sauers. I am Vice President of Global Sustainability, Product Safety and Regulatory Affairs at the 

Proctor & Gamble Company. P&G is the largest consumer products 

company in the world. And our products are used by more than 4.8 

billion people worldwide. Ninety-nine percent of American households contain at least one P&G product. 

Since our founding in 1837, innovation has been integral to everything we do and critical to our success. At P&G, we believe innovation is our lifeblood. I congratulate and thank the subcommittee for continued bipartisan collaboration to further refine 

and improve the draft legislation. We firmly believe that any legislative effort to modernize TSCA must have a strong foundation 

built on common ground from a broad range of stakeholder interests. 

The time for action is now. A strong and effective Federal chemical management program will lessen pressure on States or markets to independently take action to regulate chemicals. Enhancing 

consumer confidence is P&G’s single most important objective for 

modernizing TSCA. We recognize and hear from our consumers 

that they are concerned about chemicals used in everyday products. 

We believe a modernized TSCA will strengthen public confidence in 

EPA’s oversight of the safety of chemicals used in the everyday 

products that consumers bring into their homes and use around 

their families. 

The latest discussion draft makes some very important improvements over the current statute. For example, CICA requires EPA 

to identify and account for active chemicals in U.S. commerce, and 

then apply transparent criteria to prioritize them. CICA instructs 

EPA to conduct a risk evaluation of high-priority chemicals to examine their probable or demonstrated harm to humans or the environment, with attention given to the most vulnerable subpopulations potentially exposed by these priority chemicals. CICA expressively prohibits EPA from considering economic costs and benefits 

in their risk evaluation for priority chemicals, which is a noted improvement over the earlier discussion draft and acknowledges the 

common ground reached by industry and NGO stakeholders that a 

new safety standard in a modernized TSCA should be health-based 

only. 

EPA subsequent regulatory actions must impose requirements or 

restrictions that sufficiently and effectively manage the risk, while 

carefully evaluating practical consideration to assure market benefit and continuity. And importantly, CICA offers new authority for 

EPA to collect additional information on chemicals in commerce 

when such information is most useful to the Agency in decisionmaking. 

Another important element of the proposed CICA act is support 

for innovation through protection of confidential business information. Proctor & Gamble invests $2 billion annually in research and 

95 

development. It is 60 percent more than our next closes competitor, 

and more than most of our competitors combined. Once we bring 

new products to market, we have significant interest in protecting 

our confidential business information from public disclosure to our 

competitors. Appropriate protections for confidential information 

allow innovative companies to succeed, and for P&G to earn our 

consumers trust and loyalty. We rely heavily on the protection of 

confidential business information afforded by Section 14 of TSCA 

to remain competitive. 

We recognize that EPA has to carefully balance the protection of 

confidential business information under TSCA, with providing public access to health and safety information. P&G fully supports 

transparency with health and safety information, and the disclosure of confidential information to States and medical professionals 

to assist with the diagnosis and treatment of illnesses. The discussion draft appropriately authorizes EPA to disclose such information. 

We also strongly support provisions to the discussion draft that 

provide adequate protection for confidential chemical identities, 

even when associated with a health and safety study. A specific 

confidential chemical identity is not needed to conduct a health and 

safety study, interpret its results, or communicate the study’s observed health effects and conclusion. Structurally descriptive, generic chemical names are sufficient to provide the public with information about the structure of the chemical and its hazard profile, 

which in turn provides a linkage and access to publicly available 

scientific and toxicological literature on structurally related materials. 

In our industry, confidential chemical entities are often the most 

valuable type of intellectual property. Disclosure of a specific confidential chemical entity can provide watchful competitors with 

clues needed to replicate our product formulations. P&G agrees 

with other industry stakeholders that CBI protection must be properly substantiated at the time of the initial claim, and upon EPA 

request to renew or extend the duration of protection. We support 

the CICA provisions that address the need for upfront substantiation of CBI claims for confidential chemical identities and encourage the authors to consider broadening the requirement. 

Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member Tonko, thank you again for the 

invitation to testify this morning. We believe the time to modernize 

TSCA is now. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Sauers follows:] 

96 

97 

98 

99 

100 

101 

102 

103 

Mr. SHIMKUS. Thank you. Now, the Chair now recognizes Mr. 

Goldberg for 5 minutes. 

STATEMENT OF STEVEN J. GOLDBERG 

Mr. GOLDBERG. Thank you. Chairman Shimkus, Ranking—— 

Mr. SHIMKUS. I think there should be a button for that. 

Mr. GOLDBERG. Chairman Shimkus, Ranking Member Tonko, 

members of the subcommittee, thank you for this opportunity. I am 

Steve Goldberg, Vice President and Associate General Counsel for 

Regulatory & Government Affairs at BASF Corporation. BASF Corporation is the North American arm of BSF Group, which is the 

world’s largest chemical company. 

BASF Corporation supports modernization of TSCA. We believe 

substantial progress has been made towards that goal by the most 

recent draft of the Chemicals in Commerce Act. And we appreciate 

the subcommittee’s focus on this important matter, and are grateful for the opportunity here before you—appear before you today. 

A number of key principles and concepts for TSCA modernization 

are the subject of agreement among a wide variety of stakeholders, 

including the fact that TSCA should provide for additional authority for EPA to review and manage risks from existing chemicals on 

the market as it has successfully done for new chemicals since 

TSCA’s inception. A prioritization process is an appropriate way for 

EPA to commence reviewing existing chemicals in order to ensure 

its resources are spent in the most efficient way. 

EPA requires additional authority to call for testing of chemicals 

where existing data is insufficient to permit reasoned conclusions 

either as to priority status or to make risk assessments. And the 

appropriate approach for a safety assessment of chemicals is a riskbased standard that is one that takes into account not just hazards 

but also exposure and use in order to leave to safety conclusions. 

