U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

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

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

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

25–110 PDF 2017

S. HRG. 112–974 

OVERSIGHT OF EPA AUTHORITIES AND ACTIONS 

TO CONTROL EXPOSURES TO TOXIC CHEMICALS 

JOINT HEARING 

BEFORE THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON SUPERFUND, TOXICS 

AND ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH 

AND THE

COMMITTEE ON 

ENVIRONMENT AND PUBLIC WORKS 

UNITED STATES SENATE 

ONE HUNDRED TWELFTH CONGRESS 

SECOND SESSION 

JULY 24, 2012 

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

( 

Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.fdsys.gov 

(II) 

COMMITTEE ON ENVIRONMENT AND PUBLIC WORKS 

ONE HUNDRED TWELFTH CONGRESS 

SECOND SESSION 

BARBARA BOXER, California, Chairman 

MAX BAUCUS, Montana 

THOMAS R. CARPER, Delaware 

FRANK R. LAUTENBERG, New Jersey 

BENJAMIN L. CARDIN, Maryland 

BERNARD SANDERS, Vermont 

SHELDON WHITEHOUSE, Rhode Island 

TOM UDALL, New Mexico 

JEFF MERKLEY, Oregon 

KIRSTEN GILLIBRAND, New York 

JAMES M. INHOFE, Oklahoma 

DAVID VITTER, Louisiana 

JOHN BARRASSO, Wyoming 

JEFF SESSIONS, Alabama 

MIKE CRAPO, Idaho 

LAMAR ALEXANDER, Tennessee 

MIKE JOHANNS, Nebraska 

JOHN BOOZMAN, Arkansas 

BETTINA POIRIER, Majority Staff Director 

RUTH VAN MARK, Minority Staff Director 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON SUPERFUND, TOXICS AND ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH

FRANK R. LAUTENBERG, New Jersey, Chairman 

MAX BAUCUS, Montana 

THOMAS R. CARPER, Delaware 

JEFF MERKLEY, Oregon 

KIRSTEN GILLIBRAND, New York 

BARBARA BOXER, California (ex officio) 

MIKE CRAPO, Idaho 

LAMAR ALEXANDER, Tennessee 

MIKE JOHANNS, Nebraska 

JOHN BOOZMAN, Arkansas 

JAMES M. INHOFE, Oklahoma (ex officio) 

(III) 

C O N T E N T S 

Page 

JULY 24, 2012 

OPENING STATEMENTS 

Boxer, Hon. Barbara, U.S. Senator from the State of California ........................ 1 

Inhofe, Hon. James M., U.S. Senator from the State of Oklahoma .................... 2 

Lautenberg, Hon. Frank R., U.S. Senator from the State of New Jersey ........... 19 

Crapo, Hon. Mike, U.S. Senator from the State of Idaho ..................................... 20 

Vitter, Hon. David, U.S. Senator from the State of Louisiana ............................ 21 

Sessions, Hon. Jeff, U.S. Senator from the State of Alabama, prepared statement ...................................................................................................................... 139 

WITNESSES 

Jones, James J., Acting Assistant Administrator, Office of Chemical Safety 

and Pollution Prevention, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency .................. 22 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 25 

Responses to additional questions from Senator Boxer ................................ 30 

Pingree, Hannah, mother, former Speaker of the Maine House of Representatives ....................................................................................................................... 46

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

Stapleton, Heather M., Ph.D., Associate Professor, Nicholas School of the 

Environment, Duke University ........................................................................... 80 

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

Responses to additional questions from Senator Boxer ................................ 92 

Moore, Marshall, Director, Technology, Advocacy and Marketing, Great Lakes 

Solutions, a Chemtura business ......................................................................... 95 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 97 

Rawson, William K., Partner and Chair of the Environment, Land and Resources Department in Washington, DC, Latham & Watkins ......................... 105 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 108 

Response to an additional question from Senator Boxer .............................. 115 

Stefani, Tony, Founder, President, San Francisco Firefighters Cancer Prevention Foundation .................................................................................................... 116 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 118 

Responses to additional questions from Senator Boxer ................................ 122 

ADDITIONAL MATERIAL 

Letter from the American Chemistry Council to the Professional Fire Fighters 

of Maine, July 20, 2012 ....................................................................................... 141 

Letter from the American Chemistry Council to Senators Boxer and Lautenberg, July 25, 2012 ............................................................................................... 142 

(1) 

OVERSIGHT OF EPA AUTHORITIES AND ACTIONS TO CONTROL EXPOSURES TO TOXIC 

CHEMICALS 

TUESDAY, JULY 24, 2012 

U.S. SENATE, 

COMMITTEE ON ENVIRONMENT AND PUBLIC WORKS, 

JOINT WITH THE SUBCOMMITTEE ON SUPERFUND, TOXICS

AND ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH, 

Washington, DC. 

The Committees met, pursuant to notice, at 10 a.m. in room 406, 

Dirksen Senate Office Building, Hon. Barbara Boxer (Chairman of 

the full Committee) presiding. 

Present: Senators Boxer, Inhofe, Carper, Lautenberg, Cardin, 

Whitehouse, Merkley, Vitter, and Crapo. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. BARBARA BOXER, 

U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA 

Senator BOXER. The hearing will come to order. 

Before I read my opening statement and call on colleagues, I understand Representative Pingree is in the audience. Is she here? 

Welcome. I know that your daughter is testifying before us today. 

We are very happy to see you in the audience. 

The purpose of this hearing is to review the need to reform the 

Toxic Substances Control Act, otherwise known as TSCA, the primary law that regulates chemicals in this country. TSCA, which 

was enacted in the 1970s, was intended to protect public health 

and ensure the safety of chemicals that are found in products that 

we use every day. 

Unfortunately, this law has proven to lack the tools necessary to 

act swiftly and effectively when dealing with chemicals with potentially toxic effects. The weaknesses in the law were highlighted by 

a 1991 court decision where the court interpreted TSCA to require 

a complex process to obtain protections from asbestos, despite its 

obvious health hazards. It is clear that reforms are needed if the 

public is to have the protection that it deserves. 

A good illustration of the critical need to reform our toxic laws 

is the experience with a group of flame retardants which was intended to protect public safety but has raised serious concerns 

about the risk they pose through the toxic chemicals they contain. 

And I am going to have a firefighter from my State testifying on 

this matter. Thus far, science has shown that these chemicals in 

the flame retardants cause cancer in animals. 

2 

We need to reform TSCA to provide incentives and ensure that 

the safest chemicals are used in our products so that the American 

public—including the most vulnerable among us, infants, children 

and pregnant women—are protected from toxic substances. 

I want to commend Senator Lautenberg for his leadership and 

his hard work to move forward with needed reforms. He has 

worked tirelessly with stakeholders, including the chemical industry, the public health community, and across the aisle in the Senate to find common ground in this important effort. 

The American people need us to reform TSCA, which is why I 

support Senator Lautenberg’s determination to move a bill from 

this Committee and to broaden the discussion to the Senate floor. 

We must continue to work to develop consensus on this issue. 

I look forward to hearing from witnesses today. It is time to take 

action on this public health issue. 

And I call on Senator Inhofe. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. JAMES M. INHOFE, 

U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF OKLAHOMA 

Senator INHOFE. Thank you, Madam Chairman. And I will start 

by thanking both of you for holding today’s oversight hearing. I 

also want to thank today’s witnesses that are here. 

Modernization of the Toxic Substances Control Act, TSCA, is important. But before we focus on today’s hearing, I would like to 

take a moment to address the markup for Senator Lautenberg’s 

TSCA bill tomorrow. 

Senators Vitter, Crapo, Alexander, and I sent a letter to Senator 

Lautenberg yesterday expressing our disappointment that Republicans’ sincere effort to work on a bipartisan TSCA reform had been 

rebuffed and that we will be going through a partisan political exercise tomorrow, effectively ending hopes for a TSCA modernization 

this year. 

Tomorrow’s markup is especially disappointing given how this 

Committee has already come together and worked so hard to get 

a highway bill passed. That is why Barbara and I are so happy 

today, that we are still on a roll, are we not, Barbara? 

Chemistry is essential to our economy and plays a vital role in 

the creation of groundbreaking products that make our lives and 

world healthier, safer, and more sustainable. During this fragile 

economic time, the chemical industry is experiencing a competitive 

resurgence with more than 96 percent of all manufactured goods 

dependent upon chemistry. It is not hard to understand how this 

regulation impacts almost every aspect of our economy. 

Having said that, it is imperative that any TSCA modernization 

efforts be bipartisan, based on sound science, protective of public 

health, and continue to allow American industry to lead the world 

through responsible innovation. 

One subset of chemicals regulated by TSCA is flame retardants. 

These chemicals which are required in many instances to meet 

mandatory Federal and State laws and standards not only protect 

household goods like upholstered furniture but also electronics, 

cars, buildings, and airplanes. Despite the recent focus on furniture, foam cushions in the upholstered furniture represent only 

3 

about 2 to 3 percent of the total flame retardant usage in plastic 

applications in North America. 

Flame retardants are one of many fire safety tools relied up on 

in homes and public places to reduce fire, injuries, and deaths, and 

they have made a significant impact in fire safety despite the increases in exposure to flammable materials in our daily lives. 

Studies in the United States and abroad have proven the effectiveness of flame retardants in a wide variety of uses. For example, 

Dr. Matt Blais recently analyzed data from the National Institute 

of Justice Arson Study and found that flame retardants do provide 

measurable fire safety benefits in upholstered furniture by providing time for families to escape and increase the response for fire 

escape. 

So, with that, I would like to enter that into the record—— 

Senator BOXER. Without objection. So ordered. 

Senator INHOFE. Along with the Aerospace Industries Association 

letter relating to this subject. 

The Chicago Tribune, which we will be hearing about a lot today, 

reported in 2005 on the effectiveness of flame retardants in seat 

cushions, carpets, and other materials following the crash of an Air 

France jetliner in Toronto when flight crews evacuated the flaming 

jumbo jetliner with no fatalities. 

So, we do have some problems coming up in perhaps some industries that were not fully brought into the fold and have a great effect on our national security and other things. 

So with that, we are looking forward to hearing more about this, 

and I think I would probably be opposing it as it is going to be introduced tomorrow, is it? Or it is the next day? Thursday? 

Senator BOXER. We are going to be marking up tomorrow. 

Senator INHOFE. Thursday, I believe. 

Senator BOXER. Tomorrow? Yes, tomorrow. 

Senator INHOFE. OK. 

Senator BOXER. Well, thank you Senator. 

Senator INHOFE. Thank you, Madam Chairman. 

[The prepared statement of Senator Inhofe follows:] 

STATEMENT OF HON. JAMES M. INHOFE, 

U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF OKLAHOMA

I want to start by thanking Chairman Boxer and Chairman Lautenberg for holding today’s oversight hearing; I also want to thank today’s witnesses. Modernization 

of the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) is very important, but before we focus 

on today’s hearing I would like to take a moment to address the markup of Senator 

Lautenberg’s TSCA bill tomorrow. 

Senators Vitter, Crapo, Alexander, and I sent a letter to Senator Lautenberg yesterday expressing our disappointment that Republicans’ sincere efforts to work on 

bipartisan TSCA reform have been rebuffed and that we will be going through a 

partisan political exercise tomorrow, effectively ending hopes for TSCA modernization this year. Tomorrow’s markup is especially disappointing given how this Committee has recently come together and worked so hard to get a highway bill passed 

into law and leading into our important bipartisan efforts to see if we can complete 

a Water Resources Development Act reauthorization. Despite our frustration, we 

will continue working to find a bipartisan path for TSCA modernization moving forward. 

Chemistry is essential to our economy and plays a vital role in the creation of 

ground breaking products that make our lives and world healthier, safer, and more 

sustainable. During this fragile economic time, the chemical industry is experiencing 

a competitive resurgence, and with more than 96 percent of all manufactured goods 

dependent on chemistry it is not hard to understand how this regulation impacts 

4 

almost every aspect of our economy. Having said that, it is imperative that any 

TSCA modernization efforts be bipartisan, based on sound science, protective of public health, and continue to allow American industry to lead the world through responsible innovation. 

One subset of chemicals regulated by TSCA is flame retardants. These chemicals, 

which are required in many instances to meet mandatory Federal and State laws 

and standards, not only protect household goods like upholstered furniture, but also 

electronics, cars, buildings, and airplanes. Despite the recent focus on furniture, 

foam cushioning in upholstered furniture represents only 2–3 percent of the total 

flame retardant usage in plastic applications in North America. 

Flame retardants are one of many fire safety tools relied upon in homes and public places to reduce fire injuries and deaths, and they have made a significant impact in fire safety despite the increase in exposure to flammable materials in our 

daily lives. 

Studies in the U.S. and abroad have proven the effectiveness of flame retardants 

in a wide variety of uses. For example, Dr. Matt Blais recently analyzed data from 

a National Institute of Justice arson study and found that flame retardants do provide measurable fire safety benefit in upholstered furniture by providing time for 

families to escape and increasing available response time for the fire service. 

The Chicago Tribune, which we will be hearing a lot about today, reported in 2005 

on the effectiveness of flame retardants in ‘‘seat cushions, carpets, and other materials’’ following the crash of an Air France jetliner in Toronto when flight crews 

evacuated the ‘‘flaming jumbo jetliner’’ with no fatalities. 

As these reports have outlined, flame retardants can be an important and effective tool in protecting the American public. Any decision made by EPA or any other 

Federal agency should be based on sound, peer reviewed science—not politics or articles in newspapers—and the Agency should be very cognizant of shifting risks 

from one area to another. 

As a father and grandfather of 20 children and grandchildren, I fully recognize 

the fact that we need to modernize TSCA and revive public confidence in our Federal chemical management system, but if we want to effectively update TSCA we 

also need to be honest about our current system—both about what it does well and 

what needs improvement. For example, even the EPA has acknowledged there are 

far fewer than 80,000 chemicals actively in commerce today. 

We have also heard from numerous witnesses in this Committee, including Dr. 

Lynn Goldman, former Assistant Administrator for Toxic Substances under President Clinton, that EPA’s new chemicals program has been a good process and has 

led ‘‘industry to screen out ‘bad actors’ before presenting them to EPA in the first 

instance.’’ 

Given the regulatory barrage by the Obama administration and his EPA, we must 

ensure that TSCA modernization is accomplished in a responsible manner while not 

harming the economy and shipping jobs overseas. In order to have real and effective 

reform, it must be accomplished in a bipartisan way with a broad base of support 

from a wide range of stakeholders, including those up and down the value chain. 

I would like unanimous consent to include Dr. Blais’s study into the record as well 

as a letter from the aerospace industry voicing concerns over EPA’s current initiatives related to flame retardant chemicals. I look forward to hearing from the witnesses today. 

[The referenced information follows:] 

5 


25110.001

S 0 U T H W E S T R E S E A R C H I N S T I T U T E® 

6220 CULEBRA AD 78238-5166 • P 0 DRAWER 28510 78225·0510 • SAN ANTONIO TEXAS, USA • (210) 684·5111 • WWW SWAt ORG 

The Honorable Senator James M. Inhofe 

CHEMISTRY AND CHEMICAL ENGINEERING DIVISION 

FIRE TECHNOLOGY DEPARTMENT 

W_\'Y\Y..J:JEE .. $_\llffl!.Q8G 

FAX (210) 52?~3377 

Friday, July 20, 2012 

United States Senate Committee Environment and Public Works 

Minority Office, Dirksen Senate Office Bldg 

Washington, DC 20510-6175 

Subject: Technical Report on the Impact of Fire Retardant Materials in Home Furnishings 

Dear Senator: 

Attached, please find a technical document written in the format of a white paper on the impact of 

fire retardants on foam-filled home furnishings. The data presented is abstracted from a testing report 

prepared and paid for by the National Institute of Justice, Department of Justice, cited as reference #I in 

the white paper. This information was collected by an ISO certified testing lab that meets the highest 

standards of quality. In addition, this laboratory is an independent non-profit testing facility and the study 

was funded by the Federal Government. I hope you find the information useful in your deliberations. 

Sincerely, 

~-/ ·?~~d--..__ Matthew S. Blais, Ph.D. 

Director 

Fire Technology Department 

Southwest Research Institute 

~ HOUSTON. TEXAS (713)977·1377 • WASHINGTON. DC (301) 881-0226 
6 


25110.002

The Utility ofCA TB 117, Does the Regulation Add Value? 

The implementation of CA TB 117 set minimum performance standards for furnishings in 

incipient fire situations. The intent was to protect life and property from fires initiated by small 

sources such as matches, cigarettes, lighters and candles. The standard was not intended to 

prevent ignition of a furnishing in a large fire where it would contribute to the fuel load of a 

room but not be the point of initiation. 

Urethane foam filled furnishings have the potential for contributing tremendous energy to a fire 

and when not protected with flame retardants (FR) can lead to rapid transition from incipient fire 

to a free burning condition. The time to reach flashover (spread to the rest of the room) in a 

recent study performed at Southwest Research Institute (SwRI®) by Janssens et al 1

• was as short 

as 200 seconds from time of ignition. The addition of flame retardant covering over the foam 

adds a layer of defense that delays transition to flashover to almost 800 seconds from initiation. 

The additional use of CA TB 117 rated urethane foams prevented sustained burning when a 

small ignition source was used. In cases where theCA TB 117 foams are used with flammable 

coverings, significant reductions in both peak Heat Release Rate (HRR) and total HRR were 

measured and a significant delay in reaching the free burning condition was observed. 

The impact of adding FR to the covering material and urethane foams adds defense in depth to 

the furnishing that undoubtedly saves lives. The fact that non FR furnishing contribute to 

flashover in a room in just over three minutes severely limits the potential for escape for a family 

in a fire situation. It also would likely result in the total loss of the home before a fire department 

could respond. Extending the time to greater than 13 minutes increases the probability of escape 

for the family and allows for greater response time and likely reduces the total damage sustained 

by the structure. 

The cigarette ignition source is less important today than in the past due to a reduction in the 

number of smokers and changes in cigarette technology. Cigarette wrappers are selfextinguishing when there is not airflow for extended periods. However, ignition from a small 

flame source is still a significant problem for homeowners with small children. The following 

facts were obtained from US Fire Administration/National Fire Data Center: 
7 


25110.003

• An estimated 20,200 residential structure fires in 2002, 

resulted in 276 deaths, 1,445 injuries, and $322 million in 

dollar loss2

• 

• The leading causes of residential structure fires are 

incendiary/suspicious, open flame, and children playing 

with lighters and matches fires2

• 

CA TB 117 uses ignition sources that mimic those found in the types of fires described. 