And while I am not testifying on their behalf today, while I participate in the chemical management teams at American Chemistry 

Counsel, I also do so at the leading downstream associations, the 

American Cleaning Institute, Consumer Specialty Products Association. And those associations are committed to participating in 

this process to provide appropriate use data so that the standard 

can be risk-based, not just hazard-based. 

The benefit and cost considerations are not appropriate when 

making a safety assessment, but are critical in deciding the appropriateness of risk management measures. As discussed, there 

should be appropriate protections for CBI. And, finally, EPA will 

require sufficient resources to be able to fulfill its mandate in a 

timely manner under a modernized TSCA. 

While provisions in the proposed bill on use exposure data and 

resource needs require some fleshing out, overall we are pleased 

that the updated CICA is directed towards meeting these principles 

and is a substantial improvement over current law. While all these 

subjects are important, I want to focus on the subject raised by Mr. 

Dingell, and that is the issue of resources. 

Ultimately, one key to success of a modernized TSCA is ensuring 

that EPA has the resources to do its job. And there was extensive 

discussion about how many chemicals it could review and what sort 

of time period. Ultimately, a program that provides EPA the auVerDate Mar 15 2010 14:56 Dec 03, 2014 Jkt 037690 PO 00000 Frm 00107 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 F:\113-141 CICA LEG. 2 ASK OK 12-3-14\113-141 CICA LEG. 2 PDF MADE WAYNE
104 

thority but not the resources to do that job is a losing proposition 

for the chemical industry, our customers and the public. And so the 

program posited by the CICA clearly will require additional resources in EPA’s Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics to allow 

this program to work. 

Having been extensively involved in development and implementation of a pesticide fee system under the Pesticide Registration 

Improvement Act, which has been in place at EPA for about 10 

years, I can provide some perspective on the possible application of 

a fees approach as part of increasing the resources for EPA to meet 

the needs of the program. And those feed provisions generally 

revolve around a number of, again, commonly held principles. That 

is fees charged must be dedicated to the program itself, not to the 

general treasury or other programs within EPA. And those fees 

generally should go for adding FTEs within EPA. Fees need to supplement not replace appropriations for the functions of chemical 

safety review. They need to be reasonable in amount and such that 

will not stifle innovation, which is critical to our industry. A fee 

should be focused on activities that provide a direct benefit to the 

person being charged. A fee system needs to take into account 

small business considerations. And, lastly, the Agency needs to be 

accountable and transparent about how those fees are being used. 

Ultimately, while PRIA provides some direction for possible approaches towards meeting resource needs in the chemicals area, it 

is a somewhat imperfect model. It is a different type of statute. It 

is a product registration statute instead of a substance statute, as 

more fully noted in my written testimony. However, there are some 

models I think that will help. 

So while there are things to be learned from the experience with 

PRIA, ultimately a fee program for chemicals needs to be based on 

any processes called for in TSCA and under the CICA, and requirements of a chemical management system. 

Industry is prepared to discuss the need for additional fees in 

this particular context, if it meets those principles I enunciated. 

And BASF stands ready to help inform Congress’ consideration of 

the resource needs of the Agency, including appropriate fee approaches. 

And we thank you very much for your consideration. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Goldberg follows:] 

105 

106 

107 

108 

109 

110 

111 

Mr. SHIMKUS. All right. Thank you for attending. And the business community obviously represents their customers. It is great to 

have a State senator here who has constituents. I think there is 

obviously members, who are legislators also, have great respect for 

anyone who puts their hat in the ring and runs for political office. 

So I would like to recognize Senator Michael Moore from the Commonwealth of Massachusetts. And you are recognized for 5 minutes. 

STATEMENT OF MICHAEL MOORE 

Mr. MOORE. Thank you very much. And it is an honor to be here 

today. Chairman Shimkus and Ranking Member Tonko and distinguished members of the subcommittee, as a member of the Massachusetts State Senate and a member of the National Conference of 

State Legislators, I speak today on behalf of the NCSL, a bipartisan organization representing 50 State legislators and the legislators of our Nation’s commonwealths, territories and the District of 

Columbia. I thank you for the opportunity to testify today. 

Mr. Chairman, while the NCSL encourages Congress to reform 

and modernize TSCA, we must insist that any changes do not 

eliminate States’ abilities to protect the health and safety of their 

citizens through sweeping Federal preemption. CICA preempts 

nearly 40 years of State policy in an attempt to provide a one-size 

fits all approach to toxic chemicals regulation. To strip States’ residents of protections enacted by their elected officials would be a serious breach of State sovereignty and will leave everyone more susceptible to increased harm from toxic chemicals. 

CICA would essentially eliminate the ability of State policymakers to regulate toxic chemicals at the State level by divesting 

all authority away from States and localities and placing this authority solely with the EPA administrator. This approach may have 

adverse effects on State regulatory structures, which I detailed in 

my written testimony. 

CICA may also have unintended and adverse consequences that 

extend into the other areas of State environmental regulation. Air 

and water quality in States like New York may suffer because of 

current language does not explicitly exempt State pollution laws. In 

the absence of Federal action to address issues related to TSCA, 

lack of—TSCA’s lack of revision, half of the States, including the 

Commonwealth of Massachusetts, have enacted legislation to regulate individual chemicals. Nearly one-third of States, including 

Massachusetts, have developed comprehensive State chemical regulations. The CICA would preempt all of these laws. I have attached 

a chart detailing the laws adversely impacted by CICA with my 

written testimony. 

Throughout my career in public service, I have seen the benefits 

of State and Federal chemical policy firsthand. As a State environmental police officer, I worked under the office of the State attorney general’s environmental strike force to investigate crimes associated with illegal chemical practices. The State plays a vital enforcement role in chemical incidents as the primary investigatory 

authority in these matters, often coordinating with several Federal 

and State organizations to ensure a safe and efficient response. For 

112 

18 years, I investigated serious violations of State law that had significant impacts on local communities. 

In 1993, I was involved with a case in which a metal manufacturing plant failed to use standard procedures when disposing of 

residual sodium, resulting in an explosion. Beyond these basic failures, fire fighters responding to the blaze were significantly injured 

due to inexcusable mistakes. This included a failure to warn responding officers about the current state of the involved chemical, 

which explodes upon contact with water. When firefighters began 

routine containment procedures, a larger explosion occurred and 

several were critically burned through their protective gear by the 

reacting chemical. Through the Attorney General’s strike force, 

Massachusetts was able to hold the responsible party accountable 

and bring justice to those injured in the incident. 

Without State participation, enforcement of a chemical policy 

would be nearly impossible. But current CICA language would 

drastically hinder State enforcement. By eliminating State ability 

to enforce laws that are comparable to the Federal standards, the 

responsibility of holding violators responsible would fall primarily 

on the Federal Government. States embrace the opportunity to provide an improved safety for their residents and the environment 

and accept this burden. But preemption language in CICA significantly endangers the—that enforcement ability. 

When I became a State legislator, it became more apparent how 

intricately States must be involved in chemical policy. The—TSCA 

has not been updated for nearly 40 years, and States have acted 

to pass laws that complement the Federal policy. All of these State 

laws would pass with the welfare of the public in mind. Beyond the 

host of Massachusetts’ law that provides increased protection from 

toxic chemicals, several communities in my district are currently 

experiencing difficulties in costs associated with Federal preemption of railroad operations. That really adds—I commend the subcommittee for their commitment to business and interstate commerce in this draft, and understand the motivations for a uniform 

Federal chemical policy to promote these goals. However, the advancements of these ideas cannot come at the expense of public and 

environmental safety. I share the residents’ belief that approximately—I share the residents’ belief that live on the other side to 

the potential spills—to the potential problems of spills entitles 

them to a measure of involvement in ensuring chemical safety. 

When 100 gallons of a chemical called Styrene, used in the manufacturing of Styrofoam, was spilled in one of these preempted 

yards, a cooperated effort of rail yard employees and workers from 

State municipal agencies were responsible for the cleanup. The incident was handled safely and professionally by all involved parties 

with only minor complaints of irritated eyes and lingering smells. 

However, if a rail yard is federally preempted from State law, and 

chemicals being transported are preempted, the citizens of these 

communities have no recourse to protect their homes and families 

from future spills. There must be a balance struck between the 

benefits of interstate commerce and the need for public safety. 

State legislators have and must continue to play a role in chemical 

policy in order to reach that balance. 

113 

The NCSL encourages Congress to reform and modernize TSCA, 

but does not believe that the CICA adequately accomplishes this 

goal. At a minimum, the NCSL believes proposes TSCA reform legislation should embody the elements outlined in the NCSL’s Federal Chemical Policy Reform directive, which is attached to my 

written testimony. Most notably, any reform of TSCA should preserve State rights to manage chemicals and resources, and should 

be provided for the State level implementation. 

And I thank you for this opportunity and look forward to any 

questions. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Moore follows:] 

114 

115 

116 

117 

118 

119 

120 

121 

122 

123 

124 

125 

126 

127 

128 

129 

130 

131 

132 

133 

134 

135 

136 

137 

138 

139 

140 

141 

142 

143 

144 

145 

146 

147 

148 

149 

150 

151 

152 

153 

Mr. SHIMKUS. Thank you. And now, I would like to recognize Mr. 

Igrejas for 5 minutes. 

STATEMENT OF ANDY IGREJAS 

Mr. IGREJAS. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. Safer Chemicals, Healthy Families is a nonpartisan coalition of health, environmental labor organizations and businesses. We came together to do 

TSCA reform in a meaningful way, and we remain committed to 

that. I appreciate the opportunity to testify. And I especially appreciate the process you followed of having discussion drafts before 

going forward with a formal bill. And I want to use the opportunity 

to encourage a different course before you do that. 

We took this very seriously. We had a team of experts review the 

new draft. And we did note improvements. So I want to point them 

out so you don’t have to do it for me. The testing authority is an 

improvement. The getting rid of the best available science definitions, the definitions of adequate information, et cetera. But we 

were still unanimous in our analysis that the improvements don’t 

alter the bottom line, which is that when you take the ambitious 

preemption in the bill—the sweeping preemption, with the things 

that have rolled back pieces of Federal law, and then the fact that 

the things that I believe you intend as improvements in the bill, 

are still not there in our analysis. The net effect is to go backward. 

That is what we—that is our analysis of the bill still. 

The first question we asked our self, will the EPA be able to impose restrictions on unsafe chemicals under the bill? And we came 

to the same conclusion that Jim did, that even though you have 

separated the assessment from the decision on risk management, 

the bottom line there is still that EPA has to prove something, too 

much like what it has to prove now, which has been shown to be 

unworkable, in order to impose the restrictions needed to ensure 

safety. And I hope you will agree that is a threshold issue that we 

have to solve, and I think we want people outside of the chemical 

industry concurring that it has been solved before we go forward. 

The second questions is does the bill establish a clear idea of 

safety that we can all be sure will protect pregnant women and 

children? And I think our answer again was no. I did want to credit 

that the assessment is now clearly health-based, and there is a 

foothold for some key concepts like vulnerable populations, aggregate exposure, et cetera. But they are not lined up in a way that 

assures the protection for pregnant women and children. And this 

term significant risk, which may turn out to be an improvement or 

something that we can work with, it is still unclear what that 

means. And we want to make sure it is clear. 