The testing performed in Janssens1 is directly comparable to theCA TB 117 and CA TB 133 

requirements. Three types of ignition sources were used: a small match-like flame; a large gas 

burner, similar to a fire in a pile of newspapers; and a small liquid pool fire simulating the use of 

an accelerant. Three ignition source locations were evaluated: exposing the seat from the top, 

exposing the furniture from the front bottom, and exposing the back. 

Test Conditions 

In most cases the small flame ignition source was BS 5852 Source #I simulating a match 

fire. In a few tests the item could not be ignited with this source and BS 5852 Source # 2 was 

then tried simulating a lighter or candle. Both BS 5852 sources involve a diffusion burner 

consisting of a steel tube, with 8.0 mm outside diameter and 6.5 mm internal diameter and 200 

mm in length, connected by a flexible tube via a rotameter, fine control valve, an optional on-off 

valve, and a regulator to a cylinder containing butane. 

For Source #I, a flow rate of 45 mVmin at 25 oc was used, corresponding to a heat 

release rate of ca. 83 W and a flame height of 35 mm, measured from the top of the burner tube, 

when held vertically upwards. For Source #2, a flow rate of 160 ml/min at 25 oc was used, 

corresponding to a heat release rate of ca. 295 Wand a flame height of 145 mm, measured from 

the top of the burner tube, when held vertically upwards. Butane gas was used as the fuel. The 

burner flame was applied for 20 s for Source #I, or 40 s for Source #2. Source # 1 has been 

shown to have an intensity equivalent to a small match. The small flame source is shown in 

Figure l being applied to a chair mock-up. 
8 


25110.004

Figure 1: Small flame source 

The propane burner described inCA TB 133 and ASTM E 1537 was chosen as the large 

flame ignition source exposing the seat from the top. This 250 x 250 mm square burner 

consisted of l3 mm outside diameter stainless steel tubing with holes pointing straight out, 

straight down and inward at a 45° angle at various locations. Propane gas with a net heat of 

combustion of 46.5 ± 0.5 MJ/kg was supplied at a rate of 13 !/min for a total of 80 s. The burner 

was an approximate intensity of 19 kW. Figure 2 shows the large flame source burner applied to 

a 3 cushion couch mock-up. 

Figure 2: Large burner ignition source 
9 


25110.005

The 0.3 x 0.3 m sandbox burner described in NFPA 286 was chosen as the large flame 

ignition source for front bottom and back exposure. The burner was supplied with propane at the 

same rate (19 kW) and for the same duration (80s) as theCA TB 133 burner. Figure 3 shows the 

application of the large flame sandbox burner to the bottom front of a 3 cushion couch mock-up. 

Figure 3: Large flame ignition source burner box 

Finally, the liquid pool fire ignition source consisted of 59 ml (2 oz) of gasoline 

distributed over a seat cushion (top exposure) or 118 ml ( 4 oz) of gasoline distributed over 25 

mm thick ceramic fiber blanket placed inside a 0.28 x 0.43 m metal cookie sheet (front bottom 

and back exposure )

1

• Figure 4 shows the accelerant ignition source for this series of tests applied 

to a center cushion. 

Figure 4: Accelerant ignition source 
10 


25110.006

Test Items 

Because of the questionable pedigree for used furniture items, most of the tests were performed 

on furniture mock-ups with metal frames. The mockup cushions were constructed with fabrics 

and padding materials that are common in furniture items that are currently on the market. Six 

different padding materials and two fabrics were selected. Chairs (without armrests) and single, 

double, and triple seat sofas were included in the test matrix. Table I shows the matrix of 

materials used to create the mock-ups for this series of tests. 

Fabric 10 Color Supplier Weight 

(g!m') 

Non-FR) Cotton Eco Linen Khaki San Antonio Upholsterv Fabrics 355 

FRCotton Milano Black Dazian. N. Hollvwood CA 415 

Padding 10 CA TB 117 Supplier Density 

(kg/m3

) 

LD Polyurethane Foam 1030 San Antonio Upholstery Sunnlv 17 

HD Polvurethane Foam 25110 San Antonio Uoholstery Sunolv 45 

CATB 117 PUFoam FRI534 ,( San Antonio Upholstery Suoolv 23 

Polychloroprene Latex CR SAFGUARD XL ,( Chestnut Rid,;,e Latrobe PA 103 

Polvester Wrao Dacron ,( San Antonio Uoholstery Suoolv 16 

Densified Polyester FlameChek (Core) ,( Bob Barker Fuauav-Varina NC 23 

Table 1: Mock-up materials of construction 

The FR Cotton fabric was verified to meet the requirements of NFPA 70 I. CA TB 117 

tests were performed on specimens of the six padding materials to verifY compliance (or noncompliance) with the standard. The test matrix used for this series of tests is summarized in 

Tables 2 and 3. 

Table 2: Details of the Fractional Factorial Experiments. 

1-Seat Sofa (Fraction A) 3-Seat Sofa (Fraction B) 

LD Polvurethane Paddinl! ./ ./ .,( ././ ./ 

HD Polyurethane Paddine .,( .,(.,( .,( .,( .,( 

CA TB 117 Foam PU Paddine .,( .,( .,( .,( .,( .,( 

Small Flame ./ .,( .,( ./ .,(to.,( ./ 

Laree Gas Burner .,( .,( .,( .,( 

Liquid Pool F1re .,( .,( .,( .,( .,( .,( 

Top .,( .,( .,( .,( .,( .,( 

Front Bottom .,( .,( ./ .,( .,( .,( 

Back .,( .,( .,( .,( ./ .,( 
11 


25110.007

Table 3: Additional Room Calorimeter Tests on Mockups. 

Chairs 1-Seat Sofas 2-Seat Sofas 3-Seat Sofas 

Non-FR) Cotton ./ ./ ./ ./ ./ ./ ./ ./ ./ ./ ./ ./ ./ ./ ./ ./ 

FRCotton ./ ./ ./ ./ ./ ~ 

LD Polyurethane Foam ./ r-

'-

HD Polyurethane Foam ./ ./ ./ ./ ./ ./ ./ 

CA TB 117 PU Foam [ ./ ./ ./ ./ ./ ./ r; 

Polychloroprene Latex 

Polvester Wrap 

Densified Polyester ./ ./ ./ ./ ./ ./ 

Small Flame ./ ./ ./ 

Large Gas Burner ./ ./ ./ ./ ./ ./ ./ ./ ./ ./ ./ ./ ./ ./ ./ 

Liquid Pool Fire ./ ./ ./ ./ ./ 

Top Center ./ ./ v"lv"l./l./ ./ ./ ./j./ ./ ./ ./ ./ ./ ./ ./ ./ ./ 

Top Comer ./ ./ 

Front Bottom ./ ./ 

No Gap (Chairs Only) ./ ./ ./ 

Gap (Chairs Only) ./ ./ ./ 

Number of Replicates I I I I I I I 2 l 2 l I I I I I I I I I I I I 

Results and Discussion 

A direct comparison of four conditions shows the applicability of having an FR requirement for 

home furnishings. The heat release rates measured of the duration of the test are shown in the 

four pairs of graphs below. The conditions are: a flammable cover over urethane foam, a FR 

cover over urethane foam, a flammable cover over FR foam, and a FR cover over FR foam. 

Table 4 provides the sample identification description dictionary that defines the test performed 

and material types. This can be used to show the materials of composition, test conditions, 

ignition source and ignition location. 
12 


25110.008

Table 4: System for Composing and Deciphering the Test ID String. 

ILILILIDID D L L D 

L 

_ LReplicate #(I, 2, , .. ) 

B = Back 

C =Corner 

F = Front 

S = Seat Center 

G = Gap (Chairs Only) 

N = No Gap (Chairs Only) 

A = Accelerant 

B BS 5852 #!or #2 

C = CA TB 133 or ASTM Burner 

-0 =Chair 

I = !-Seat Sola 

2 2-Seat Sofa 

_ 3 = 3-Seat Sofa 

'Mockl~ps1 = LD Polyurethane Padding 

2 = HD Polyurethane Padding 

3 = CA TB 117 Foam PU Padding 

4 = Polychlororprene Latex Padding 

5 = Polyester Wrap 

6 = Densified Polyester 

~..-Used: Second Digit of Set# 

-Mockups 

I = Cotton Fabric 

2 = FR Cotton Fabric 

_Used: F1rst Digit of Set# 

IM= Mockup L U = Used Furniture Item 

_j 0 = Open Calorimeter -L R = Room Calorimeter 

Lr L Large Hood ---L S = Small Hood 

A comparison of one cushion mockups with Low density non FR and FR urethane foams 

shows a reduction in the heat released. These two examples both have flammable covers. 

Comparing the time to fully involved fire environment, the peak HRR and the total Heat 

released (area under the curve), show that the fire resistant foam slows the onset of free 

burning fire by more than doubling the time from ignition to peak HRR (pHHR). The blue 

plot in both Figures 5 and 6 is the experimental data for these two conditions. All of the 

other plots are fire spread models attempting to predict the fire growth. The non FR foam 

seat ignites and reaches free burning in approximately 400 s. The CA TB 117 foam 

requires 1000 seconds to achieve pHHR The pHRR and total heat released are also half for 
13 


25110.009

the CA TB I 17 foam when compared to the non-FR foam. These tests used the small flame 

ignition source. There are several examples of this exact relationship in Janssens work. 

500 1000 

Tirne (s) 

I5oo __ _ 

Figure 5: SRM1~1BB2- CA TB 117 Urethane Foam with flammable cover. 

350c 

3001 

-2so' s: . ;2oo: ""' 

a: i :r: 150• 

50~ 

o~:----=~---. 

'- Exp. HRR 1 

! - CBUF HRR I· Ban. HRR 1i 

B•b. 2 HRR 1: 

---~~~~~~_j' 

' 1000 1200 1400 

Figure 6: SRMl!lBSI -Low density Urethane Foam with flammable cover. 

Comparing the material cover of furniture mockups illustrates the utility of using NFPA 

701 rated fabrics as covers for foam filled furnishings. The blue plots in Figures 7 and 8 

illustrate the impact of using a FR fabric over high density toam of the same manufacturing 

lot using the same ignition source and location. Again the time from ignition of the couch 

to the free burning state is significantly delayed. The unprotected foam goes to a free 

burning state upon ignition. The foam protected with the NFPA 701 fabric shows a delay 

of I 0 minutes to reach the same condition. It is also important to note that the pHRR is half 

the intensity for the FR case with 220 kW for the FR fabric compared to 440 kW for non 
14 


25110.010

FR fabric. The total energy released by both events is approximately the same. This series 

of test used the large burner igniter shown in Figure 2. Use of the small burner BS5852 

failed to ignite the FR test item. 

~500· 

.)< 

;;; 400; 

0:: 

:c 300' 

Figure 7: SOM121CS4. 

450 

400-

300• 

~ 250' 

~ 200' 

:X: 

150· 

100 

50•· 

0

o 2:00 40o 66o sOo ICJoo doo 140~00 Time (s) 

Figure 8: SOM22ICSl. 

The defense in depth approach of using both an FR fabric and CA TB 117 foam hugely 

impacts the fire event. Figures 9 and I 0 compare the cases of three cushion couch mockups 

with and without FR foams lAW CA TB 117 and NFPA 70 I covers. These figures show 

that with the large burner the protected couch failed to ignite while the unprotected couch 

reaches free burning in 180 s. The unprotected couch would cause the room to reach 

flashover in 4 minutes. 

1000 

Figure 9: SRM233CSl. 

700,-.-- 1 

I 

6aar 

I so of 

- I ~ 4oof - I 

~ 3ool 

:c 200!. 

I 100} 

I 

00 

Figure 10: LRMl13CFl. 
15 


25110.011

3SO-~~ 

- Exp. HRR 

300! - CBUF H~A 

- Bab. HRR 

I 

250· - Bab, 2 HRR 

',.~-~~.'!~~'' 

Figure 11: SOM231CSI. 

3 200: ~ ' 

Figure 12: SOMlllCSl. 

Figures II and 13 show the same comparison for a single seat chair. The same no-ignition 

is seen for the CA TB 117 and NFPA 701 compliant cushion compared to rapid ignition of 

the unprotected cushion. The Ignition time for the case was even more rapid for this 

unprotected furnishing due to the location of the ignition source. 

Conclusion 

The best conclusion that can be drawn from the data presented here is that the use of CA 

TB 117 foam increases the fire safety of home furnishings by delaying the onset of free 

burning conditions and reducing the total energy released by the event. Using a NFPA 701 

compliant cover over the FR foam prevents the furnishing from becoming the point of 

initiation with numerous examples in Janssen's paper self-extinguishing on removal of the 

ignition source, video's of these comparisons are available on request. What CA TB 117 

does not do is prevent the furnishing from burning where there is already a free burning 

environment but that is not the intent of the regulation. The intent is to prevent the 

furnishing from becoming the initiation point of a large free burning fire caused by a small 

ignition source that could lead to trapping of occupants by preventing escape. 

Dr. Matthew S. Blais 

Director, Fire Technology Department 

Southwest Research Institute 

H)oo 
16 


25110.012

I. Reducing Uncertainty of QuantifYing the Burning Rate of Upholstered Furniture, No. 

2010-DN-BX-K221, awarded by the National Institute of Justice, Office of Justice 

Programs, US. Department of Justice. December 30,2011. 

2. U.S. Fire Administration/National Fire Data Center, Residential Structure Match- or 

Lighter-Ignited Fires, Topical Fire Research Series, Volume 4- Issue 2, October 2004 
17 


25110.013

~ l i ,,', I > ( J \!)I ki! \ 

The Honorable Jim Jones 

Acting Assistant Administrator 

',\(}(! li 

Office of Chemical Safety and Pollution Prevention 

EPA East Building, Room 3130 

1201 Constitution Avenue, N.W. 

Washington, DC 20460 

Dear Assistant Administrator Jones: 

June 19, 2012 

On behalf of the members of Aerospace Industries Association, I thank you and your 

staff in the Office of Chemical Safety and Pollution Prevention for extending the comment period 

for the recent Notice of Proposed Rulemaking regarding Certain Polybrominated Diphenylethers; 

Significant New Use Rule and Test Rule (77 Fed. Reg. 19862, Apri12, 2012). This extension will 

provide our members with important additional time to understand the impacts of this broad and 

complex proposal and to respond accordingly. 

Founded in 1919, AlA is the premier trade association representing over 350 major 

aerospace and defense manufacturers and suppliers and approximately 844,000 aerospace and 

defense workers. Our members represent the United States of America's leading manufacturers 

and suppliers of civil, military, and business aircraft, helicopters. unmanned aerial systems, 

missiles, space systems, aircraft engines, material, and related components, equipment 

services, and information technology. 

As you know, the U.S. aerospace industry is required to meet rigorous flammability 

requirements for many parts and components used to manufacture aircraft. These standards 

are intended to prevent fires in aircraft and to ensure, if a fire does occur, that there is adequate 

time for passengers and crew to escape the danger. 

The benefits of these requirements have been significant. According to the Federal 

Aviation Administration's 2010 FAA Fire Safety Highlights, improvements in the survivability of 

transport aircraft accidents occurring between 1968 and 2007 has been "dramatic," as measured 

by the probability of death in a survivable accident. An important element of this improvement is 

the management of risks from fire. According to the FAA's 2010 Highlights report, the probability 

of death from fire in a survivable accident has declined by a factor of three over the past forty 

years. This is the result of work our member companies, the FAA and others have done to 

improve best practices and to identify and incorporate the most effective flame retardant 

materials to protect flying passengers and crew. 

While we are proud of this success. we will continue to improve fire safety for all types of 

aviation. And as we continue developing better materials and solutions, we recognize the need 

to address other aspects affecting public health and the environment. With regard to the 

chemicals which are within the scope of this rulemaking, manufacturers are working diligently 

with their suppliers and regulatory authorities to find environmentally acceptable alternatives that 

will continue to meet all applicable flammability requirements. However, as we have discussed 

with members of your staff, we are concerned that our members cannot accomplish this work in 

the timeframe set out due to the vast size and complexity of the supply chain impacted by the 

Aerospace Industries Association of America, Inc. 

1000 Wilson Blvd., Suite 1700, Arlington, Virginia 22209-3901 

Ph. {703) 358-1000 I Fax (703) 358-1011 www.aia-aerospace.org 
18 


25110.014

The Honorable Jim Jones 

June 19, 2012 

Page 2 

proposed rule. 

Again, we appreciate the extension of the comment period and the additional time it will 

allow our members to develop comments on the impacts of the proposed rule on our efforts to 

meet flammability requirements. As you and your staff consider our comments, we ask you to 

avoid taking regulatory action, either directly or indirectly, that would impair the ability of 

aerospace manufacturers to maintain and improve the current standards for safety in flight. 

Thank you again for your commitment to these important issues. 

Sincerely, 

~c~ William C. Greenwalt 

Vice President, Acquisition Policy 
19 

Senator BOXER. Well, thank you, Senator. 

Senator Lautenberg. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. FRANK R. LAUTENBERG, 

U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF NEW JERSEY 

Senator LAUTENBERG. Thanks, Madam Chairman. 

It is regrettable that we find ourselves kind of landlocked here. 

When I introduced the first TSCA reform bill in 2005, in the 7 

years since then we have held many hearings, briefings, stakeholder meetings, and negotiations. During that time, our office has 

had an open door policy. My staff and I have conducted dozens of 

meetings with groups on all sides of the issue. And more than 2 

years ago, in this very room, I said that my State Chemicals Act 

should be considered an invitation for all to play a part. And I have 

reiterated that call for Republican input at almost every opportunity. 

Last summer and fall Senator Inhofe and his staff joined us to 

hold a series of 10 meetings to better understand his concerns and 

those of industry. And this summer I was pleased when Senator 

Vitter reached out and expressed his interest in working together 

on TSCA reform. At the end of May I agreed to discussions but 

made clear that we needed to show progress, that we could not engage in things that might delay us getting to something of value 

and help. 