The third question was does it improve or diminish the oversight 

of new chemicals? And this is where we are still perplexed over all 

that—our position, and I think most people’s sense, is that new 

chemicals should be made to be safe—shown to be safe before they 

get on the market. That is the administration’s principles. It is how 

a lot of people when they first get into this issue, they think chemicals work like drugs, and they are surprised that it doesn’t work 

that way, and they think it should work that way. But we were— 

and the chemical industry has always said the new chemicals proVerDate Mar 15 2010 14:56 Dec 03, 2014 Jkt 037690 PO 00000 Frm 00157 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 F:\113-141 CICA LEG. 2 ASK OK 12-3-14\113-141 CICA LEG. 2 PDF MADE WAYNE
154 

gram, as it is, works fine. But we do see some rollbacks in that authority here. 

They have limited authority to—and criteria whereby they can 

order development information and pose some risk management. 

And the new draft restores one of those, but still takes back a couple of those pieces of authority. We would like to see that removed. 

We also asked will this increase the transparency and public confidence, which is a goal that has been even unstated, the industry 

is has enunciated. And our answer was no, again. I think the draft 

adds a layer of murkiness. And this has come up. For the first 

time, you explicitly allow the delinking—or require really the 

delinking of a chemical from the health and safety study—the 

chemical identity from a health and safety study that might implicate it as having health concerns. And that really does mean you 

could have a secret carcinogen on the inventory. That would be 

very hard for the public to track, is this being managed well? And 

I think the idea of public confidence is that when chemicals do 

have problems, we can see how they are being managed. And so 

that is going to be something that will undermine transparency. 

The low priority designation, if it worked the way it was reference by one of the members, I forget if it was Mr. Latta, that it 

was just in ordering, what EPA is going to get to later. But because 

of the remaining links preemption here that it is not just EPA saying we are not going to look at this now, but we are going to prohibit States from looking at it in the future. All on the basis of this 

likely to be safe, as opposed to that they found it to be safe, I think 

that that would be interpreted by many in the industry as basically 

a hall pass that people will want that. This is sort of a promise this 

chemical will never get looked at. And the first time something bad 

ends up somewhere that we don’t want it, we are going to have a 

scandal. And the credibility of the whole program I think, and what 

the safety means, will come down. The preemption has been discussed in some detail. We agree with the comments that it is 

sweeping and overly ambitious. And so we would urge a different 

approach in the bill. 

I have engaged in a lot of dialog with people in industry on a lot 

of these issues. Part of our reaction is that we don’t see a lot of 

what I had seen as ideas that have come out with—for more common ground approaches reflected in these drafts. And perhaps it is 

time to focus in on some key issues. And I think those would be 

is there a definition of safety that we can all understand and get 

behind, and not just my coalition but the folks in the medical community, the pediatricians, others that have weighed in on that subject. Is there clear authority that everyone agrees the EPA would 

have to impose conditions needed to ensure safety? Is there a 

schedule and resources that we know are making meaningful 

progress at the Federal level? And maybe that would be, you know, 

good for government work right there. Some real progress, but 

nothing that goes backwards. That is what we would be looking for. 

So I would encourage that approach, Mr. Chairman. And thank 

you very much. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Igrejas follows:] 

155 

156 

157 

158 

159 

160 

161 

162 

163 

164 

Mr. SHIMKUS. Appreciate your testimony. And, again, we welcome all our panelists. And I recognize myself for the first 5 minutes for questions. 

I guess I would like to start with this cost-benefit analysis that 

Mr. Jones had testified briefly on, and that whole discussion near 

the end of the first panel, and offer anyone a chance to make a 

comment on it. 

Mr. Greenwood, you look like you are ready to do that. 

Mr. GREENWOOD. Well, one of the things actually I mentioned in 

my testimony was when you talk about cost-benefit analysis and 

this unreasonable risk standard and what it means, I think it is 

useful to consider the fact that just a month ago, EPA proposed a 

new rule. This is under the FIFRA Statute for pesticides, but it is 

under an unreasonable adverse effects in the environment standard, very similar to unreasonable risk standard—proposed a set of 

very protective new standards for farmworkers, and explicitly indicated that this is to deal with some very serious effects on farmworkers, their families, on—to address the issues in environmental 

justice, and articulated this as part of the unreasonable risk standard. These are legitimate qualitative factors to consider. There was 

a cost-benefit analysis done. 

Interestingly enough, the cost-benefit analysis showed that if you 

purely look at the monetized costs and benefits, actually the regulation—the cost exceeded the monetized benefits. However, the government decided that because of the qualitative benefits, which can 

be considered in cost-benefit analysis, this was a justified rule, and 

it was a rule that met the unreasonable risk standard. So I think 

we have to be very careful, assuming that the mere existence of a 

cost-benefit analysis or unreasonable risk necessary leads to a less 

protective set of standards. 

Mr. SHIMKUS. Mr. Dooley? 

Mr. DOOLEY. If I can just add on to that? And that is—I use the 

example of the mercury in the light bulb. You know, if you didn’t 

have a cost-benefit analysis that considered, you know, the societal 

benefits, the environmental benefits, you could well have this product never brought to market. And I, you know, find it a little bit 

frustrating with Mr. Jones’ testimony is that when he cited the 

EPA’s principles, and even in his written testimony, he makes a 

very clear statement that they—for when chemicals do not meet 

the safety standard, they need to have the flexibility to consider 

children’s health, economic costs, social benefits and equity concerns. They are saying that you need a cost-benefit analysis. That 

is consistent with President Clinton’s Executive Order. It is consistent with President Obama’s Executive Order. And it is consistent with the language in your discussion draft on page 45, 

which states ‘‘determine whether technically and economically feasible alternatives that benefit human health or the environment, 

compared to the use proposed to be prohibited or substantially prevented, will be reasonably available.’’ 

This comment that Mr. Jones had that you have to weigh one alternative to another is not embodied in the draft legislation that 

you have presented to this committee. 

Mr. SHIMKUS. Thank you. Let me move on. I will never get 

through all the questions. But for the Senator, does this bill—and 

165 

CERCLA is our Superfund Federal legislation, CERCLA and 

Superfund are two Federal pieces of legislation—does this bill exempt any of CERCLA and Superfund from regulation? Because— 

why I say that is, in your comments about spills, that is all under 

CERCLA. And that is all under Superfund and remediation and 

the like. So my point is, those things aren’t going to be exempted 

under this piece of legislation. And it is an apples and oranges comparison. And I just wanted to—— 

Mr. MOORE. That comparison may be—I would have to go back 

and research whether the Superfund and CERCLA is. But, actually, as my panelists—fellow panelist up here just presented the 

fluorescent light. Massachusetts actually just passed a recent mercury ban. So the question is in Massachusetts, would this—— 

Mr. SHIMKUS. Yes. So no fluorescent light bulbs in Massachusetts? 

Mr. MOORE. Oh, no. We have fluorescent light bulbs. 

Mr. SHIMKUS. But there is mercury in there? 

Mr. MOORE. Right. But there is a mercury ban that has been in 

place. And the Massachusetts law regarding the mercury ban 

would actually be preempted. So that is a law that Massachusetts 

actually passed that you preempted. 

Mr. SHIMKUS. OK. Well, thanks. Now, I have lost all control over 

the direction I was going to go. Let me move to Mr. Greenwood. 

Some of the people involved in this debate have strong feelings 

about Federal preemption. We just started talking about that. Why 

is it important to address preemption, and do you think the discussion draft takes the right task? 

Mr. GREENWOOD. Well, I think it is very important to address 

preemption. And I—but I would say it in the following way. It is 

important because that I think it is an increasingly important issue 

that needs to be teed up, actually for international purposes. And 

here is the context. Obviously, the United States, we get nervous 

about anything that goes to preemption, because it goes to key 

principles of the history of our country. But in the world of chemical management across the world today, we are facing a series of 

different kinds of controls from other parts of the world. There is 

a—we want to have at some point some kind of consistency of 

standards across borders. Obviously, within the country. But more 

and more the threat of making that very hard to do is the fact that 

we have countries around the world with their own chemical programs. 

In the case of Europe, we have got a set of standards in reach 

that cover a continent. And if you are going to try to advance the 

interest of the United States and engage with the other parts of 

the world as your trading partners, you have to have a consistent 

position. The ticket for entry in that discussion is one country, one 

voice. You have to be able to say we are here as the United States 

with our position in dealing with other countries and with European community. And our trading partners don’t not want to negotiate with the individual States in the United States. They are expecting the Federal Government to speak for the country. 

So at some point, one of the things that needs to be considered 

here is how preemption or other mechanisms that try to get people, 

the State regulators and the Federal regulators, on the same page 

166 

for purposes of these discussions will factor into how TSCA is designed. 

Mr. SHIMKUS. Yes. And I appreciate. My time is far expired. And 

I would like to now turn to Mr. Tonko, the ranking member, for 

5 minutes. 

Mr. TONKO. Thank you, Mr. Chair. 

Earlier, EPA told us that the discussion draft fails to address 

some key elements of meaningful chemical safety reform, and in 

some way weakens current—in some ways, weakens current Federal law. That alone should give us pause. But the bill also includes sweeping preemption of State and local laws. 

Essentially, the bill completely ties the hands of State and local 

regulators to protect human health and the environment from toxic 

chemicals in commerce. 

Senator Moore, I would like to explore the potential impacts of 

this preemption language with you. In your testimony, you mentioned that the State of Massachusetts—the Commonwealth of 

Massachusetts has passed several toxics use reduction laws, including a comprehensive chemicals management program requiring 

companies to develop a plan for pollution prevention. Why did Massachusetts develop this program, and were the Federal programs 

inadequate? 

Mr. MOORE. Well, obviously in Massachusetts, we are looking at 

the needs of our—we determine to be the needs of our commonwealth, and what we determined are going to protect the welfare 

and the safety of our citizens, and protect the environment. So we 

are looking at our State and how we think we should move forward 

in a comprehensive process of addressing chemical use. 

Mr. TONKO. So does that suggest the Federal programs were inadequate? 

Mr. MOORE. I don’t want to say inadequate, but I think everyone 

can admit that the EPA is—with the amount of work that they 

have to do, they are overtasked. There is a lot of responsibility put 

upon them. And from previous testimony, what, there is 80— 

84,000 chemicals that right now have not been analyzed or looked 

at by the EPA. 

Mr. TONKO. Has this program helped reduce toxic chemical use 

in your home State? 

Mr. MOORE. Yes. Yes, I don’t have the exact figures. But I can 

tell you it has reduced toxic chemical use. 

Mr. TONKO. And Section 17 of the discussion draft contains extremely broad language that preempts States from implementing 

laws and regulations that require the collection of information 

about chemical substances, or that restrict or prohibit the use and 

manufacture of those chemical substances. Senator Moore, how 

could this language affect your ability as a State legislator to serve 

your constituents? 

Mr. MOORE. Well, I think if we are going to be looking at State 

laws to protect the welfare of our citizens and the environment, 

and looking for our State regulatory agencies, Department of Environment Protection, I think having access to information is going 

to help up develop policies or State laws and regulations that are 

going to adequately support that need. 

167 

Mr. TONKO. In addition to preempting existing State law, Section 

17 of the discussion draft preempts State and local governments 

from passing new laws in the future to protect human health and 

the environment from toxic chemicals in commerce. That is putting 

a lot of faith in success of our Federal program. Senator Moore, are 

you confident that the Federal program envisioned by this bill 

would be sufficient to protect human health and the environment 

from toxic chemicals? 