After 7 weeks of talks, we were still discussing the first of many 

topics on our agenda. My staff proposed new comprised language 

on a number of sections, but we never received a single counterproposal. This week’s Committee markup may be the last in this 

Congress. And I—and millions of people across this country—did 

not want another year to pass without progress on toxic chemicals. 

And so we will be voting tomorrow on a bill that has evolved to 

reflect years of input from all parties. And I hope that my friends 

across the aisle will give it fair consideration. Let us air it out here. 

Let us talk about it. Be here and show the interest that should be 

shown to say that we want to continue to work together to bring 

out something that is worth the effort. 

And when we—so, what has happened this spring, the Chicago 

Tribune ran an expose ́ about how some in the chemical industry 

have used dirty tricks and bad science to drive a public misinformation campaign that keeps dangerous flame retardants in our 

home, even when those chemicals do not do what they are supposed to do, and that is prevent fires. 

The industry has been accused of bankrolling so-called experts to 

invent stories that spout the company line, all this service of protecting their profits, and all of that at the expense of safety and 

health. Many companies, many countries, require chemicals like 

flame retardants to be tested, proven safe before they end up in 

stores and then in our homes. But not in the United States. 

And that is why Senator Snowe and I recently sent a bipartisan 

letter to EPA signed by 24 of our Senator colleagues urging the 

agency to take action on a class of flame retardants. Our letter also 

called for real reforms to the Toxic Substances Control Act. 

But let us be clear. Flame retardants are only one example of the 

problems that we have with our system of regulating chemicals. 

20 

Studies by CDC scientists found 212 industrial chemicals, including six linked to cancer coursing through American bodies. But in 

nearly 35 years, EPA has been able to regulate only five substances 

using the tools of TSCA. 

My TSCA reform bill, the Safe Chemicals Act, will simply require 

chemical manufacturers to display, demonstrate that their products 

are safe before they end up in bodies. Most of the thousands of 

chemicals that are used every day are safe. But this bill will separate those safe chemicals from the ones that are not. 

We first began examining the problem with TSCA in 2005. So, 

this is not a new subject. It is a subject that really you would think 

would wear out of its own weight. But no, we persisted, because 

it is our obligation to the people in our country. 

So, I am proud that this Committee will vote tomorrow on the 

Safe Chemicals Act. I believe today’s hearing will add further evidence that we cannot delay any longer. 

And I publicly invite Senator Vitter and colleagues on the other 

side to come along. Let us discuss it. Let us show that there is 

enough interest to get a response to the changes that we have 

made. We have made many to try to accommodate our colleagues. 

So, thank you, Madam Chairman, for the opportunity to do this. 

Senator BOXER. Thanks, Senator. 

Senator Crapo. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. MIKE CRAPO, 

U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF IDAHO 

Senator CRAPO. Thank you very much, Senator Boxer. I appreciate you and Senator Lautenberg for scheduling today’s hearing on 

EPA’s authorities and actions for controlling exposures to toxic 

chemicals generally and to flame retardants specifically. 

I also appreciate the participation of the witnesses who have 

agreed to answer and appear here this morning. The first panel 

features the testimony of James Jones, the Acting Assistant Administrator of the EPA’s Office of Chemical Safety and Pollution 

Prevention, who is responsible for implementing the provisions of 

the Toxic Substances Control Act. 

I look forward to hearing Mr. Jones’ opinion regarding EPA’s implementation of TSCA and how it works to help ensure an effective 

and efficient Federal regulatory regime that is capable of protecting 

public health, welfare, safety, and our environment while promoting economic growth, innovation, competitiveness. and job creation. 

The five witnesses that comprise the second panel represent a diverse set of interests and experiences. This diversity is valuable for 

understanding the multiple facets of what is a highly complex regulatory challenge, and I thank them for their participation and look 

forward to their testimonies. 

There has been much written and much said about the regulation and use of flame retardants in commerce. As we will hear 

today, there is substantive proof that flame retardants are effective 

in saving lives by delaying the spreading of fire and allowing people additional time to escape injury. We will also hear divergent 

views regarding the safety of flame retardants and EPA’s regulatory authority under TSCA. 

21 

Under current TSCA framework, EPA and industry conducted 

extensive reviews of flame, of the current flame retardants, and 

EPA approved their use on the market. Further, EPA has not invoked its authority under TSCA to remove these chemicals from 

the market. 

Because of the obvious diversity of opinion regarding the efficacy 

of flame retardants and other chemicals, it is critical that we support a regulatory framework that is risk based and further grounded in peer reviewed science. Our understanding of the possible 

health effects of flame retardants is constantly evolving. Therefore, 

we must be pragmatic in our regulatory approaches and mindful of 

the consequences of jumping to conclusions that have not been definitely proved by science. 

Tomorrow, this Committee will meet to mark up several pieces 

of legislation including Senator Lautenberg’s Safe Chemicals Act. 

My office, as has been indicated already, along with several others 

had, until last week, been actively engaged with Senator Lautenberg’s office to develop a bipartisan path forward for TSCA reform. 

I am disappointed that we will now move forward and abandon this 

process and tomorrow consider a bill that is still controversial and 

does not represent the bipartisan consensus building that we have 

been seeking to achieve. 

As I stated earlier, effective regulatory frameworks must seek to 

protect health and safety while promoting economic growth. This 

balance is difficult and cannot be achieved unilaterally. 

Again, I appreciate the participation of the panel members this 

morning, and I look forward to your insight. 

Senator BOXER. Thank you so much. 

Senator Vitter. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. DAVID VITTER, 

U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF LOUISIANA 

Senator VITTER. Thank you, Madam Chair and Ranking Member 

Inhofe, for the hearing. And certainly there is no disagreement in 

terms of the broader issue we are here about, that there is need 

for TSCA reform, a law which really has not been updated significantly since 1976. 

And I want to commend Senator Lautenberg for his priority and 

focus for several years with regard to reform. I know it is very deep 

and very sincere. As has been stated, Senators Inhofe and Crapo 

and Alexander, as well as myself, have very actively engaged with 

Senator Lautenberg, meeting at the staff level weekly, if not more, 

over an extended period of time. 

Unfortunately, those of us on this side all view this hearing and 

the partisan markup to follow tomorrow as a diversion from that, 

an interruption from that. And we think it is unfortunate. 

But I, for one, remain completely committed to getting back to 

that bipartisan process so that we can produce a good consensus 

bill that can actually pass the Senate and the House. And that is 

what I remain committed to. Again, I think this diversion is unfortunate, but it is not going to shake that commitment on my part. 

TSCA is very important. We need to reform it and we need to 

get that right. From my perspective in Louisiana, I will tell you a 

22 

few reasons we need to get it right because this industry, which is 

so important for the nation, is certainly important for our economy. 

Chemical companies in Louisiana directly employ over 22,000 

people and indirectly contribute 158,000 jobs to the economy. For 

every direct job in Louisiana, another 5.5 jobs are created in the 

State. An average wage we are talking about for those direct jobs 

is very healthy, over $84,000, 47 percent higher than the average 

manufacturing wage. These jobs generate $1.9 billion in earnings 

and almost $1 billion in tax revenue and $962 million in Social Security and Medicare contributions. 

Let me also focus for a minute about the need to reform to get 

it right because I think we have had a lot of evidence in the last 

few years in particular how the present regime with regard to regulation is getting it wrong. 

In particular, I was very involved in demanding a National Academy of Science study with regard to one particular chemical, formaldehyde, when EPA was pushing an aggressive agenda regarding 

this. We finally got that independent NAS study, and unfortunately, it underscored and really proved a lot of our concerns about 

the IRIS process in general. Let me just point to some of the conclusions from that study. 

This is the National Academy of Science, a very mainstream, respected organization. They said ‘‘Problems with clarity and transparency of the methods appear to be a repeating theme over the 

years.’’ They said ‘‘The conclusions appear to be based on a subjective view of the overall data.’’ And ‘‘The causal determinations are 

not supported by the narrative provided.’’ 

And then finally, EPA overstated the evidence to deem formaldehyde a neurotoxic. The human data are insufficient, and the candidate animal studies deviate substantially from testing guidelines 

and common practice. 

Unfortunately, this was not an isolated incident. It is a much 

broader issue, at least with the whole IRIS process. And because 

of that, the EPA itself even admitted the need for fundamental reform, Dr. Paul Anastas saying in July 14 of last year, ‘‘Over the 

coming months, the IRIS program will fully implement the NAS 

recommendations and continue to improve the IRIS process to reflect the highest standards of scientific integrity and credibility.’’ 

We are still not there, and TSCA reform based on sound science, 

based on bipartisan consensus, is absolutely necessary to get us 

there. So, after this distraction this week, I really hope we get back 

to that important hard work of mainstream TSCA reform. 

Thank you, Madam Chair. 

Senator BOXER. Thank you very much. 

Now we will turn to our first witness, Hon. Jim Jones, Acting Assistant Administrator for the Office of Chemical Safety and Pollution Prevention, U.S. EPA. 

Welcome. 

STATEMENT OF JAMES J. JONES, ACTING ASSISTANT ADMINISTRATOR, OFFICE OF CHEMICAL SAFETY AND POLLUTION 

PREVENTION, U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 

Mr. JONES. Good morning, Chairman Boxer, Senator Lautenberg, 

Ranking Member Inhofe, and members of the Committee. Thank 

23 

you for the opportunity to address you today on the reform of 

chemical management and our authority to assess the safety of 

flame retardant chemicals. 

Ensuring chemical safety, maintaining public confidence that 

EPA is protecting the American people, and promoting our global 

leadership in chemicals management remain top priorities for the 

EPA and Administrator Jackson. I want to thank you both, Senator 

Boxer and Senator Lautenberg, as well as members of the Committee, for your continued leadership on this very important issue 

and your efforts to bring about reform of TSCA. 

With each passing year, the need for TSCA reform grows. Chemicals are found in most everything we use and consume, and they 

are essential for our health, our well-being, and our prosperity. It 

should be equally essential that chemicals are safe. Today I will 

discuss a prime example of the shortcomings of TSCA that stands 

as a clear illustration of the need for TSCA reform. 

So, what are the problems with TSCA? When TSCA was enacted, 

it grandfathered in, without any evaluation, the 62,000 chemicals 

in commerce that existed in 1976. The TSCA inventory currently 

lists over 84,000 chemicals, few of which have been studied for 

their risks, especially to children. 

Unlike the laws applicable to drugs and pesticides, TSCA does 

not have a mandatory program where EPA must conduct a review 

to determine the safety of existing chemicals. The manufacturers 

do not need to demonstrate the safety of new chemicals before they 

are introduced into the marketplace. 

When EPA determines that a chemical imposes a significant 

health concern, taking action under TSCA to limit or ban a chemical is challenging. To address these shortcomings, in September 

2009 the EPA Administrator, Lisa Jackson, announced a set of administration principles to update and strengthen TSCA. These include that manufacturers provide EPA with the necessary information to conclude that new and existing chemicals are safe, and the 

agency should have the 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 a safety standard and take risk management actions when chemicals do not meet the safety standard. 

While the legislative reform process is under way, we are not just 

standing by. The agency is utilizing the current authority under 

TSCA to help protect human health and the environment. Earlier 

this year, EPA developed a screening process to identify chemicals 

for review based on their hazard, exposure, and persistence and 

bioaccumulation characteristics. 

We identified 83 work plan chemicals for risk assessment with 

an initial of seven for assessment for this year. In June we identified an additional 18 chemicals that the agency intends to review 

and then develop risk assessments in 2013 and 2014, including 

three flame retardant chemicals. 

EPA’s experience with one flame retardant in particular highlights the limitations of TSCA. The EPA first reviewed a new flame 

retardant component, TBB, in several products in 1995 for use in 

foam and was unable to identify that is was persistent and bioaccumulative. We only learned of these properties after the chemVerDate Aug 31 2005 07:05 Aug 01, 2017 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00027 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 S:\_EPW\DOCS\25110.TXT SONYA
24 

ical was in commerce and was later found in humans and the environment. Also in the formulation was an existing flame retardant 

chemical, TBPH. Further research has shown that this existing 

chemical has similar concerns, but it, too, is persistent and bioaccumulative. 

This example illustrates the problems we face with both new and 

existing chemicals since taking the necessary steps to ensure that 

new chemicals or chemical already in commerce are safe can be 

cumbersome, involve regulatory processes that take years before 

hazards are addressed. TBB and TBPH are two of the flame 

retardants that EPA will evaluate in 2013, 18 years after TBB was 

first introduced into the market. This is an example that highlights 

the critical need for the agency to have greater evidence that new 

chemicals are safe prior to commercialization and stronger tools to 

take action after they are on the market to ensure safety. 

The American public has the right to expect that chemicals manufactured, imported, and used in this country are safe. And EPA 

needs an effective law that gives us the tools necessary to provide 

the public with these assurances. TSCA must be updated and 

strengthened so that EPA has the tools to do our job of protecting 

public health and the environment. The time to fix this badly outdated law is now. 

I will be pleased to answer any questions that you may have. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Jones follows:] 

25 


25110.015

Testimony of James J. Jones 

Acting Assistant Administrator 

Office of Chemical Safety and Pollution Prevention 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 

before the 

Committee on Environment and Public Works 

and the 

Subcommittee on Superfund, Toxic and Environmental Health 

United States Senate 

July 24, 2012 

Good morning Chairman Boxer, Chairman Lautenberg, Ranking Member Inhofe, Ranking Member 

Crapo and members of the committee. Thank you for the opportunity to address the committee today 

on the reform of chemicals management in the United States and the U.S. Environmental Protection 

Agency's (EPA) authority to assess the safety of flame retardant chemicals under the Toxic 

Substances Control Act (TSCA). Ensuring chemical safety, maintaining public confidence that the 

EPA is protecting the American people, and promoting our global leadership in chemicals 

management remain top priorities for the EPA and Administrator Lisa Jackson. 

I want to thank this committee for your continued leadership on this very important issue and your 

efforts to bring about reform ofTSCA. With each passing year, the need for TSCA reform growsthe importance and prevalence of chemicals in our daily lives increases, and yet there remain 

significant gaps in our knowledge and understanding of many of these chemicals. The time to bring 

TSCA into the 21" Century is long overdue. Today, I also want to discuss a prime example of the 

shortcomings ofTSCA- the limited success and long history of the agency's work on brominated 

flame retardants- that stands as a clear illustration of the need for TSCA reform. 

Chemicals are found in most everything we use and consume, and can be essential for our health, our 

well being, and our prosperity. It should be equally essential that chemicals are safe. Compared to 30 

years ago, we have a better understanding of the environmental impacts, exposure pathways, and 

distressing health effects some chemicals can have- especially on children. While our understanding 

of chemical safety is constantly evolving, significant gaps in our scientific knowledge regarding many 

chemicals remain. For these reasons, it is critical that we close those knowledge gaps. Recent press 

reports on flame retardants highlight the public health risks posed by certain chemicals such as flame 

retardants. Public understanding of these risks is growing, and that is why the public is increasingly 

demanding that the government provide an assurance about chemicals, even chemicals like flame 

retardants that can also provide significant benefits. To date, based on these concerns, the EPA helped 

negotiate voluntary phase-outs of several of the more toxic retardants, and has also initiated regulatory 

actions; however, as explained in more detail below, TSCA reform would have given the EPA 

additional tools to address this serious issue. 
26 


25110.016

Background on TSCA 

The EPA's chemical management authority is carried out under TSCA - a law that when enacted in 

1976 was an important step forward to protect human health and the environment. But today, TSCA is 

the only major environmental statute that has not been reauthorized. Over the years, not only has 

TSCA fallen behind the rapidly advancing industry it is intended to regulate, it has also proven an 

inadequate tool for providing the protection against chemical risks that the public rightfully expects 

and deserves. 

When TSCA was enacted, it grandfathered in, without any evaluation, the 62,000 chemicals in 

commerce that existed in 1976. The TSCA Inventory currently lists over 84,000 chemicals, few of 

which have been studied for their risks, especially to children. 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. 

And the process of requiring testing through rulemaking chemical-by-chemical has proven time 

consuming. As a result, in the 35 years since TSCA was passed, we have only been able to require 

testing on approximately 200 of the 84,000 chemicals listed on the TSCA Inventory. The EPA has 

also relied on voluntary programs to collect data, including through the High Production Volume 

(HPV) Challenge Program, which resulted in the submittal of screening level data for 1,366 HPV 

chemicals. 

When the EPA determines that a chemical poses a significant health concern, taking action under 

TSCA to limit or ban a chemical is challenging. For example, in 1989, after years of study and nearly 

unanimous scientific opinion, the EPA issued a rule phasing out most uses of the cancer causing 

substance asbestos. Yet, a federal court overturned most of this action because the EPA failed to clear 

the hurdles imposed under TSCA before existing chemicals can be controlled. 

Today, advances in toxicology and analytical chemistry are enhancing our understanding of the 

implications of multiple pathways of exposure, and a better understanding of the cumulative effects 

and interactions between the chemicals in the products we use every day. The EPA is working to 

develop methodology to address potential health effects of multiple chemical exposures and evaluate 

cumulative risks. When TSCA was enacted, there was not the understanding of the subtle effects 

chemicals may have on hormone systems, human reproduction, and intellectual development and 

cognition, particularly in young children. 

Essential Principles for Reform of Chemicals Management Legislation 

In September 2009, the EPA Administrator Jackson announced a set of administration principles to 

update and strengthen TSCA. These include that the agency should have the tools to quickly and 

efficiently obtain information from manufacturers that is relevant to determining the safety of 

2 
27 


25110.017

chemicals. The EPA also should have clear authority to assess chemicals against a safety standard and 

to take risk management actions when chemicals do not meet the safety standard. 

At the same time, Administrator Jackson also affirmed that, while the legislative reform process is 

underway, the agency is committed to utilizing the current authority under TSCA to the fullest extent 

to protect human health and the environment. 

Work Plan Chemicals 

Earlier this year, the EPA developed a screening process to identify chemicals for review based on 

their combined hazard, exposure, and persistence and bioaccumulation characteristics. This process 

included criteria specifically targeted at identifying chemical risks to children. Following this initial 

screen, the EPA identified 83 work plan chemicals for risk assessment in the TSCA chemicals 

management program, with an initial seven for risk assessment in 2012. 