Mr. MOORE. From what I know of the legislation, at this point, 

I wouldn’t not say so. Again, I—the concerns I have is that there 

are a lot of responsibilities put upon the Environmental Protection 

Agency from reviewing new chemicals to reviewing existing chemicals. I don’t know what the resources that they would have to actually adequately perform this function. 

Mr. TONKO. So then how do you see this as best working? What 

role should the State play, and what role should the Federal Government play? 

Mr. MOORE. I think they should work hand in hand. As discussed, I think government and business should work hand in 

hand in the promoting of interstate commerce, the promoting of 

business. I think the Federal Government and State government 

should work hand in hand, working off each other’s best practices 

and moving those initiatives forward. I don’t think any one entity 

can do it alone. This is—I know the panel has said that, you know, 

when you are dealing on international trade issues that they want 

to know what the policies of the Federal Government. Well, State 

government also has—when we go abroad on trade issues, they 

want to know what State issues are being put forth. And we—in 

conjunction, we have to work with our Federal partners. But we 

are not always putting—States are not always putting forward the 

initiatives being sought by the Federal Government. So there is different initiatives that each State are going to be looking at. 

Mr. TONKO. Well, I appreciate your testimony and that of the 

panelists. I agree that the best model is one that sets a strong Federal minimum standards, but allows our States to enact standards 

that respond to local needs and go above and beyond Federal law 

to protect human health and the environment. 

And with that, Mr. Chair, I yield back. 

Mr. SHIMKUS. The gentleman yields back his time. The Chair 

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

Mr. LATTA. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. And thanks 

very much to our panelists for being here today. We really appreciate your time and your presentations. 

Dr. Sauers, if I could start with a question to you. With TSCA 

regulating chemicals and of course, in the U.S. commerce, many of 

which become ingredients in consumer products, are there other 

departments and agencies out there that have authority over the 

safety of those packaged consumer products that are used in the 

home? And if so, would you explain the role of those other U.S. departments and agencies, and how that regulatory jurisdiction compares to what we are discussing for the EPA under TSCA? 

Mr. SAUERS. Um-hum. Yes, Congressman, thank you. The Proctor & Gamble Company makes a whole host of consumer products. 

We make drugs, food products, beauty care products, laundry deVerDate Mar 15 2010 14:56 Dec 03, 2014 Jkt 037690 PO 00000 Frm 00171 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 F:\113-141 CICA LEG. 2 ASK OK 12-3-14\113-141 CICA LEG. 2 PDF MADE WAYNE
168 

tergents, things like that. And different agencies regulate different 

products. So if I think of our food products, beauty care products, 

cosmetics, drugs, those are regulated by the FDA. So chemicals 

that go into those products that are solely used in those products 

would not be regulated by TSCA. They are regulated by the FDA. 

Now, for those chemicals that go into say laundry detergents 

where the EPA would have a jurisdiction and would regulate those 

chemicals, the use of the chemical in the finished product is regulated by the Consumer Products Safety Commission. And they are 

the ones that regulate the use of hazardous chemicals in those 

products. So if something were to be declared say toxic, you know, 

by EPA, it would probably fall within the definition of hazardous 

within the Federal Hazardous Substances Act, which the CPSC administers. And then the CPSC would then have a jurisdiction for 

labeling on the product, banning the use of the material. You know, 

if the felt that labeling could not ensure safe use of it for a consumer, they could ban the use of it there. 

So there is a whole host of regulatory agencies overseeing these 

things. 

Mr. LATTA. Well, let me follow-up. Suppose if the EPA determines a chemical as a low priority. And as set aside under TSCA 

based on the EPA’s knowledge of the chemical’s limited use in the 

industrial environment, and that chemical may have significant 

hazardous properties, but the EPA understands there is a limited 

exposure to the chemical and the exposure is well managed by occupational controls, would prevent a consumer product manager, 

like yours, from using that low priority chemical in an everyday 

product used by families in the home? 

Mr. SAUERS. Um-hum. If it was a chemical that was regulated 

by TSCA, then the Consumer Products Safety Commission would 

come into effect with its use in a finished product. And if it indeed 

was say a low priority chemical for which there was toxicity associated with—you know, a toxic—a potential—it would then be declared as hazardous by CPSC, and then there is a whole host of 

criteria on how hazardous materials are then handled in finished 

consumer products. There is a whole host of labeling requirements 

that would be on something like that. And the Agency could also 

ban the use of a product if they felt that the labeling would not 

protect the consumer. 

Mr. LATTA. Mr. Goldberg, some people have been arguing that 

the United States needs a TSCA that mirrors REACH. Your company’s a global company. So would you argue that having the same 

system would be in your interest? 

Mr. GOLDBERG. Since we deal with so many different regions, I 

think we realize that we have to live in and adapt to regional differences in the context of chemical management programs that fit 

the levels of both of protection, which hopefully from the BASF 

standpoint are consistent along all those regions, but also the individual regional differences that exist. And so while certainly from 

some degree we would all love, in the abstract world, harmonization that made it easier to live with. The fact of the matter is 

there are differences. And the schemes among these various regions can be very different. REACH is a very, very different 

scheme, even down to its basic nature, than TSCA is. And so while 

169 

there are learnings—and as Mr. Jones said, there are some benefits 

that we can take moving from region to region, for example sharing 

of data, at the end of the day, we realize the need to adapt and 

be responsive to individual chemical management regimes. 

Mr. LATTA. So you agree that it would be important for the U.S. 

to have a system that is unique just to the United States? 

Mr. GOLDBERG. Yes. I mean, in the context of the European system, for example, it is not a chemical management system the way 

we think of it here. It is really largely an—at least it started information gathering system that is registrant- or company-based, as 

opposed to a substance-based system that we have here. Changing 

that would require a rather dramatic overhaul. And as I have discussed with some of my colleagues, even in the environmental community, it is not a system I think that adapts itself well necessarily 

here. 