On June I, 2012, the EPA identified an additional IS chemicals that the agency intends to review and 

then develop risk assessments in 2013 and 2014, including three flame retardant chemicals-- Bis(2-

Ethylhexyl)-3,4,5,6-tetrabromophthalate (TBPH), 2-Ethylhexyl-2,3,4,5-tetrabromobenzoate (TBB), 

and Tris(2-chloroethyl)phosphate (TCEP). The EPA is currently developing a strategy, scheduled for 

completion by the end of this year that will address these three and a broader set of flame retardant 

chemicals. This effort will assist the agency in focusing risk assessments on those flame retardant 

chemicals that pose the greatest potential concerns. The EPA anticipates initiating the risk assessments 

on this category of chemicals in 2013. 

Polybrominated Diphenyl Ether (PBDE) Flame Retardant Chemicals 

The EPA is concerned that PBDEs are persistent, bioaccumulative, and toxic to both humans and the 

environment. A critical endpoint of concern for human health is neurobehavioral effects during 

development, which makes them a concern for children's health. Various PBDEs have also been 

studied for ecotoxicity in mammals, birds, fish, and invertebrates. In some cases, current levels of 

exposure for wildlife may be at or near adverse effect levels. 

PBDEs are not chemically bound to plastics, foam, fabrics, or other products in which they are used, 

making them more likely to leach out of these products. Despite the U.S. phasing out the manufacture 

and import of penta- and octaBDE in 2004, their component congeners PBDEs are still being detected 

in humans and the environment. Some reports indicate that levels are increasing1

• One potential source 

is imported articles to which these compounds have been added. Another is the breakdown of 

decaBDE in the environment to more toxic and bioaccumulative PBDE congeners. In late 2009, the 

U.S. manufacturers of decaBDE announced that they intend to voluntarily phase out most uses of 

decaBDE by the end of2013. 

1 Shaw SO, Kannan K. 2009. Polybrominated diphenyl ethers in marine ecosystems of the American continents: 

foresight from current knowledge. Rev Environ Hlth 2009,24, 157-229 

3 
28 


25110.018

Efforts on PBDE Flame Retardant Chemicals 

In late 2009, the EPA released an Action Plan for addressing concerns with PBDE flame retardant 

chemicals and recently issued proposed rules that would require additional testing on these chemicals 

and require the EPA review any new uses of these chemicals, including imported articles. The EPA 

also helped facilitate an industry plan to phaseout decaBDE and launched a multi-stakeholder 

partnership to assess alternatives for this chemical to help move the market to safer chemicals. This 

follows the EPA's earlier facilitation of an industry phaseout of two other widely-used PBDE flame 

retardants, pentaBDE and octaBDE in 2004 and an associated partnership to help identify safer flame 

retardants for use in polyurethane foam. 

In its 2009 Action Plan, the EPA committed to support and encourage the voluntary phase out of the 

manufacture and import ofdecaBDE. Developed with public participation through the EPA's Design 

for the Environment Program, the EPA will shortly release the draft alternatives assessment on 

decaBDE for public comment. This assessment will profile the environmental and human health 

hazards on 30 alternatives to decaBDE. By providing a detailed comparison of the potential human 

health and environmental effects of chemical alternatives, the EPA can help manufacturers identify 

and transition to safer alternative flame retardant chemicals. 

The EPA first reviewed a new flame retardant component of several products in 1995 for use in 

polyurethane foam and was unable to identifY that a component of flame retardants was persistent, 

bioaccumulative and toxic. Later, after the chemicals were in commerce, information became 

available that showed the chemicals were being found in humans and the environment. This is an 

example that highlights the critical need for the agency to have greater evidence that new chemicals 

are safe prior to commercialization and to be able to take effective action after commercialization, 

when needed. Unfortunately, taking the necessary steps to ensure that chemicals already in commerce 

are safe can be a cumbersome, involved regulatory process that can take years. 

While the latest steps taken by the agency are clearly a step forward, they must be viewed in the 

context of what has been a long history of actions on flame retardants, a history that has stretched over 

the course of two decades with a range of voluntary efforts and regulatory actions on flame retardant 

chemicals in both the EPA's new and existing chemicals programs. The long history of the EPA's 

action on brominated flame retardants is tied in no small part to the shortcomings ofTSCA. 

4 
29 


25110.019

Summary 

Simply put, the EPA may have made a different determination in 1995 ifTSCA required the 

submission of more robust hazard, exposure, and use data needed to adequately assess risk, and the 

EPA may have been able to act more quickly and effectively on the risk information available if 

TSCA provided more robust tools to deal with chemicals already introduced into commerce. The 

American public has the right to expect that the chemicals manufactured, imported, and used in this 

country are safe and the EPA needs an effective law that gives us the tools necessary to provide the 

public with this assurance. The time is now to fix this badly outdated law. TSCA must be updated and 

strengthened so that the EPA has the tools to do our job of protecting public health and the 

environment. 

I would be happy to answer any questions you may have. 

5 
30 


25110.020

Senate Environment and Public Works Committee 

Hearing on "Oversight of EPA Authorities and Actions to Control Exposures to Toxic Chemicals" 

Questions for the Record 

Jim Jones, Acting Assistant Administrator 

Office of Chemical Safety and Pollution Prevention 

July 24, 2012 

Senator Barbara Boxer, Chairman 

Boxer 1. A study by researchers at the University of California at San Francisco detected certain 

PBDEs, PCBs, phthalates, pesticides, perchlorate and other chemicals in the blood of 99 to 100% of 

pregnant women that they tested. 

la. Can pre-term exposure to chemicals increase the risk of harmful health effects? 

Answer: As a general matter, the mere presence of chemicals in the blood does not necessarily indicate 

harmful effects. Observational studies with human subjects and laboratory studies with animals can be 

used to study health effects from exposure to chemicals. Some laboratory studies with animals have 

shown that pre-term exposure to some chemicals can cause harmful health effects to the offspring if the 

exposure or dose to the pregnant animal is high enough, and occurs during a critical period of fetal 

development.• Observational studies with human subjects can also demonstrate health effects from 

exposure to chemicals. 

lb. If so, please describe the range of such harmful health effects that can occur as a result of such 

exposures, including any impacts that may harm reproduction or development in later generations of 

people? 

Answer: Both the effects of exposure and the likelihood (risk) that people might develop that effect 

vary significantly by chemical (mode and mechanism of action), the dose received, and the timing of 

exposure. Laboratory animal and non-animal studies to understand reproductive and developmental 

effects in later generations of people is currently an active research area, but uncertainties remain 

regarding such studies' relevance to humans, at the doses where effects are seen in test systems. The 

EPA's Guidelines for Developmental Toxicity Risk Assessmen~ provides a description of the endpoints 

commonly measured in laboratory animal studies at!d human epidemiological studies. The EPA also 

uses multigeneratioriar reproductive toxicity assays in laboratory animals to assess potential impacts on 

future generations. 

Boxer 2. One study published last year by researchers from the California Department of Toxic 

Substances Control and the University of California at San Francisco studied blood samples from 

pregnant women in California- and found that they generally had higher levels of PBDEs than other 

women in the United States, as well as Europe and Asia, and that the women also had lower levels of 

hormones produced by the thyroid. 

la. What impact does the thyroid have on ensuring the healthy development of infants and children? 

1 http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3114826/pdf/ehp-l19-878.pdf 

2 http://www.epa.gov/raf/publicatlons/pdfs/DEVTOX.PDF 
31 


25110.021

Answer:· P~ease note that the observation of the presence of a chemical in hwnan blood samples 

coupled with observations of altered hormone levels or other outcomes does not establish causation. 

The thyroid gland and thyroid hormone& play an important role in the body througheut life. Every cell in 

the body relies on thyroid hormones to work properly. Important functions mediated by thyroid 

hormones include, but are not limited to: metabolism; muscle and joint function; cardio vascul.ar fitness; 

digestions; bone health; hormone balance; and brain function. In infants and children, proper levels of 

thyroid hormone influence these functions as well as the normal progression of development. A known 

con&equence of abnormal thyroid hormone levels during.development is abnormal neurological 

development. For example, extremely low dietary iodine levels over a significant amount of time, most 

commonly in parts of the world with iodine-deficient diets, results in lowered production of thyroid 

hormones and this has resulted in neonatal hypothyroidism with severe physical and mental retardation 

in children. Note that there is a range of normal variability in hormone levels; the presence and severity 

of adverse effects depends on the magnitude of hormone level alteration. With less extreme 

hypothyroTclism and poor. iodide intake, .. the National Academy of Sciences has .stirted3: 

"Newborn infants who have hypothyroidism may have other abnormalities, including lethargy, 

poor muscle tone, poor feeding, constipation, and persistent jaundice, if not at birth then 

thereafter. The changes are similar to tho.se which occur in older childrenlllJd adults who have 

hypothyroidism, and, in contrast with the neurologic abnormalities, they are reversible with 

adequate !4 [thyroid hoimone]treatn3ent." . . . 

"Pregnant women who have subclinical hyPothYroidism or overt hYPothyroidism and are 

inadeqiJ!IIely treated or not treated at all hiiVe ~ increased risk of fetal loss. The infants of those 

mothers who do notmisCll)TY have normal thyroid function at birth and thereafter, but their ·· 

neurodevelopment may be slightly impaired." · · · 

2b. What impl'Ct ~lower leveis of thyroid hormones have on a woman's ability to .become pregnant 

and to carry that pregnancy to term? · 

Answen In adult females; if altered sufficiently, tlzyrojd hormone levels can influence. a woman's . . . 

abilityto become pregr}ant and to Il!llintrun.that pregnancy. IniJiortaittfunctions relevant to reproduction 

that are mediated by thjrroid hormones include, but are not limited to: sexual function and libido, 

hormone balance, and ovulation. Wit!Lregard to carrying pregnancy to term, the National Academy of 

Sciences stated4.:,"Pregnant women who have subclinical hypothyroidism or overt hypothyroidism and 

are ina\iequately treated or not treated at all have <l.ll, increased risk of fetal. loss." · 

2c. How can th~ dlfferi~g le~els of PBDE in the blood .of pregnant women help to inform risk 

assessment and risk management decisions? 

Answer:·· Biomonitoring studies provide valuable information O!l exposure and. are· most benefici!il 

when ilsed with an understa!iding.of a chemical's toxicity. Blood levels (or levels in urine or a tissue ·. 

such ~fat) of a specific chemical reflect exposure from ingestion, inhalation and other exposure 

'From: Chapter 2, "The Thyroid and Disruption of Thyroid Function In Humans• in Health Implications of Perchlorate 

Ingestion (2005). 4 /bid. 

2 
32 


25110.022

pathways. With an understanding of how a chemical is distributed and transformed in the body, 

biomonitoring data can be used in conjunction with toxicity data to inform the potential risk :from 

exposure to that specific chemical. Thus, knowledge of the levels of a chemical in people's blood can · 

have a significant impact on risk assessment. Further, when coupled with knowledge of the sources and 

pathways of e!CjJosure, biomonitoring can be of value in informing decisions on. risk reduction through 

reduction in specific exposures .. 

Boxer 3. In 2012, EPA issued an Existing Chemicals Program Strategy to identifY chemicals for review 

based on various factors, including a chemical's potential for exposure, persistence, and 

bioaccumulation. The Agency issued Work Pllms to begin assessing 83 chemicals in 2012. 'The EPA 

has also issued work plans to assess 18 more chemicals, including 3 flame retardants - beginning in 

2013. In your testimony, you state that EPA is currently developing a strategy, scheduled for 

completion by the end of this year, to address flame retardant chemicals. 

3a. Please describe whether TSCA provides EPA with the necessary tools to fully assess the risks of 

flame retardant chemicals? 

Answer: When the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) was ·enacted in 1976, it represented an 

important step forward in addressing the risks from industrial chemicals by granting the EPA 

jurisdiction over chemicals produced, used, and imported in the United States. Today, TSCAis the only 

major environmental statute that has not been reauthorized. 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 the more than 84,000 existing chemicals. In addition, TSCA places challenging 

legal and procedural requirements on the EPA before the agency can request the generation and 

submission· of any health and environmental effects data on existing ~hemicals. 

The EPA has developed a more effective program under TSCA to review new chemicals before 

intrOduction to the lriarketplace.· The EPA uses professional judgment and information on similar 

chemicals to evaluate existing chemicals. · · 

3b. Please describe whether TSCA provides EPA with the necessary tools to fully address the riskS· . 

pOS~d by SUCh chemlcals through implementing and enforcing risk management decisions? 

Answer: When the EPA determines that a chemical poSes a significant health concern; taking· action tinder 

TSCA to limit or ban a chemical is challenging. For example, in 1989, after years of study and r.early 

unanimous scientific opinion, the EPA issued a rule phasing out most uses of the cancer causing substance 

asbestos. Yet, a federal court overturned most of this action because the EPA failed to clear the hurdles 

imposed under TSCA before existing chemicals can be controlled. 

The agency is committed to utilizing the current statute to the fullest extent possible and taking risk 

management actions to address chemicals that may pose a concern- including brominated flame 

retardants (BFRs). For example, in late 2009; the EPA released an Action Plan on polybrominated . ' . 

diphenyl ethers (PBDEs), a group of BFRs, that highlighted concerns and specific steps the agency is.· · 

taking to address those concems.5 In April2012, the EPA proposed a rule requiring additional testing_of 

'U.S. EPA, Polybrominated Diphenyl Ethers (PBDEs) Action Plan Summary (2009), 

http://www.epa.gov/oppt/cxistingcbemicB!s/pubslactionplans/pbdes_ap_2009 _1230_final.pdf. 

3 
33 


25110.023

these chemicals and the requirement that any new uses of these chemicals be submiued to the agency for 

review. 6 The EPA is also working with the industry and a wide range of stakeholders, under our Design 

for the Environment Program, on assessing altematives to some of these chemicals to infonn choices of 

alternatives. 7 

On March 27,2013, the EPA made public a list of23 chemicals for assessment beginning in 2013. The 

EPA will conduct full risk assessments on four !lame retardant chemicals. The four flame retardant 

chemicals are 2-Ethylbcxyl ester 2,3,4,5- tetrabromobenzoate (TBB); I ,2- Ethylhcxyl3,4,5.6-

tetrabromo-benzenedicarboxylate, or (2-ethylhexyl)-3,4,5,6 tetrabromophthalate (TBPH); Tris(2-

chloroethyl) phosphate (TCEP); and Hexabromocyclododecane (HBCD). The EPA will utilize a new 

structure based approach, grouping chemicals with similar characteristics together with the chemicals 

targeted for full assessment under the TSCA Work plan. The review of similar chemicals in related 

groupings, and th~ environmental fate investigations for other chemicals. complements the risk 

assessments by focusing the identification of data needs on chemical classes with members that rank 

high for specific criteria in the Work Plan methodology, but lack sufficient data to conduct risk 

assessment. The EPA will use the information from these assessments to better understand the other 

chemicals in the group, which currently lack sufficient data for a full risk assessment. The agency will 

also begin environmental fate investigations of eight additional flame retardant chemicals that rank high 

for persistence, bioaccumulation and/or exposure potential, but tor which there are not adequate data to 

conduct risk assessments. 

Boxer 4. Please describe how the existing TSCA assessment process fails to identify chemical hazards 

and how TSCA relonn will allow EPA to identify such persistent, bioaccumulativc and toxic chemicals 

before they commercialized and allow EPA to take effective action after such chemicals are in 

commerce, when needed. 

Answer: For new chemicals, TSCA requires that they must go through a pre-manufacture review at the 

EPA 90 days prior to commencing manufacture. The required notification provides the EPA with the 

opportunity to evaluate the chemical and, if necessary. to impose restrictions on activities that give rise 

to human health or environmental risk or exposure concerns before they occur. 

As stated in the response to question 3 above, TSCA docs not have a mandatory program where the EPA 

must conduct a review to dctcm1inc the safety of existing chemicals. The statute places challenging legal 

and procedural requirements on the EPA belore the agency can request the generation and submission of 

any health and environmental effects data on existing chemicals. As the EPA explained in its 

announcement of Essential Principles for Retorn1 of Chemicals Management Legislation, 8 all chemicals 

should be reviewed against a science based safety standard that reflects risk based criteria protective of 

human health and the environment, including the health of children and other vulnerable populations. 

and, manufacturers should be required to provide the EPA with the necessary information to conclude 

that new and existing chemicals are safe. When manufacturers do not submit sufficient infmmation, the 

EPA should have the necessary authority and tools to quickly and efficiently require testing or obtain 

other infonnation from manufacturers that is relevant to determining the safety of chemicals. The EPA 

EPA, http.//\V'.\W.t'pa.g.ov!dkla!ternative_asscss!n~uls html 

http ://www.epa .gov( oppt/ existingchem icals/pubs/principles.html 

4 
34 


25110.024

should also have clear authority to take risk management actions when ch<micals do not meet the safety 

standard, with flexibility to take into account a range of considerations. 

Boxer 5. The National Academy of Sciences (NAS) published "Science and Decisions: Advancing 

Risk Assessment" in 2009, which recommended several actions that EPA should take to modernize its 

approach to assessing chemicals' risks to human health, including for it>.fants and children. For each of 

the recommendations below, list and describe the specific activities that EPA has ongoing or plans to 

take, including timelines for completing: such actions, in order to -full§'. implement the recom:nendations. 

Sa. NAS recommendations for EPA to modernize its methodology for assessing chemical risks, 

including: 

i. Revising its default assumptions on the risks posed by chemicals; 

ii. Developing· explicit defau!:S about chemical risks, including for cancer Bl'.d some non-cancer 

health effects, rather than continuing to use more informal approaches for approximating such 

risks (such as using "implied" defaults); and 

iii. Over a two-to-five year period, developing clear criteria on the information needed to justify the 

use of alternative risk assumptions, rather than explicitly-stated risk defaults for chemicals. 

Answer: EPA's Science and Technology Policy Council (STPC)9 recently established the NRC Risk 

Assessment Reports Workgroup to address the NRC recommendations from four recent NRC reports: 

"Science and Decisions: Advancing Risk Assessment", "Phthalates and Cumulative Risk Assessment", 

"Toxicity Testing in the 21" Century", and "Exposure Science in the 21st Century: A .Vision and A 

Strategy". This workgroup is charged with developing options and recommendations .to the STPC and 

the EPA Science Advisor on additional steps that could be taken by the Agency to address 

recommendations from the relevant NRC reports, and with reviewing communications materials-and 

summaries regarding the progress to date on incorporating the NRC recommendations into the EPA 

activities, including these to be sent to the SEPW. 