Mr. LATTA. OK. So you think the lessons of REACH that the 

United States should avoid in TSCA would be this adapting well? 

Mr. GOLDBERG. Well, I think there are a number of lessons we 

have learned about REACH, including the bureaucracy that has revolved around it, the costs—ongoing costs involved, which have not 

necessarily established themselves with measured levels of protection, because to date it has been about information gathering and 

not about risk management. And the goals of modernizing TSCA, 

as I said as one of my principles, is to provide EPA with additional 

authority to adequately manage risks. 

Mr. SHIMKUS. Gentleman’s time has well expired. 

Mr. LATTA. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. My time has 

expired, and I yield back. Thank you for your indulgence. 

Mr. SHIMKUS. The Chair now recognizes the gentleman from 

California, Mr. McNerney, for 5 minutes. 

Mr. MCNERNEY. I thank the chairman. I also want to make sure 

the chairman understands that we appreciate your bipartisan effort. I don’t think we are there yet, Mr. Chairman. But if we keep 

working together, we will get there. 

One of the things—I mean, there is a lot of reasons to want to 

change and improve TSCA. One of them I think is that there is a 

lack of confidence in the public in chemical safety in this country. 

And I think that is a problem that the companies, the businesses 

would want to address firmly. And it is one of my concerns with 

the Chemicals in Commerce Act is that it may actually go in the 

wrong direction, reducing public’s confidence in our chemical safety 

in this country. 

Mr. Igrejas, would you respond to that? 

Mr. IGREJAS. I think that is the concern. And it is why we counseled that we really focus in on the idea of safety—a definition of 

it, and the standards that the public health community, and not 

just the ones I represent but other folks, the American Public 

Health Association, the pediatricians, others all agree it is something that would protect people. Legal authority to then implement 

what is needed to protect people after review against that safety 

standard, and funding and direction for EPA to make progress in 

making those decisions. And that is what we still don’t see in this 

bill because of the issues that have—that came up in Mr. Jones’ 

testimony. And so we are concerned about that. 

170 

And then there is also—there are areas where some of the tools 

that EPA uses right now to provide protection for people are rolled 

back. We have highlighted the new chemicals program. And these 

tools are not ones that we think do the jobs to protect people from 

new chemicals, but they are at least there. EPA has sort of stitched 

together the ability to order testing and impose restrictions at different times. But some of that is rolled back. 

And then you have the increase in secrecy on chemicals in the 

bill with the explicit requirement that identity is hidden, even 

when it is linked to a health and safety study. And so I think that 

those things—well, we need to beef up the first thing and pull back 

on the other things I mentioned where the existing program is 

pulled back. 

Mr. MCNERNEY. Thank you. Mr. Moore—or, Senator Moore, the 

right to know laws are often used by States to protect their citizens. If this provision is stripped, how do you think it will affect 

the NCSL’s work in ensuring public safety? 

Mr. MOORE. We would have to look at the implications of the 

State involved. I guess we couldn’t look at it on a State by State 

basis, because this would then preempt the States having a right 

to implement the Right to Know law. So it is not even an issue that 

you could go back to each State legislator or administrator and— 

how do we get around this? If this preemption applies to the Right 

to Know law, there is nothing that the States could actually do to 

protect the public safety employees or workers who are being exposed to these types of chemicals. 

Mr. MCNERNEY. OK. Thank you. Mr. Sauers, my understanding 

is that Proctor & Gamble is working to reduce animal use in 

testings. Do you—how do you feel that fits in with chemicals and 

safety—Chemicals in Commerce Act? 

Mr. SAUERS. Um-hum. Yes. Thank you, Congressman. Yes, we 

are very sensitive about the use of animals in safety testing. As a 

company, we invest about $350 million on the development of alternatives. We appreciate very much the provisions that are stated in 

here that promote the use of animal alternatives, using structure 

activity relationship and things like that. So it is well represented 

and appreciated. 

Mr. MCNERNEY. OK. Thank you—— 

Mr. SHIMKUS. Would the gentleman yield for a preemption question? 

Mr. MCNERNEY. Sure. 

Mr. SHIMKUS. Because I think this—there is a lot of confusion. 

And so for Mr. Greenwood, how does—how do you think the preemption works? Does it, as we have heard, completely tie the hands 

or does it just preempt as the EPA acts on individual chemical— 

on an individual chemical? 

Mr. GREENWOOD. That has been my—the latter point is what I— 

my understanding. When EPA acts, then there is the indication of 

the preemption. But it has to be the action of the Agency, which 

then accomplishes—— 

Mr. SHIMKUS. So if there is no action, there is no preemption? 

Mr. GREENWOOD. No. That is my understanding. That is how I 

have read the bill. 

Mr. SHIMKUS. OK. And thank you. Thank you, Mike. And—— 

171 

Mr. MCNERNEY. I am going to yield back. 

Mr. SHIMKUS. The gentleman yields back. The Chair now recognizes the gentlelady from California, Ms. Capps, for 5 minutes. 

Mrs. CAPPS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And I thank this panel 

here for being here today with us. And I particularly want to welcome a former colleague, Cal Dooley, with whom I was privileged 

to serve in the House of Representatives in representing a lovely 

district not very far from my own home. And it is a pleasure to 

have you be a part of this panel. 

As we heard from the first panel, the bill before us fails to require protection of vulnerable populations in managing identified 

risks of existing chemicals. This fundamental flaw, in my opinion, 

could put women, children, the elderly, the disabled, workers and 

residents of hotspot communities at serious risk. Any TSCA reform 

bill this committee considers should really ensure the protection of 

vulnerable populations. 