The EPA policies regarding the current use of defaults.are described in several agency documents. For 

example, the "Guidelines for Carcinogen Risk Assessment''10 explain that the. assessor must critically · 

analyze the available relevant information before using a default to address uncertainty in the absence of 

critical information. 

The EPA continues to evaluate the National Research-Council (NRC) recommendations on the use of 

defaults and will develop additional guidance as necessary to incorporate new methods into agency 

practice. Concurrently, the EPA released the draft "Guidance for Applying Quantitative Data to Develop 

Data-Derived Extrapolation Factors for lntetspecies,and lntraspecies Extrapolation"11 .in 2011. This 

document outlines approaches for using· data to develop factors to comps:nsate for unc.er!llinties in 

extrapolating from animal toxicity studies to humans and to address. human :variability. The external 

review draft is publically available and is expected to be released in final form in 2013. 

• U.S. EPA. Science and Technology Policy Council, http:/lwww.cpa.gov/stpcl. 10 U.S. EPA. Guidelines ror Carcinogen Risk Assessment (2005), U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, DC, EPA/6301P~03!001F, 2005, 

htqJ:/Iwww.c:pa..gov/canc:crguidelines. 

u U.S. EPA. External Review Draft of the Guidance for Applying Quantitative: Data to Develop ()ata..Derived Extrapolation Fa<;tors for lntc:npc:cies and 

!ntraspecies Extntpolation, U.S. Environmental Prole<lion Agency, Washington. DC, EPA/l00/!·111001, 2011, 

bnp:/lwww.epa.gov/osalraf/ddefteview.htm. 

5 
35 


25110.025

The NRC highlighted an issue they tcnned "missing defaults", i.e., understanding risk only for those 

chemicals with a robust toxicity database. Through its Chemical Safety for Sustainability (CSS) 12 and 

Human Health Risk Assessment (HHRA) 13 research programs, the EPA is developing new methods and 

databases to assess chemicals with limited traditional toxicity data. Consistent with science and 

decisions as well as the recommendations from the 2007 NRC repmt, ''Toxicity Testing in the 21st 

Century: A Vision and A Strategy," the ultimate goal is to compile all available chemical infonnation 

and data, including chemical screening data generated from innovative chemical evaluation methods, 

into one accessible online application that interested users can access and select chemicals and data of 

interest in order to make informed decisions about chemical risks. CSS is building these accessible 

online applications using data generated from these innovative chemical screening methods that can be 

used to understand how chemicals perturb pathways that potentially lead to adverse effects. This will 

help reduce uncertainty related to species specificity, lifestage susceptibility, and dose response 

characterization, and allow the EPA to focus resources on those chemicals and endpoints of highest 

concern. The methods and databases developed through these efforts will be made publically available. 

Likewise, through the HHRA research program. building from and expanding upon approaches used to 

develop Integrated Science Assessments, the EPA is addressing the NRC recommendations and 

applying new approaches to Integrated Risk Information System (IRIS) assessments, including increased 

transparency regarding alternative risk methodologies. 

One example of a froduct resulting from these efforts is the Aggregated Computational Toxicology 

Online Resource, 1 a web based application that provides public access to more than l ,000 public 

sources of information on more than 500,000 environmental chemicals, 30 years worth of animal 

toxicity testing data, innovative chemical screening (called high-throughput data) from over 1,000 

chemicals tested in more than 650 different tests, chemical structure infonnation for 8,000 chemicals 

and chemical exposure predictions. Additionally, the EPA and several other federal agencies initiated 

the Toxicity Testing in the 21" Century (Tox21) collaboration, 15 which will use robotics technology to 

screen 8,000 chemicals lor potential toxicity, and will continue to improve models for predicting both 

hazard (ToxCastDB 16) and exposure (ExpoCastDB 1

\ These projects will provide screening level data 

and methods on thousands of chemicals that do not have robust traditional toxicity and exposure 

datasets, which will inform the risk assessment of these chemicals. 

Sb. NAS recommendations for EPA to modernize its methodology i'or assessing non-ca~:cer health 

effects, including: 

i. Over the short-term. using contemporary methods (''probabilistic methods) for detennining 

health effects from low-dose exposure to chemicals; considering factors such as vulnerable 

populations. background exposures to chemicals, the impact of existing disease burdens in 

people, as well as developing default risk estimates and guidance on the consideration of such 

!actors; and using information and estimates of human susceptibility to cancer: and 

ii. Over the long-term, better understanding the occurrence of human vulnerability and 

susceptibility to chemicals by expanding the Agency's research on such issues, and better 

! U.S. f..:PA. Chemical Safety for SustainabHit), httpF\\Ww.cpa.govm.:scarch/progres::.rcpurt/chcmical htm 11 U.S. !:P,\, !Iuman I lcalth RisJ.. A!:>SCS!>tnClll, hnp !/\\\\ \\.cpa.gov/rcscan.:h/progrcssrcport/humanhcalth.htm. 

~~ U.S. EPA Aggregated Compullltional Tox1cology Online Resource, http:i/www.cpa.gov/nc;;tiactor/. 

;~NIH, To.\l~·ology in the 11 ~~ ( ·cntury, hllp·JJw\vw.ncats.nih.govJrcscarchlrccnginccringltox2!/tox21 .hunl. 1

'' EPA TnxCast Database. http"//W\\W cpa.gn\'fncclftoXcast. 

EPA. Expn('astDB: E.\posurc Forcca5tcr Datuh;bc. !mp;!!w\\w cpJ.gov/ncct!cxpoc;l\tJ 

6 
36 


25110.026

understanding how multiple chemical exposures can add together to harm human health by 

researching the interaction of chemicals that can have the same type oftoxic impact, but have 

potentially different ways of causing such.harm. 

Answer: The EPA recognizes that addressing background in dose-response and exposure assessment.is 

a complex issue. When data are available, the agency considers both background. exposures (in the 

environment and within the body) in dose response. analysis, and background incidence of disease 

processes in characterizing susceptibility and variability. in human response. In Integrated Risk 

Information System (IRIS) assessments, multiple.sources.ofbackground data are disc.ussed and 

considered when they occur: endogenous background (produced within the body), anthropogenic (manmade) and natural background. as it pertains to dose-response, and background exposure to essential 

nutrients/trace metals. In addition, the Integrated Science Assessments of ozone18, carbon monoxide19, 

and particulate matte~0 consider background disease processes such as asthma .in evaluating 

susceptibility and human vulnerability. 

The EPA is also developing a cumulative health assessment for six phthalates that cause a common 

health endpoint (male developmental/reproductive outcomes): butyl benzyl phthalate (BBP), dibutyl 

phthalate (DBP}, diisobutyl phthalate (DIBP), diisononyl phthalate. (DINP}, di(2-ethylhexyl) phthalate 

(DEHP}, and dipentyl phthalate (DPP). This cumulative asse:ssment may serve as a future framework for 

evaluating other groups of compounds that cause similar adverse outcomes. 

The EPA's Risk Assessment Forum, under the oversight of the agency's Science and Technology Policy 

Council, has been charged with developing Guidelines for Cumulative Risk Assessment (CRA). 

Previously, the forum developed a "Framework for Cumulative Risk Assessll)enf1 published in 20QJ. 

Since then, the EPA conducted three workshops and.prepared several white papers. Additionally, a· 

series of case studies focusing on CRA issues and methods was developed j'or internal use to inform 

development of the CRA Guidelines. Draft CRA Guidelines for intern!!! review are anticipated in 2013, 

followed by external· peer review in 2014. 

Probabilistic risk analysis (PRA) plays an increasingly important role in agency risk assessments since 

the 1997 EPA publication, "Guiding Principles for Monte-Ca.rlo Analysis."22 It was alsQ a major focus 

in an associated review of the EPA practices by the agency's Science Advisory Board in September 

2006.23 The importance of using PRA is. reflected. by a number- of advisory scientific panels and is an 

integral part of the EPA guidelines. The Risk Assessment Forum is developing two white papers that 

examine the use of probabilistic approaches in agency risk assessment and risk management. The papers 

provide a general Qverview of the value of probabilistic analyses and sill)ilar or related methods, and 

11 U.S. EPA. Integrated Science .Assessment of Ozone and Related Photocheniical Oxidants (Sewnd Extem'al Review· Dnift), U.S. Envi~mental Protection 

Agency, Washington, DC, EPA/6001R·l0/076B, 2011, http:l/cfpub.epa.gov/ncea/i""recordisplay.clin?d<:id-24:;490. · 19 U.S. EPA Integrated Science; Assessment for Carbon Mono.xide, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, ~esearch Triangle Park, NC. EPA/600/R~ 

09/0l9F, 2010, http://cfpub.epa.gov/ncealclin/recordbplay.clin?deicF2!8686. 20 U.S. EPA. Integrated Science Assessment for Particulate Matter, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, DC, EPA/6001R..Q8/139F, 2009, 

http1/cfpub.epa.gov/ncealclinlrecord~play.clin?deid=216S46. 

11 U.S. EPA Framework for Cumulative Risk Assess.ment. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Ofl"tee of Rescarc:h and Development. National Center 

for Environmcnlal Asscssmcn~ Washington Office, Washington, DC, EPA/600/P-4)2/0()lf, 2003 .• http:liwww.epa.gov/rafipublicationsiliamcwork-cra.htm. 

u U.S. EPA Guiding Principles for Monte Carlo Analysis. U.S. Environmental ProtCction Agency, Risk Assessment F~ Washington, 0C. EPN6301R~ 

97100!, 1997, bttp:l/www.epa.govlraflpublicationslguiding·monte-<trlo-analysis.hlm. . . · · 

uu.s. EPA SAB, Consultation on Enhancing Risk AssesSment Practices and UPdating EPA's .E.XJN?Sure Guidelines, February 28, ~~. 

http:llyosemite.epa.govlsablsabproduct.ns002ad90bl36fc21ef85256eb,ao0436459/SSE!B2C78C6085EB8S2S729COOS73A3EISFile/sab.07.003.pdf. 

7 
37 


25110.027

case studies of current applications across the agency are also included. The external review draft is 

publically available24 and expected to be released in final form in 2013. 

"U.S. EPA, Two External Review Dmfts on Probabilistic Risk Asscssmen~ hHp:/lwww.epa.gov/raf/prawbitepapemndex.htm 

8 
38 

Senator BOXER. Thank you very much. 

I just wanted to make a note here that I am a very strong supporter of bipartisanship, and this Committee has shown we can do 

it. And we are very proud of our accomplishments. 

But there are certain times when it does not work, and as Chairman of this Committee, I am responsible for saying we should 

mark up a bill, and I take all the heat for that. It is not Senator 

Lautenberg, but I found out from him that he had dozens of meetings, and he just believes at this point that there is a breakdown, 

there is a difference. 

There is a difference here which involves how much you want to 

protect public health versus how much you want to balance that 

with protecting chemical companies. Now, that is his view on the 

thing. 

And I think at some point we might have to say that we have 

gone very far in our talks, everyone is friendly and amiable, and 

I really appreciate that as Chairman. But at some point there are 

going to be issues where there are just clear differences. And I do 

not think that is anything to be ashamed of. I think the people of 

this country need to understand the differences. There is nothing 

wrong with that. So we are going to move ahead. 

But I was also heartened to hear Senator Vitter say, and others, 

that they are going to continue to work with us because, if we do 

get this bill out, we do not know, if we do get this bill out, and it 

is ready for the floor, we are still open. I know Senator Lautenberg 

is still open to negotiations. So, I wanted to make that point. 

I want to ask my first question this way, Administrator Jones. 

Your testimony states that EPA is concerned that certain flame 

retardants called PBDEs are persistent, bioaccumulative, and toxic 

to humans and the environment and that their potential impacts 

on neurobehavioral development raise particular concerns for the 

health of our children. Can you explain why these types of persistent and bioaccumulative chemicals can raise unique threats to 

children’s health? 

Mr. JONES. Thank you, Senator Boxer. These compounds, PBDEs 

in particular, express toxicity in developing organisms, and we 

learned that about a dozen years ago through some data associated 

with developing organisms, development neurotoxicity studies. So, 

they affect the development of growing organisms, so, children in 

utero. 

But the fact that they are persistent and bioaccumulative creates 

additional concerns because they are going to last in the environment for a very long time. So, even after they are removed from 

the market, they are going to be in our environment for some time, 

and they are going to move up the food chain. So, that creates a 

different route of exposure to humans, not only from your exposure 

directly to such a chemical but also indirectly as they will get into 

the environment and move up the food chain. So, they will ultimately end up in foods that we consume. 

Senator BOXER. Well, I wanted to make a point that a study by 

researchers at UC, University of California San Francisco, detected 

certain PBDEs, PCBs, pthalates, pesticides, perchlorate, and other 

chemicals in the blood of 99 to 100 percent of pregnant women that 

they tested. So, our society is being exposed to these chemicals and 

39 

the most vulnerable, the fetuses, are getting exposed. And it is very 

serious. 

So I know, as we look at history, that TSCA needs to be reformed. I think everybody agrees with this. So, my question to you 

is, could you describe the additional tools to protect the health of 

pregnant women, infants, and children that reforming TSCA would 

provide to the EPA? In other words, what would it give you if it 

was done right that you cannot do now? 

Mr. JONES. Thank you, Senator Boxer. The things that we would 

hope to achieve as articulated in the Administration principles are 

that we would have, the manufacturers would be able to demonstrate the safety of compounds such as these before they are on 

the market, the agency would have tools for those chemicals that 

are on the market to quickly get health and safety information 

from manufacturers, and then the agency would have the tools it 

would need when we identify a risk to manage or mitigate the risks 

associated with those chemicals that are on the market. 

Senator BOXER. OK. Well, let me, I will just make a final comment and then pass it on to Ranking Member Inhofe. 

What you said is really key. I would bet that if we went outside 

and just asked anybody walking by if they thought that chemical 

companies have to do tests and prove the chemicals safe before it 

is used people would say of course. They would think that would 

be the case, that a chemical has to be proven safe before it is used. 

In actuality, under the law currently, the EPA has to prove it unsafe. Is that correct? 

Mr. JONES. That is correct, Senator. 

Senator BOXER. OK. So, what Senator Lautenberg is doing, 

which I so strongly support, is he is doing the common sense thing. 

He is saying, chemical companies, make sure your product is safe. 

Let us not have a series of disasters, cancers, all kinds of problems, 

after you introduce a new chemical. Prove it safe first. And then 

that would turn this thing around to a place that I think the people 

of America already believe is the case. 

So, thank you very much. 

Senator Inhofe. 

Senator INHOFE. Thank you, Madam Chairman. 

Perhaps Mr. Jones, because of my position on the Armed Services Committee, I have gotten a lot of concerns expressed as those 

were expressed in the letter that I made a part of the record. And 

in your April 2nd report it says downstream users believe that 

there will continue to be critical military and aeronautical uses of 

Deca-BDE after December 31, 2013. 

Now, I would like to ask you, did EPA actually consult these people prior to—at any time during this process? And if so, what will 

you be doing after this point, say this thing passes? 

Mr. JONES. Thanks, Senator Inhofe. So, you are referring to the 

phase-out of Deca-BDE, which becomes effective at the end of 2013. 

The agency is working with aircraft manufacturers as well as the 

Department of Defense to make sure that we fully understand 

their need for flame retardancy in aircraft, which we think it is 

very important that aircrafts are safe from fires, as you referenced 

in your testimony. And so, we are going to continue to work with 

40 

DOD and the aircraft manufacturers to make sure they have the 

tools to ensure that. 

Senator INHOFE. That is good. Let me just ask you, if you would 

do for the record and have it—so that we will have it writing and 

give me a chance to look at it, would you read the two documents 

that I made as a part of the record and respond to those documents 

for me as to your feelings, of you and the EPA? 

Mr. JONES. Absolutely, sir. 

Senator INHOFE. The other thing I wanted to ask you, to better 

understand where the EPA is on this, have you formally taken a 

position on the Lautenberg legislation? 

Mr. JONES. The Administration and myself, as part of that, have 

not taken a position on Senator Lautenberg’s bill. 

Senator INHOFE. OK. And have you provided policy advice or 

technical support to Senator Lautenberg about the latest revisions? 

Mr. JONES. My staff has been providing technical support to Senator Lautenberg for actually a number of years. 

Senator INHOFE. All right. And have you done any sort of review 

or analysis of S. 847, internally or for other purposes? And if so, 

could we be provided with that information? 

Mr. JONES. Simply technical analysis as opposed to any kind of 

policy analysis. 

Senator INHOFE. All right. Internally? 

Mr. JONES. Yes, that is right, provided to Senator Lautenberg’s 

staff. 

Senator INHOFE. I see. All right. Thank you very much. 

Thank you, Madam Chairman. 

Senator BOXER. Thank you very much, Senator. 

Senator Lautenberg. 

Senator LAUTENBERG. Thank you. We have looked at these 

things and tried to evaluate where we are. I never liked this thing. 

[Laughter.] 

Senator BOXER. We need to hear you. 

Senator LAUTENBERG. I will shout. 

[Laughter.] 

Senator LAUTENBERG. I mentioned that Senator Snowe and I recently sent a letter to the EPA, signed by 24 of our Senate colleagues, applauding EPA’s current actions on flame retardants. 

The letter also expressed concern that EPA’s authority to address 

these toxic flame retardants is limited under our current chemical 

safety law, the Toxic Substances Control Act. 

Does EPA’s limited authority under TSCA prevent the agency 

from providing the kind of protection that Americans want for their 

health risks of flame retardants? 

Mr. JONES. Thanks, Senator Lautenberg. I believe that it does. 

As I stated this morning and at other hearings, the burden is on 

the EPA to determine that these products are not safe. So, had we 

the authority to insist that the manufacturers demonstrate safety 

before they are on the market, I think it would significantly increase our confidence and the American public’s confidence that 

these products that are on the market are safe. 

Senator LAUTENBERG. Americans have among the highest blood 

concentrations of chemicals in the world. How does EPA’s legal authority to address risk from industrial chemicals compare to auVerDate Aug 31 2005 07:05 Aug 01, 2017 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00044 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 S:\_EPW\DOCS\25110.TXT SONYA
41 

thority on other countries, the Euro countries and other countries 

around, our neighbor, Canada? How do we compare with our maintenance of the best protections that we can develop compared to 

these countries? 

Mr. JONES. Thank you, Senator. Without at all making comparisons about the adequacy of other countries systems, it is pretty 

clear that Canada and the European Union have significantly more 

robust processes in place. They generally require the generation of 

health and safety data for chemicals that are sold on the market. 

Senator LAUTENBERG. Chemicals that are manufactured in the 

European Union? And the significance? 

Mr. JONES. As long as, if it sold in the European Union, whether 

is it manufactured there or not, the generation of health and safety 

data. 

Senator LAUTENBERG. The EPA has determined that PBDE 

flame retardants, and you said this, may be persistent, bioaccumulative, and toxic to both humans and the environment. What can 

we do to help those who are—have signs of the chemicals in their 

bodies at this point? We know that there is an effect that is negative on pregnancies. Is there anything that we can do to help ameliorate the conditions that these people find themselves in? 

Mr. JONES. Well, I think the most important thing we can do is 

what has happened and to keep that, the direction it is going in, 

the right direction, which is that those chemicals have been removed from the market. We are fortunate that the manufacturers 

of them have voluntarily agreed to remove them from the market. 

And so one of the things that we are doing to backstop that is to 

put in place a significant new use rule which should keep other 

manufacturers who may not have voluntarily agreed to such restrictions from entering the market without coming to the agency 

first where we would have to do a complete assessment. 

Senator LAUTENBERG. So, it is fairly obvious then, Mr. Jones, is 

it not, that companies realize a that there is a risk to people in our 

society from exposure to these chemicals, and second, is there not, 

in your judgment—and if I am stretching you, please say so—that 

to assume that the manufacturers would welcome an opportunity 

to have a uniform standard across the country that, so that there 

are a continuum of State decisions that may vary from State to 

State? 

Mr. JONES. As a general matter, I have learned over my career 

not to try to speculate into what goes on in the minds of—— 

Senator LAUTENBERG. Oh, that is too bad. 

Mr. JONES. But I will say in conversations I have had with manufacturers they are struggling with the patchwork of regulations 

that is developing in the United States. 

Senator LAUTENBERG. Thank you. 

Senator BOXER. Thank you. 

Senator Crapo. 

Senator CRAPO. Thank you, Madam Chairman. 

Mr. Jones, I would like to ask first a couple of questions to you 

about EPA’s position on Senate Bill 847. In your testimony at the 

Appropriations Subcommittee at which you testified last week, it 

seemed that you endorsed Senate Bill 847 through your comments 

but did not use the specific words of support or endorsement. And 

42 

for that reason, I think we need to clarify where the EPA and the 

Administration stand on the bill. Can you tell us whether the EPA 

has, in fact, take a formal position on Senate Bill 847? 

Mr. JONES. Senator Crapo, thanks for the question. The EPA, nor 

the Administration, has not taken a position on Senator Lautenberg’s bill. 

Senator CRAPO. Does the Administration plan to do so at any 

time soon? 

Mr. JONES. I am not aware of any plans for a statement of an 

Administration position on that bill at this time. 

Senator CRAPO. Has the Administration convened an interagency 

review of the legislation? Or do you know if that is intended to take 

place? 

Mr. JONES. The Administration has not convened such a group. 

Senator CRAPO. All right. Thank you. 

Also, just to move on to another topic, at your testimony last 

week before the Senate Appropriations Committee hearing, you 

stated that the EPA might have made a different pre-manufacturing notice determination in 1995 about the new flame retardant 

chemicals if TSCA has required the submission of more robust hazard exposure and use data to assess their risks. 

Can you explain to me a little more specifically what you referred 

to there that could have been provided but was not allowed to be 

sought under current statutory authorities? 

Mr. JONES. Sir, as I mentioned, the burden is on the agency to 

determine whether or not we think a new chemical meets the 

standard. And because we did not have data on the persistence of 

the bioaccumulation, we were using models that we had to try to 

estimate that. Unfortunately, for those particular compounds those 

models proved to be ineffective, so they did not flag the persistence 

and the bioaccumulation of the chemical. 

As a general matter, for chemicals coming in that are new that 

are persistent and bioaccumulative, because those two features 

tend to create problems over time, we insist on a much more robust 

health and safety testing. So, had we known they were persistent 

and bioaccumulative, we would have required the manufacturer— 

we would likely have required the manufacturer to generate health 

and safety data before entering the marketplace. 

Senator CRAPO. But you had no authority to obtain that information? 

Mr. JONES. We did, but as I said, if we do not know of the persistence and the bioaccumulation, and in this case our models were 

not good at predicting it, we did not because the practice was if you 

do not have persistence or bioaccumulation we are not going to insist on the generation of that data. 

Senator CRAPO. So, if the models were defective and did not tell 

you the information you should be seeking, but you did have statutory authority to obtain that information had you known, is it not 

a problem with the models? 

Mr. JONES. Well, one could say it is a problem with the overall 

structure. If the models are failing us across the board, that would 

put us in the position of requiring everyone to generate health and 

safety data before they are on the market. 

43 

Senator CRAPO. So, what, I guess what I am trying to get at is 

what do we need to do statutorily to fix that problem? 

Mr. JONES. We think that the statute needs to turn the burden 

around for the manufacturer to provide the agency the information 

necessary to demonstrate safety of the compound. And there are 

plenty of ways that can be done. Generally understanding characteristics like persistence, bioaccumulation, and toxicity is a key 

part of that. 

Senator CRAPO. TSCA Section 7 provides EPA the authority to 

regulate imminent hazards caused by chemical substances. Do you 

agree that is a pretty broad authority under Section 7? 

Mr. JONES. I have to admit, Senator Crapo, I have not spent 

much time with Section 7 in my tenure at EPA. So I do not feel 

prepared to answer that. 

Senator CRAPO. OK. As I review it, it appears that it is a pretty 

broad authority, and I am not aware of whether the EPA has ever 

even exercised its Section 7 authority. Again, I am getting at the 

question of what authorities the EPA does have now to achieve the 

necessary evaluation that you describe. So I would appreciate it if 

you would provide me with further information after you meet back 

with your staff. 

Mr. JONES. Sure. I would be happy to. 

Senator CRAPO. That is all I have, Mr. Chairman. 

Senator LAUTENBERG [presiding]. Senator Merkley. 

Senator MERKLEY. Thank you very much, Senator Lautenberg. 

And I must say that I was very struck by the Chicago Tribune 

story that laid out a history in which it noted that use of these 

flame retardants really gained steam when the cigarette industry 

was looking to provide an alternative focus for the public in terms 

of home fires and get away from the cigarette in the sofa explanation. Then, after the retardants started to become widely used, 

of course, those who make the retardants enjoyed the possibility of 

continuing to promote their use by engaging in kind of very dramatic testimony about children dying in fires. 

And what this article in the Tribune speaks to is that, and I will 

just quote the first paragraph or couple of paragraphs here, before 

California lawmakers last year, the burn surgeon drew gasps from 

the crowd as he described a 7-week-old baby girl who was burned 

in a fire started by a candle while she lay on a pillow that lacked 

flame retardant chemicals. 

Now, this is a tiny little person, no bigger than my Italian Greyhound at home, said Heimbach, gesturing to the baby’s size, approximately the baby’s size, half of her body was severely burned, 

she ultimately died after about 3 weeks of pain and misery in the 

hospital. His passionate testimony about the baby’s death made the 

long-term health concerns about flame retardants voiced by doctors 

and environmentalists and firefighters sound abstract and petty. 

But there was a problem with this testimony. It was not true. 

Records show that there was no dangerous pillow or candle fire. 

The baby he described did not exist. Neither did the 9-week-old patient who Heimbach told California legislators died in a candle fire 

in 2009. Nor did the 6-week-old patient that he told Alaska lawmakers was fatally burned in a crib in 2010. 

44 

Heimbach is not just a prominent burn doctor. He is a star witness for the manufacturers of flame retardants. His testimony, the 

Tribune found, is part of a decade’s long campaign of deception 

that has loaded the furniture and electronics in American homes 

with pounds of toxic chemicals linked to cancer, neurological defects, developmental problems, and impaired fertility. 

Then the article goes on to note that the industry often points 

to a Government study from the 1980s as proof that flame 

retardants save lives. But the study’s lead author, Mr. Babrauskas, 

said in an interview that the industry has distorted his findings 

and that the amount of retardants used in household furniture 

does not work. The fire just laughs at it, he said. 

So, here we have kind of testimony that the retardants do not 

work, testimony that the retardants cause all of these other kinds 

of problems, testimony that the amount in the American baby has 

doubled roughly every 2 to 5 years since—I believe it was since 

1980. Is this not exactly the type of problem that the EPA is there 

to watch for? And I just heard you testify that we did not look into 

it, and yet we have these blood studies that show that it was doubling every couple of years in the body. Certainly, that must speak 

to the bioaccumulative presence. 

Has the EPA been asleep at the switch, and has it woken up? 

Mr. JONES. Thanks, Senator Merkley. As I mentioned earlier 

today, one of the major classes of flame retardants, PBDEs, have 

been phased out in the United States. There is one last chemical 

that is at the end game of its being phased out. But that was done 

through a voluntary agreement with the manufacturer for a couple 

of reasons. One is that it was very hard for us to get the health 

and safety data that we needed to evaluate those compounds. And 

then, taking a chemical off the market under TSCA has proven to 

be incredibly difficult for the Government. We were fortunate in 

this case that the manufacturers were willing to take those compounds off the market. 

There are a number of other flame retardants that are on the 

market, and we are going to begin to assess their safety in the next 

fiscal year, 2013, including two of the flame retardants mentioned 

in the Chicago Tribune story. So EPA has not been living up to, 

I think, what the American public expects, but I think a good part 

of that has to do with the challenges that the Toxic Substances 

Control Act creates for us. 

Senator MERKLEY. When you said that several had been phased 

out, there are several different versions of this, the Octa version 

and the Deca version. Is that what you are speaking to? These different versions? 

Mr. JONES. Penta and Octa have been phased out. Deca is in the 

end of its phase-out right now. 

Senator MERKLEY. One of the things that is pointed out is that 

infants are particularly susceptible to this because they are crawling around on the carpet, and the carpet collects the dust from various products that have this as well as some of the carpets themselves have it in it. And so a child being very close to the carpet, 

playing on the carpet, breathing inches away from the carpet, is far 

more exposed than an adult. Is this an issue that you have studied 

and looked into? 

45 

Mr. JONES. Ultimately the assessments that we do for these compounds are going to include that route of exposure that you have 

described which is that the compound often either leaches out or 

from rubbing comes off of the originally treated material and ends 

up in house dust and often can end up in carpet or on floors and 

thus lead to a hand-mouth exposure. 

Senator MERKLEY. Thank you. 

Senator BOXER. Thank you, Senator. 

Senator Vitter. 

Senator VITTER. Thank you, Madam Chair, and thank you, Administrator Jones. 

As I mentioned in my opening statement, I think a big hurdle 

we face in this area generally is a dramatic erosion of broad-based 

confidence over several years in the science agencies like EPA uses. 

And I mention as a prime example of that this NAS study that underscored the inadequacy of that science. And it implicated pretty 

broadly the IRIS process. And as I also said, the EPA essentially 

acknowledged this and through Dr. Paul Anastas committed to 

major core reforms to address that in the IRIS process. 

Since then, what are the major core reforms to the IRIS process 

that have been implemented by the EPA? What are they, and how 

do they address these concerns and this erosion of confidence? 

Mr. JONES. Thanks, Senator Vitter. The principal reform that the 

agency has already embraced is increasing the public participation 

associated with IRIS reviews. Internally, we are also broadening 

the offices outside of ORD that participate in IRIS assessments. 

You may or may not know that the Office of Research and Development manages the IRIS process as opposed to my office. 

Senator VITTER. I am aware of that. But go back to the first 

thing you said. Public participation. What do you mean by that? 

How does that attack the problems I cited? 

Mr. JONES. Transparency has been one of the tools the agency 

has long relied on to ensure the integrity of our scientific processes. 

And so allowing people who are not employees of the agency to look 

at our work and give us their feedback we have found to be a very 

effective means to ensuring the integrity of our science processes. 

Senator VITTER. So, you are talking about peer review? 

Mr. JONES. Both peer review as well as just broad public comment. 

Senator VITTER. And what truly independent peer review is now 

mandated in the IRIS process? 

Mr. JONES. I am not familiar with the specific requirements that 

the IRIS program has put in place for independent peer review. We 

are—the compounds that our offices work with them on have all 

had internal peer reviews associated with them. 

Senator VITTER. OK. Well, let me just underscore that a lot of 

folks would not consider that robust and adequate. Usually, peer 

review means very independent peer review, clearly outside the 

academic institution or the agency that something is emanating 

from. 

Also related to this, as you know, the last omnibus appropriation 

bill mandated further reviews by National Academy of Sciences 

about this further contracts. Can you tell us the status of those 

NAS reviews and contracts? 

46 

Mr. JONES. I am not familiar, Senator Vitter, with the status of 

contracts related to the appropriations requirements. 

Senator VITTER. OK. If you can have someone follow up and add 

that to the testimony because that goes directly to my concerns? 

Thank you. 

Senator BOXER. Colleagues, we have been joined by two colleagues. I think we are going to move to the panel, and then I will 

call on Senator Carper first, then Senator Cardin, then we will go 

back and forth. 

Is that OK with you, Senator Vitter? 

Senator VITTER. Yes. 

Senator BOXER. OK. Thank you. So, we thank you very much. 

We are very honored to call forth panel No. 2. Hannah Pingree, 

a Former Speaker of the Main House of Representatives, speaking 

to us as a mom. She will discuss State efforts to ban certain flame 

retardant chemicals. Dr. Heather Stapleton, Assistant Professor of 

Environment Chemistry at the Nicholas School of the Environment 

at Duke. She will discuss the science on the health effects of certain flame retardants. Those are both majority witnesses. 

Two minority witnesses. Marshall Moore, Director, Technology, 

Advocacy and Marketing, Great Lakes Solutions, a Chemtura business. They will speak about chemicals, including flame retardants. 

William Rawson, another minority witness, Partner, Chair, Environment, Land and Resources Department, Latham & Watkins, attorney for chemical manufacturers including of flame retardants. 

And Tony Stefani, President, Founder, San Francisco Firefighters Cancer Prevention Foundation. This is a majority witness, 

and I am proud, a Californian, who is a cancer survivor. He will 

discuss local efforts to help firefighters who are exposed to chemicals during and after fires, including with medical monitoring. 

We are going to start with Hannah Pingree. We welcome you. 

STATEMENT OF HANNAH PINGREE, MOTHER, FORMER 

SPEAKER OF THE MAINE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

Ms. PINGREE. Chairwoman Boxer, Senator Lautenberg, Ranking 

Member Inhofe, and members of the Committee, my name is Hannah Pingree, and I thank you for this invitation. 

I am here as the Former Speaker of the Maine House. I am also 

here as the mother of a young daughter, and I am 6 months pregnant. I am here on my own behalf, but I also work as a consultant 

for Safer Chemicals, Healthy Families, the national coalition working to protect our kids from the health impacts of toxic chemicals. 

I have been involved in chemical regulation issues for nearly 10 

years as a legislator and advocate. But today, as a parent, I am 

more concerned than ever about the current state of chemicals in 

our products. 

Today we know that the umbilical cord blood of every American 

pregnant woman tested shows multiple chemicals such that our babies are born into this world with toxins in their bodies that we 

know can harm their health and their development. 

At the age of 30, I participated in a study of 13 Maine people 

called Body of Evidence in which I was tested for 71 chemicals. I 

had the second highest levels of phthalates and mercury in our 

study. My mercury levels were above the safety standard for proVerDate Aug 31 2005 07:05 Aug 01, 2017 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00050 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 S:\_EPW\DOCS\25110.TXT SONYA
47 

tection of a developing fetus, and I had levels of flame retardants, 

arsenic, PFCs, and BPA. They were all cause for concern. As a lifelong resident of a small, offshore island with no major industry or 

pollution, without a doubt the chemicals in me came from products 

in my home and the food that I eat. 

These results also arrived in the midst of our Maine legislative 

work to ban flame retardants in which experts from the industry 

told us that these toxins do not buildup in people’s bodies above the 

safety threshold. Our study suggested that they were wrong. 

Because of the failure of TSCA to regulate thousands of chemicals in our products, States across the country have been forced to 

step in to protect public health. Since 2003 more than 150 policies 

in 30 States have been passed to limit exposure to toxic chemicals. 

The vast majority of these laws were passed with overwhelming 

majorities of Democratic and Republican legislators and Governors. 

Across the country, lawmakers experiences with the chemical industry in passing these laws echoed those detailed in the spring 

Chicago Tribune expose ́ which revealed a pattern of unethical behavior. Legislators were misled and even lied to about the health 

impact of chemicals and the ability of flame retardants to prevent 

fires. 

In Maine, I sponsored successful bills to ban brominated flame 

retardants, known as PBDEs, in both 2004 and 2007. In our first 

interactions with industry, their concerns, their experts argued 

that these chemicals were safe and that our health concerns were 

alarmist. Today we know that these flame retardants are associated in delays with brain impacts in kids, reproductive problems, 

and cancer risks. A new study just released has linked exposure to 

these chemicals during pregnancy with increased autism risk. 

In 2007 I brought forward a phase-out of the flame retardant 

Deca used in everything from TVs to mattresses to upholstery. The 

bill attracted more money and deception than any other piece of 

legislation during my tenure in the House. The chemical industry 

paid for weeks of TV and newspaper ads as well as radio, mail, and 

robo-calls. Their front group, called Keep America Fire-Safe, paid 

for ads that claimed that Maine legislators were seeking to weaken 

fire safety accompanied by B-roll of a burning house. 

Despite their campaign, few Mainers contacted us. And despite 

their name, the industry had no support from fire safety groups. 

Both the Maine fire chiefs and our firefighters union were among 

our most passionate supporters. 

The industry flew in a man for the public hearing who had been 

seriously burned as a child. When questioned by committee members, he admitted that his burns were not caused by a lack of flame 

retardants and that he was a paid witness for the industry. Their 

goal was only to mislead and to shock. Luckily, those tactics were 

offensive to Maine legislators. In the end, the Deca ban was supported by unanimous vote in the House and the 32 to 2 vote in the 

Senate and signed by our Governor. 