And I would like to begin by discussing the specifics of how we 

could ensure that protection. I have asked some questions of our 

EPA witness about specific requirements. I want to follow-up on 

that with you, Mr. Igrejas. Mr. Igrejas, do you think that a chemical that is dangerous to a vulnerable population should be able to 

pass the safety standard under a reformed TSCA? 

Mr. IGREJAS. No. 

Mrs. CAPPS. Can you explain whether the current draft offers 

that protection? 

Mr. IGREJAS. We think it doesn’t provide the protection. 

Mrs. CAPPS. Does your coalition, Mr. Igrejas, believe that risk 

management decisions must ensure that significant risks to vulnerable populations are addressed? 

Mr. IGREJAS. Yes, we do. 

Mrs. CAPPS. And does the current draft ensure that vulnerable 

populations are protected from the risks identified when evaluating 

existing chemicals? 

Mr. IGREJAS. We believe that it does not. I could get into the details, but it does not. 

Mrs. CAPPS. Well, I will give you a chance to do that. Are there 

some specific changes that you would recommend that we need to 

include in such legislation as reforming TSCA to ensure strong protections for vulnerable populations? 

Mr. IGREJAS. Well, one of the key ones is the—right now, the assessment does specify that they look at vulnerable populations, but 

against the standard that we still don’t know exactly what it 

means in the bill. And I think we have identified that. It doesn’t 

require that you aggregate the exposure to the vulnerable populations. And that is the key issue, because there might be multiple 

vulnerable populations for the same chemical. If you look at flame 

retardants, you have firefighters who now have a cancer prevention 

project that is about their disproportionate exposure to these 

chemicals when they go into fires. That is higher exposure for an 

adult. Then you might have children where there is the smaller 

amount of exposure could cause harm when the chemicals are used 

as directed in the home. And you want to make sure that the EPA 

is mapping the exposures—all the exposures that either of those 

groups has against them, and then devising the restrictions to 

172 

make sure that they can only be used in a safe way and that the 

harm isn’t occurring. And I think the absence of aggregate exposure in the assessment—and then the key thing that was talked 

about a lot in the discussion by Mr. Jones is if EPA ultimately can’t 

impose the restrictions needed to ensure the safety, then a lot of 

that is academic. You don’t want to have all this risk identified and 

then not be able to actually go ahead and impose the restrictions. 

Mrs. CAPPS. Um-hum. 

Mr. IGREJAS. So for those reasons, we think that it does not. 

Even though vulnerable populations and a decent definition of it 

are in the bill, they are not actually protected by all the provisions. 

Mrs. CAPPS. So it looks like there is some technology or a capability of identifying the risks and of actually, at least better than 

we are now, mitigating them. Would that be your assessment? Is 

that—— 

Mr. IGREJAS. That definitely is. I think the—I cite the model of 

the pesticide program. And we can’t import all the details of it 

here. But the basic idea of that you look at vulnerable populations. 

You add up the exposures. You impose the needed restrictions. 

That is the model that we have had in effect. There have been 

measurable public health improvements from it. So we know it can 

be done. It is just that is there the will to do it? 

Mrs. CAPPS. Right. But there is a pathway, or there is some 

precedent for doing this. Finally, could you speak to the public’s 

opinion, because you work a lot with the public opinion on this 

topic as well? I would think that properly protecting children and 

seniors and the other vulnerable populations would—from the effects of dangerous chemicals should be fairly widespread, the enthusiasm for it might be a popular topic. What is your idea here? 

Mr. IGREJAS. Yes. It is—the support for protecting pregnant 

women and children from toxic chemicals in the sense of that there 

is a concern about chemicals now that they could be having an effect on a lot of the chronic disease that we see in the country. It 

is widespread. And so you would be on solid ground in taking action to do all those things with public opinion. And I can provide 

the details on that. 

Mrs. CAPPS. I appreciate that. So in order to effectively reform 

TSCA, the bill before us needs significant revisions regarding the 

protection of vulnerable populations. And there is a will in the 

country to do—or there is a desire to do this. So I urge my colleagues and the stakeholders on this panel to refuse to support 

any—at least that is my opinion—that we shouldn’t support any 

TSCA reform bill that creates the illusion of progress while still 

leaving these vulnerable populations unprotected. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And I yield back my time. 

Mr. SHIMKUS. The gentlelady yields back her time. We want to— 

seeing no other members, I have a unanimous consent request to 

place some letters into the record, a letter from 3M Corporation, a 

letter from 13 attorneys general, the American Association for Justice, Texas Campaign for the Environment, Moms Clean Air Force, 

National Hispanic Medical Association and National Medical Association, the American Public Health Association, a number of 

healthcare organizations, a letter from 72 health professional, pubVerDate Mar 15 2010 14:56 Dec 03, 2014 Jkt 037690 PO 00000 Frm 00176 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 F:\113-141 CICA LEG. 2 ASK OK 12-3-14\113-141 CICA LEG. 2 PDF MADE WAYNE
173 

lic health and environment and public interest groups. And that is 

it. Not this letter. OK. 

Mr. VOICE. Oh, yes. Sorry. 

Mr. SHIMKUS. Yes. I am sorry. See, I was right. Staff was wrong. 

We will note that down for the first time. And also a letter I received from Ranking Member Waxman and Ranking Member 

Tonko on this legislation and hydraulic fracturing. 

Without objection, so ordered. 

[The information is available at http://docs.house.gov/Committee/ 

Calendar/ByEvent.aspx?EventID=102160.] 

We want to thank you. This is a tough issue. You guys are all 

the experts. We do want to continue open discussions and comments, language, anything. You can come in and see me. An important piece of legislation, and we learned a lot today, and we appreciate your participation. 

With that, I will adjourn the hearing. 

[Whereupon, at 1:12 p.m., the subcommittee was adjourned.] 

[Material submitted for inclusion in the record follows:] 

174 

175 

176 

177 

178 

179 

180 

Æ