We learned in Maine and repeatedly across the country that this 

industry’s primary tactic is to deny and mislead, hide health information, and then agree to voluntary phase-out of the chemical. The 

industry, after denying any health concerns in Maine in 2007, 

48 

agreed in 2009 to a U.S. phase-out of Deca for virtually all consumer uses. 

The challenge of sorting out chemicals in our products is overwhelming as a parent. Before my daughter was born, my husband 

and I researched crib mattresses, and after reading countless Web 

sites and blogs, we spent a couple of hundred extra dollars for a 

mattress free of flame retardants. Keeping a child safe in their bed 

should not take extra research or money. 

Despite our decision to buy a green mattress, we still have our 

old couch in the living room and our mattress in our bed, both likely treated with several pounds of flame retardants each. Whether 

it is our couches, our kids toys, our car seats, there is no required 

disclosure or warning signs about chemicals and their health impacts. And that is why we moms and parents across the country 

need leadership from you, our Federal leaders. We need safe products for our kids and our families. 

In closing, I want to thank Senator Lautenberg for championing 

the Safe Chemicals Act, Senator Boxer for her leadership, and I 

want to thank my two Senators, Senators Snowe and Collins both 

for joining the bipartisan call for an overhaul of the nation’s chemical safety laws. 

The system has been ineffective since the passage of TSCA in 

1976, the year I was born. I understand that this Committee will 

consider the Safe Chemicals Act tomorrow, and for the sake of my 

kids’ health, your children and grandkids and millions across the 

country, I urge this Committee to take immediate action to remedy 

our broken system. 

Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Ms. Pingree follows:] 

49 


25110.028

STATEMENT OF HANNAH PINGREE TO THE 

U.S. SENATE ENVIRONMENT AND PUBLIC WORKS COMMITTEE 

AND THE SUBCOMMITTEE ON SUPERFUND, TOXICS AND 

ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH 

HEARING: "OVERSIGHT OF THE EPA AUTHORITIES AND ACTIONS TO 

CONTROL EXPOSURES TO TOXIC CHEMICALS." 

July 24,2012 

Chairwoman Boxer, Chairman Lautenberg, Ranking Members Inhofe and Crapo, and 

members of the committee, my name is Hannah Pingree, and I am honored to be here to 

testify on the issue of toxic chemical regulation-especially flame retardants-and our 

health. 

1 thank the leadership of this committee for bringing this important issue to light. I am 

here as the former Speaker of the Maine House, term limited as a state representative in 

2010 atler eight years of service. I am also here as the mother of a 16 month-old daughter 

and, as you might have noted, I am also 6 months pregnant with our second child. Lastly, 

while I am here on my own behalf, I also work part-time as a consultant for Safer 

Chemicals, Healthy Families, the national coalition working to improve our chemical 

safety laws and protect our kids and families from the health impacts of toxic chemicals. 

I have been involved in toxic chemical regulation issues for nearly ten years as a 

legislator and advocate, but today-as a parent-I am more passionate and concerned 

than ever about the current state of chemical safety for my kids and millions of other kids 

across the country. 

When I started working on this issue in 2004 as a young legislator, it took some 

complicated explanation of the issues to relay what I was working on to friends and 

family. Today, people I talk to understand this issue immediately, and they are outraged 

that nothing has been done to fix this problem. Moms hear about chemicals in their 

babies' products, in our food supply, and in our environment from television, magazines, 

and from friends. Public polls indicate that huge majorities of Americans agree that better 

regulation of toxic chemicals, especially for the sake of kids' health, is just common 

sense. 

Today I want to bring you three messages-two from the perspective of a legislator, and 

one from my immediate vantage point as a new parent. 

First, because of the failure of the federal Toxic Substance Control Act and the EPA to 

regulate chemicals in consumer products, states across the country have been forced to 

try to pick up the pieces of this complicated regulatory issue. As states, we have taken 

action in response to what we believe is an urgent threat to the health of children and 

families in our states. 

Since 2003, 95 policies in 30 states have been enacted to limit the public's exposure to 

toxic chemicals. The vast majority of these policies were enacted with the support of 

significant majorities of both Democratic and Republican legislators and governors. The 
50 


25110.029

states began with action to limit mercury and lead, and have since passed successful 

limits on brominated flame-retardants, phthalates, BPA, and cadmium. Bans on the 

chemical chlorinated-tris have also been proposed in several states, and a ban of 

chlorinated-tris in children's products was recently enacted in the New York Assembly. 

In the 2012 legislative sessions, 28 new state-level policies were introduced across the 

country in an attempt to limit toxic chemicals in consumer products. 

California, Maine, Washington, and Minnesota have each passed more comprehensive 

bills that create broad state-level regulatory regimes or public-disclosure and listing 

requirements for those chemicals of highest concern for public health. Washington 

State's program issued a final rule in 20 II that listed 66 chemicals of concern and 

required children's product manufacturers to report on whether their products contain 

these chemicals by August 31,2012. Once the product data is available, the Washington 

state legislature may consider bans or phase-outs of some of those chemicals of concern, 

in order to protect kids and vulnerable populations. Three weeks ago, my home state of 

Maine adopted a list of 49 Chemicals of High Concern. For two priority chemicals, 

Maine has already adopted regulations to require reporting, evaluate safer alternatives, or 

prohibit the sale of consumer products containing those chemicals. 

The states have been important laboratories for democracy on this issue. The states have 

also worked to spur innovation, with green chemical incentives and research and 

development. The policies implemented across the states have attempted to fill the void 

left by the inaction of the federal government and the EPA. In the absence of federal 

protection from chemicals we know to be dangerous for human health, states have been 

forced to act. 

The states will continue to work to innovate on this front, but-especially in this dire 

fiscal climate-state governments lack both the resources and the staff to do the kind of 

scientific work that is needed to fully regulate the vast inventory of chemicals used in 

commerce. That is why this hearing today is important, and real reform of the toxic 

substance control act-as outlined in the Safe Chemicals Act sponsored by Chairman 

Lautenberg-is so crucial. 

Second, as a former state legislator, I am here to provide a first hand account of the 

actions of the chemical industry and its political allies. In Maine and in states across the 

country, legislators have observed and been the subject of repeated negative and 

deceptive campaigns to thwart common sense regulation of chemicals. 

The Chicago Tribune series "Playing with Fire" 1 did an excellent job uncovering the 

over-the-top tactics of both the flame retardant industry and its front group, "Citizens for 

Fire Safety." 

The striking facts and details uncovered by the Chicago Tribune investigation four-part 

investigation include: 

• A decades long pattern by the chemical industry of denying basic health impacts 

of flame retardants, including their negative health consequences and the fact that 

they can build up in our bodies, despite clear scientific evidence to the contrary. 

The Tribune states: "A typical American baby is born with the highest recorded 

concentrations of flame retardants among infants in the world," and that, "blood 
51 


25110.030

levels of widely used flame retardants doubled in adults every two to five years 

between 1970 and 2004." 

• Chemical industry lobbyists, front groups, and paid witnesses who distorted and 

inflated information about the ability of certain flame retardants to prevent the 

spread of fires. 

• Paid medical testimony to legislative committees about anecdotes involving fires 

and burn victims, including the testimony in numerous state legislatures of Dr. 

David Heimbach, who gave several varying graphic descriptions of babies who 

died after being burned in their cribs due to a lack of flame retardants. All of his 

medical testimony proved later to be fabricated, but at the time his testimony had 

enormous impacts on legislative committees. His appearances were paid for by 

"Citizens for Fire Safety". 

• The chemical industry front group, "Citizens for Fire Safety" falsely claimed in 

California that the ban on fire retardants was a racial issue and that minority 

children in particular would "burn to death if flame retardants were removed from 

household products." 

The chemical industry recruited a tobacco industry lobbyist to engage the 

National Association of State Fire Marshals to hatch a successful plan to increase 

the required use of flame retardants to assist the US tobacco industry. At the time 

the tobacco industry was making an all out effort to avoid pending regulations 

requiring the tobacco industry to produce "fire-safety" cigarettes and they saw 

increasing the use of flame retardants as a potential solution, rather than changing 

their cigarettes. 

• The Tribune writes about the increase in the use of flame retardants, largely due 

to government regulations (and lobbying efforts on the part of folks like the 

National Fire Marshals): "In the last quarter-century, worldwide demand for 

flame retardants has skyrocketed to 3.4 billion pounds in 2009 from 526 million 

pounds in 1983." In the typical American home, that translates into pounds of 

these chemicals in our furniture, mattresses, and electronics. 

Legislators' experiences across the country echo those detailed in the Chicago Tribune. 

They have been misled and even lied to by the chemical industry about the health impacts 

of flame retardants and their ability to prevent fires. The chemical industry has repeatedly 

used false, misleading and over-the-top tactics to attempt to win. Today, I bring you a 

few more stories of the outrageous tactics of the chemical industry, their front group 

''Citizens for Fire Safety", and the American Chemistry Council, from Maine, Minnesota, 

and Alaska. 

In Maine, we dealt first hand with denial of the basic science and health impacts of flame 

retardant chemicals, we encountered a front group that was the precursor to "Citizens for 

Fire Safety", and we heard from a bum victim who was paid by the chemical industry to 

appear before our legislature. And we faced a barrage of negative pressure on television, 

in full-page newspaper ads, and in our legislature from chemical industry lobbyists. 

In Minnesota, the "Citizens for Fire Safety" group and its battery of lobbyists went so far 

as to distribute a false letter-purporting to be from a local county hospital burn centeropposing a flame-retardant ban on the floor of the House. 

And in Alaska, the same Dr. Heimbach exposed in the Chicago Tribune series for his 
52 


25110.031

paid testimony and lies in other states, convinced key legislators to oppose flameretardant legislation. Dr. Heimbach's fabricated story, paid for by the chemical industry, 

ultimately thwarted Alaska's attempts at regulating this toxic flame retardant. 

I am also submitting for the record several letters from state legislators around the 

country, firefighters, and health groups that echo this same message: We're tired of the 

misleading lobbying campaigns in the face of this dire threat to public health, and we're 

looking to you, our leaders, for federal reform of our current broken system of regulation. 

MAINE: 

Maine and Washington were among the first states to take aggressive action to limit the 

use ofPBDE-flame retardants (polybrominated-diphenyl ethers), from 2003 through 

2007. It was in these early years that we first saw the tactics of the flame retardant 

industry and its trade association, tactics that would later be repeated and intensified in 

other states. In Maine and Washington, the chemical industry started using paid front 

groups, spent aggressively on media to defeat state chemical regulation, honed its denial 

arguments, and-shortly after losing votes on flame retardant bans of Deca-BDE, in 

Washington and then Maine-changed the name of its industry front group and officially 

launched "Citizens for Fire Safety." 

Specifically in Maine, I sponsored three different successful measures to limit brominated 

flame retardants known as PBDEs, and another more comprehensive chemical reform 

law called the "Kid Safe Products Act". All four measures were successful and signed 

into law, and each piece of legislation was the target of its own attack from the chemical 

industry, lobbyists, trade groups, and witnesses paid by the chemical lobby. 

In 2004, we passed LD 1790: "An Act To Reduce Contamination of Breast Milk and the 

Environment from the Release ofBrominated Chemicals in Consumer Products." The 

final law prohibited the sale of products, such as couches and chairs with foam cushions, 

containing the brominated flame retardants known as "Penta-BDE" and "Octa-BDE", and 

established a goal to phase out the flame-retardant "Deca-BDE" if safer alternatives were 

proven available. The bill was passed with an overwhelming bipartisan 125-6 margin in 

the Maine House, unanimously passed in the Senate, and signed by the Governor. 

The second bill, in 2007, was LD 1658, "An Act To Protect Pregnant Women and 

Children from Toxic Chemicals Released into the Home", which phased out the use of 

the flame retardant Deca-BDE in consumer products, including televisions, computers, 

mattress pads, and residential upholstery. The legislation required a finding that safer 

alternatives or other means of preventing fire be available for the chemical to be phased 

out. The legislation was supported by a unanimous, 129-0 roll call in the House, a 32-2 

vote in the Senate, and signed by the Governor. 

Lastly, in 2010, we enacted LD 1568, "An Act to Clarify Maine's Phaseout of 

Polybrominated Diphenyl Ethers," which phased out new uses ofDeca-BDE in plastic 

shipping pallets and established a presumption that other brominated or chlorinated flame 

retardants should be avoided as replacements. This law passed unanimously before being 

signed by the Governor. 

In our first interactions with the flame retardant chemical industry, in 2004, a trade group 
53 


25110.032

funded by the major flame retardant manufacturers called the Bromine and Science and 

Environmental Forum brought in paid consultants, scientists, and the head of the bromine 

chemical group from Belgium. They spent weeks before our Joint House and Senate 

Natural Resources Committee arguing that brominated flame retardant chemicals were 

safe and that those of us raising health concerns were simply alarmists. By that time, 

Europe was already starting to take action, restricting those same chemicals. In 2004, 

numerous studies had already shown negative health impacts, especially in children and 

developing fetuses. 

In 2007, with support from the Maine Department of Environmental Protection, and after 

several years of study, we brought forward a phase-out of Deca-BDE in consumer 

products in the home. That bill attracted more out-of-state lobbying money and deceptive 

tactics than any other piece of pending legislation I worked on or observed during my 

entire eight years in the Maine House. 

While Maine doesn't have disclosure laws that would allow us to understand the full 

magnitude of the spending against the bill, we know that the chemical industry hired 

many of the state's top paid lobbyists and public relations groups. They proceeded to pay 

for several weeks of high-saturation television and newspaper advertising across the state, 

urging the defeat of the chemical ban. They ran 27 full-page ads in the state's largest 

newspapers.2 And in addition to weeks of television ads, they purchased radio spots, 

direct mail to voters, and paid robo-calls. The chemical industry front group at the time 

was called "Keep America Fire-Safe" (since renamed "Citizens for Fire Safety"). Despite 

their name, during their time before the Maine legislature, the chemical industry and its 

allies had no support from state fire safety groups or fire professionals. 

"Keep America Fire-Safe" paid for an ad that claimed Maine legislators were seeking to 

weaken fire safety, accompanied by video of a burning house. The ad urged the public to 

call their legislators and tell them to vote against these proposed changes for the sake of 

fire safety. Despite the relentless ad campaign, very few members of the public called the 

State House, and the front group failed to convince the public of its argument. A nearly 

identical ad aired in Washington State, and then later in California, paid for by "Citizens 

for Fire Safety". 

Maine's campaign was orchestrated by John Kyte, managing director at the time of 

Burson-Marsteller, the public relations firm, on behalf of the three major bromine 

chemical manufacturers (Albermarle, Chemtura, and ICL Industrial Products). BursonMarsteller, on behalf of the bromine chemical companies, also did pro bono work for the 

National Association of State Fire Marshals, an organization that received significant 

financial support from chemical companies. That same fire marshals association then 

lobbied for more stringent state flammability standards-which would require more 

flame retardant chemicals. 

Despite the conflict with the National Association of State Fire Marshals, our Maine 

flame retardant bans were strongly supported by Maine's fire professionals, including the 

State Fire Chiefs Association and the major state firefighter's union, the International 

Association of Fire Fighters. Both groups worked aggressively for the bills' passage, and 

the firefighters spoke passionately about the negative impacts of these chemicals on 

firefighter health. The men and women who are at greatest risk and most experienced 
54 


25110.033

with house fires argued that safer alternatives should be used to protect both public health 

and public safety. 

The chemical industry flew in paid scientific experts and a burn victim for the legislative 

hearing. The burn victim, who had obviously been seriously burned, claimed to have 

been burned as a child in his crib. When questioned by legislative committee members 

after his testimony, he admitted to being a paid witness for the chemical industry and he 

also admitted that his childhood burns weren't caused by a lack of flame retardant 

chemicals. Clearly the industry was going for shock value and not an accurate 

representation of one man's devastating injuries. 

In 201 0, we took on the issue of Deca-BDE in plastic pallets. The industry once again 

claimed that deca does not leach out of plastic, even with testing evidence to the contrary. 

We learned in Maine that each plastic pallet being used for a variety of uses, including 

the shipping of fresh and packaged foods, contained a few pounds of the Deca-BDE 

chemical, and that millions of plastic pallets were already un use. We realized that 

Maine's efforts in 2007 to reduce the amount of Deca-BDE in the environment through 

phase out of major home consumer uses could quickly be replaced by putting even larger 

amounts of the same chemical in shipping pallets and other uses. At no point did anyone 

credibly counter that Deca-BDE breaks down in the environment into far more dangerous 

toxic byproducts that can be easily absorbed by the human body. 

In Maine, what we heard repeatedly from industry was that these chemicals were safe, 

and that there were no proven health impacts related to these chemicals, including the 

flame retardant Deca-BDE. Yet, after aggressively denying the health impacts before the 

Maine legislature in 2007, in 2009 the industry agreed to a U.S. phase out ofDeca-BDE 

for virtually all consumer uses. 

We learned early on in Maine, and again and again over the years, that the chemical 

industry's primary tactic is to deny, hide health information, and then agree to 

"voluntarily" stop producing the chemical-but still refuse to admit harm. After fierce 

lobbying and overwhelming media spending, Maine's results were likely disappointing to 

the chemical industry, but they were a win for Maine consumers and public health. 

MINNESOTA: 

In 2008, the flame retardant industry and "Citizens for Fire Safety" had already faced 

losses in several states, and they went all-out to defeat a ban on Deca-BDE and phthalates 

in the Minnesota legislature. "Citizens for Fire Safety", specific chemical companies, and 

the American Chemistry Council (ACC) hired sixteen paid lobbyists to work against the 

bans. At least four paid lobbyists, including the lead lobbyist against the ban, were being 

paid by the ACC during the 2008 session. At the time, the ACC employed eight state 

lobbyists working in the Minnesota legislature. Between the ACC and "Citizens for Fire 

Safety", the industry spent $335,000 on paid lobbyists alone, according to state ethics 

filings. 

During one of the legislative hearings on the bill, paid industry expert Laura Ruiz 

testified on behalf of the Bromine Science and Environmental Forum that Deca didn't debrominate, or break down into smaller toxic byproducts, the way other brominated flame 

retardant chemicals did. Numerous scientific studies in the US and Europe confirmed that 
55 


25110.034

Deca-BDE did break down into more dangerous components that were more likely to 

cause negative health impacts, and yet the industry-paid "expert" was still denying this 

important information before a legislative panel. At certain points in her advocacy career, 

Ms. Ruiz held the title of Director of Consumer Advocacy for Albermarle Corporation, 

one of the three major brominated flame retardant manufacturers. On various occasions 

she also represented the Bromine Science and Environmental Forum. She once signed a 

letter as the chair of the "American Fire Safety Council", and also appeared as a 

representative of"Citizens for Fire Safety." 

While promoting faulty science was disturbing, "Citizens for Fire Safety" took unethical 

lobbying to another level during the debate on the floor of the Minnesota House. During a 

heated debate on the bill, when they knew chances oflosing were high, "Citizens for Fire 

Safety" distributed a misleading and unauthorized letter from the Hennepin County 

Hospital Bum Unit, claiming that more children would be burned and injured in 

Minnesota if the ban on Deca-BDE was successful. A legislator who also worked with 

Hennepin County recognized the letter as not authentic and approved by the hospital. 

Minnesota Speaker of the House Margaret Kelliher was so angered by the false letter that 

she had House pages collect and destroy every copy of the letter that had been printed 

and distributed. 

Following that incident, the Minnesota House passed the ban. A similar measure passed 

the Senate, and, as in the House, did so with broad bi-partisan support. Unfortunately, the 

bill did not become law, as Governor Pawlenty caved to industry pressure and vetoed the 

legislation. 

ALASKA: 

Senator Wielechowksi, the sponsor of recent flame retardant proposals in Alaska, 

recently recalled the events of the past several years and their dealings with the infamous 

Dr. Heimbach as the Alaska Legislature debated flame retardant legislation. The Chicago 

Tribune expose recently revealed that Dr. Heimbach's testimony and paid advocacy that 

helped defeat the flame-retardant ban in Alaska was based on misleading and false facts. 

Dr. David Heimbach recounted the following story to the Senate Health and Social 

Services Committee on March 17, 20103

: 

HEIMBACH, Professor of Surgery, University of 

Washington, said he takes care of all of the Alaskan burn 

patients and there were about 35 last year. He said that he has 

very strong feelings that sort of flame retardant should be used 

in sleepwear and mattresses because people who don't have this 

protection are at significant risk in the event of fire. He 

related a story of a six-week-old baby whose crib mattress did 

not have flame retardant. A dog knocked a candle into the crib 

and the baby suslained a devastating 75 percent burn, but a 

pillow in the bed had flame retardant and did not catch fire. 

Though Alaska's flame retardant ban bill did pass the full Senate (14-6) in 2010, 

"Citizens for Fire Safety" and industry groups successfully influenced the vote of several 

Senators. It was held up in the House Labor and Commerce Committee. 
56 


25110.035

The bill was brought back to the Senate floor in April of2012, and one Senator stated 

that he was changing his vote from a "yes" to a "no" the floor of the Senate because of a 

paper that was handed to him as he walked onto the floor. The Senator stated in his floor 

speech that he came to the floor prepared to support the bill, but a statement from Dr. 

Heimbach changed his mind. 

Senator Wielechowski recently requested a memo from Alaska legislative legal council 

concerning Dr. Heimbach's false testimony before the legislature. Unfortunately, though 

Dr. Heimbach deliberately misled Alaska state legislators, he likely did not do anything 

illegal, because he was not under oath when he gave those statements. So, in Alaska, as is 

the case in many other states, there is no recourse against the chemical industry for 

paying doctors to deliberately mislead legislators. 

The expose in the Chicago Tribune and the stories from these three states-and many 

more like them-reveal a deceptive and dangerous industry that has only its financial 

interests in mind. They illustrate the extreme measures-including lying to legislators 

and misleading the public-that the chemical industry will employ simply to protect 

corporate profits. 

This is the same industry that demands the public's trust about the safety and health 

impacts of chemicals in consumer products. But why on earth should any American trust 

these companies? My experiences as a legislator in Maine have me firmly convinced that 

the chemical industry cannot be trusted to accurately describe the safety-or lack 

thereof--of its own products. Our current federal chemical law has essentially put the fox 

in charge of the henhouse. We need real change. 

Lastly, I want to speak to you as both a parent and a pregnant woman. In the last ten 

years, our understanding of the role chemicals play in the development of children and 

fetuses has changed dramatically. Though we still have much to learn, we are beginning 

to identify causal relationships that may explain the health trends we have watched 

unfold over the last several decades. We know for a fact that exposures to certain toxic 

chemicals impact the brain development, immune systems, and future reproductive 

systems of our kids. 

We also know that the umbilical cord blood of every American pregnant woman tested 

shows multiple toxic chemicals. A 2011 study by University of San Francisco researcher 

Dr. Tracy Woodruff found certain PCBs, pesticides, PFCs, PBDEs, phthalates, and 

several other chemicals in 99 to I 00 percent of the pregnant women tested. BPA was 

found in 96 percent of the women studied4

• While the science is continually evolving and 

advancing, we know that exposure to chemicals in fetal development has been shown to 

increase a variety of negative health consequences, including impacts on all the major 

health system developments, from the brain to the immune and reproductive systems of 

fetuses. 

In 2006, at the age of30, I participated in a study of thirteen Maine people called "Body 

ofEvidence"5

, in which I was tested for a battery of different chemicals in my body. We 

were tested for 71 different chemicals, including flame retardants, BPA, mercury, and 

PCBs. I had the second highest level of total phthalates and second highest level of 

mercury in the Maine study group. My mercury levels were above the safety standard for 
57 


25110.036

protection of a developing fetus from subtle but permanent brain damage. And I had 

levels of flame retardants, arsenic, PFCs, and BP A that were all cause for concern. 

Each of the thirteen Mainers who were tested had unsafe levels of at least one, if not 

multiple, chemicals that were higher than the national test results for most Americans. 

For me personally, I have spent most of my life as a resident of a small, offshore island 

with a beautiful landscape, no major industrial pollution, and few residents. Without a 

doubt, most of the chemicals in my body came from products and furniture in my home, 

personal care products, and the food I eat. 

My chemical body burden results came in the midst of our legislative battles on flame 

retardants, in which lobbyists and "experts" from the chemical industry repeated their 

mantra that the chemicals we were seeking to regulate are unlikely to build up or remain 

in people's bodies, and that the average person carries chemicals in her body that are 

beneath the threshold of safety. Our study suggested exactly the opposite. 

My chemical body burden results also came just months after my engagement. The idea 

ofhaving children had just recently started to seem like a more immediate possibility. 

The fact that chemicals were found in my body at a level that could impact not only my 

health but that of a developing baby changed me. Before, I had been simply an advocate 

for safer chemical reforms. Now, I am a passionate believer that something needs to be 

done to fix this system--especially for the sake of our kids. Suddenly the realization that 

this was something real-a threat to my health and the health of my friends, family, and 

future children-made this issue seem different, and more important than ever before. 

As a former policy maker, my own personal information drives me to stay involved. But 

as a parent and mother, this information just makes me angry. How could we-citizens of 

one of the most technologically and scientifically advanced democracies in human 

history-allow ordinary household products to contain chemicals that we know cause 

negative health impacts for our children? What possible explanation--other than the 

power of chemical industry lobbying--could there be for such a situation? 

We know that certain cancers, including childhood brain cancer and childhood leukemia, 

have increased over the last few decades. We know that the rates of autism have 

skyrocketed to the highest levels to date, now impacting I in 88 children born in the 

United States, and 1 in every 54 boys. We also know that women in my generation are far 

more likely to suffer from problems getting pregnant, compared to our mothers. And we 

know that American children are experiencing puberty at an earlier and earlier age than 

ever before--something I am already thinking about for my daughter, who isn't even two 

years old. 

Many scientists tell us-with increasing certainty-that these health conditions are at 

least partially attributable to chemicals to which we are exposed in our homes, food, and 

environment. This is simply unacceptable. 

Despite assurances from the chemical and consumer product industries that our products 

are safe, they are not. More importantly, there is no reason to believe that the companies 

producing the chemicals to which we're exposed are either willing or able to tell us 
58 


25110.037

honestly whether their products are safe. Self-regulation of the chemical industry has 

been a colossal failure. That's why we need real reform of the TSCA. 

Whether it is dangerous flame retardants in our couches, mattresses, and car seats, or 

BPA in children's toys or bank receipts, there is currently no required disclosure, no 

available public information, and no warning sign to enable consumers to educate and 

protect themselves. 

And even when there is basic disclosure of chemicals, like in sunscreen or in baby 

shampoo, a parent would still have to have a consulting toxicologist to understand 

whether the ingredients in their children's products are safe. 

Just this past year, the public found out that a major baby shampoo company contained a 

byproduct of cancer-causing formaldehyde in their product. To their credit, the company 

did agree to stop using the formaldehyde chemical in the shampoo, but the chemical 

wasn't clearly disclosed in the first place. 6 Most parents were outraged to hear that they 

had long been using a trusted product containing a toxic chemical. Because of the lack of 

regulation, we know that many chemicals are used in children's products that could have 

a variety of negative health effects. While parents have gotten good at researching online 

and looking for advice about what products are safe, this is too much to ask of busy 

parents. Just as we require that manufacturers of baby products like cribs and car seats 

establish that those products cannot collapse and suffocate or harm a child, we must 

require that they prove their products will not poison a child, either. All products that are 

sold and marketed for kids should be safe for their health. 

Before my daughter was born, my husband and I researched crib mattresses, and after 

reading through a maze of websites and blog entries, we spent several hundred extra 

dollars on a mattress that was advertised as free of flame retardants. But most parents 

can't afford this, and don't know the dangers posed by flame retardants in the first place. 

And despite our decision to buy a "green" crib mattress, we still have the same old couch, 

purchased about 10 years ago. My husband and I have a several-year-old mattress on our 

bed. Both are standard products, likely treated with flame-retardants and other chemicals. 

Our home contains new and old electronics, remote controls, and phones-all of which 

seem to be magnets of interest for young children. At least some of these products likely 

contain various toxic flame retardants and other industrial chemicals. And, as we have 

learned, some of these chemical compounds have likely broken down and filled my 

home-and yours, and millions more across the country-with component chemicals that 

are more dangerous and more readily absorbed by humans. 

Brominated flame retardants have been associated with developmental delays and brain 

impacts in children and developing fetuses, reproductive problems, cancer risks, and 

impacts on the immune system. A new study out just this month, for the first time, linked 

exposure to PBDE flame retardant chemicals during pregnancy with increased autism 

risk. 7 

Parenthood, especially with little children, is among the most exciting and rewarding life 

experiences. It can also be one of the most busy, sleep-deprived, financially strapped, and 
59 


25110.038

stressful times for a family. With no transparency, so little regulation, and so little 

information-parents have little hope of successfully protecting their children from 

chemical exposure, or even of knowing what chemicals are in their own homes. Though 

we all do our best, no parent I know has a doctoral student in chemistry handy to check 

out every sippy cup, rubber duck, and couch cushion to make sure it's safe for her child. 

We, the parents of this country, need leadership from the federal government on this 

complicated issue. We need policy makers who will stand up to an onslaught of 

propaganda and misinformation from the industries that have resisted this common sense 

change for so long. We need the Safe Chemicals Act, and we need it now. 

In closing, I want to especially thank Senator Lautenberg for his leadership on the Safe 

Chemicals Act, Senator Boxer for moving this issue along during this crucial time, and I 

also want to thank my two Senators from Maine, Senators Snowe and Collins, for just 

this month joining in the bi-partisan call for a congressional overhaul of the chemical 

safety law. 

I understand this committee will consider the Safe Chemicals Act as soon as tomorrow, 

and for the sake of my daughter and future child, children in Maine and across the 

country, I ask this committee to end this stalemate and take immediate action to remedy 

our broken chemical safety system. As we have learned in the states, the chemical 

industry will stonewall progress and hide health information at all costs. We rely on you, 

our elected officials, to protect the public health of our citizens. I thank you today for 

your leadership and I thank you in advance for your work tomorrow to advance this 

important cause. 

1 Chicago Tribune, "Playing with Fire," May 6 May 9, 2012 

http://media.apps.chicagotribune.com/tlames/index.html 

2 Print Ad Run in Maine Newspapers: 

http://www.preventharm.org/lmages/130/Newspaperscan.pdf (It's a large PDF). 

3 Legislative Hearing Transcript from Alaska: 

http://www.legis.state.ak.us/basis/get single minute.asp?ch=S&beg line=00333&end li 

ne=00605&session=26&comm=HSS&date=20 I 00317 &time= 1336 

4 UCSF Study website: http://wvvw.ucsf.edu/news/20 II /0 I /8371/ucsf-study-identitieschemicals-prel!nant-women 

5 For full results of the "Body of Evidence" report, go to: 

http://www.cleanandhealthyme.org/BodvofEvidenceReport/tabid/55/Default.aspx 

Individual results at: http://www.cleanandhealthvme.org/tables.htm 

6 Forbes. "As Report Reveals Toxic Ingredients in Baby Shampoo, Johnson & Johnson 

Goes Public with Plans to Clean Up Products," November II, 20 II, 

http://www.forbes.com/sites/amywestervelt/20 ll/11/0 1/as-report-reveals-toxicingredients-in-baby-shampoo-johnson-johnson-goes-public-with-plans-to-clean-upproducts/ 
60 


25110.039

7 Oxford Journal, Human Molecular Genetics, "Long-lived epigenetic interactions 

between perinatal PBDE exposure and mecp2308 mutation" 

http://hmg.oxfordjournals.org/content/21 I! 1/2399 
61 


25110.040

13 July 2012 

,John Martell, President 

Tel. 207·~.32·2370 

Calvin M. Dooley 

President and Chief Executive Officer 

American Chemistry Council 

700 Second Street, NE 

Washington, DC 20002 

Brirkyo rd Cove Rd. 

Harps'"veH, Maine 

Re: Telling the Truth About Chemical Flame Retardants 

Dear Mr. Dooley, 

We represent professional firefighters who work in harm's way every day to save lives and 

protect property from the ravages of fire. We are deeply concerned that the health and safety of 

our members continues to be jeopardized by exposure to unnecessary toxic flame retardants 

produced by the chemical industry. 

We have been very involved with state legislation to protect public health from flame retardants 

without compromising fire safety. We have experienced first hand the unethical practices of 

your member companies that were documented in the recent investigation by the Chicago 

Tribune, "Playing with Fire," that included: 

Creation of a phony front group, Citizens for Fire Safety, which never served the 

interests of fire service professionals as claimed, but instead acted solely as a lobby 

arm of the chemical manufacturers that funded it; 

Providing false testimony to state legislatures through a burn doctor and burn 

victims who fabricated stories about tragedies that had nothing to do with the use of 

flame retardant chemicals; and 

Distorting the science about the health and safety hazards of flame retardant 

chemicals, including the polybrominated diphenyl ethers (PBDEs) such as Deca, to 

delay state action to phase out these dangerous chemicals. 

Even we were shocked, however, to learn that chemical manufacturers also covered up data 

showing that flame retardants added to furniture did not even work as advertised. Yet that didn't 

stop your industry from deploying a tobacco industry lobbyist to manipulate state fire marshals 

to promote even greater use of these ineffective, toxic chemicals. 
62 


25110.041

Enough is enough. We strongly urge your trade association to expel from your membership the 

three corporations that produce flame retardants, Albemarle, Chemtura and ICL Industries, 

whose unethical behavior rivals the tobacco industry. 

Please respond at your earliest convenience, and inform us of the disciplinary actions you intend 

to take to hold your members accountable. 

Sincerely, 

John Martell, President 

Professional Fire Fighters of Maine 

Matt Vinci, President 

Professional Fire Fighters of Vermont 

Dennis Sweeney, Health and Safety Coordinator 

New York State Professional Fire Fighters Association 

Kelly Fox, President 

Washington State Council of Fire Fighters 
63 


25110.042

Calvin M. Dooley, President and Chief Executive Officer 

American Chemistry Council 

700 Second Street, NE 

Washington, DC 20002 

Dear Mr. Dooley, 

june 4, 2012 

As current and former state legislators from across the nation, we each have 

sponsored or worked directly on the regulation of flame retardants out of concern 

for public health in our respective states. 

After reading the recent four-part Chicago Tribune investigative series, "Playing 

With Fire," in which the deeply unethical and longstanding practices of three 

different chemical companies (Albemarle, Chemtura, and ICL Industries) were 

revealed, we are writing to urge you to expel these unethical manufacturers from 

your industry trade group. The deception practiced by these companies-and 

revealed by the Chicago Tribune-is completely unacceptable in our state 

legislatures. Some of the most egregious practices, like lying about the death of an 

infant girl, are abhorrent by any measure. 

We understand that the ACC has specific tenets as an organization, including "to lead 

in ethical ways that increasingly benefit society, the economy and the environment." 

In addition, your principles specifically include "communicating forthrightly with 

governments and communities about chemical risks." 

In each of our states, we have had specific and disturbing dealings with the flame 

retardant chemical industry that violate basic ethical behaviors and certainly would 

not be considered honest or "forthright communication with government." 

The worst industry tactics outlined in the Chicago Tribune series-which we each 

saw some of firsthand in our states-included: deliberately misrepresenting the 

science around flame retardant chemicals relating to both their effectiveness and 

their health risks; employing an expert witness who repeatedly invoked a phony 

story of a child dying in a fire in order to justify flame retardant mandates; creating 

a front group called "Citizens for Fire Safety" to counter the opposition to flame 

retardants among firefighters and health organizations; and using racial profiling to 

mislead community leaders about the impacts of toxic flame retardant chemicals. 

During the legislative debates on the flame retardant bills in our states, many of us 

as legislators were faced with public attacks from the industry front group "Citizens 

for Fire Safety," including significant paid television and newspaper ads. The 

message of those campaigns was that legislators were going to cause fires and 

threaten children. In some states, specific attacks were sent directly to the 

constituents of legislators who championed these bills. In nearly all of our debates 
64 


25110.043

on this issue, our efforts to regulate certain fire retardants were supported by the 

International Association of Fire Fighters, the State Fire Chiefs organization in each 

state, and other fire safety professionals. And yet the industry continued its sham 

campaign. 

Since we championed these bills, some of these same flame retardant companies 

have come forth and begun a voluntary phase-out of some of the products we 

sought to regulate. While we applaud these actions, it only makes the deceptive 

behavior we saw with our own eyes-and that the Tribune series revealed to the 

world-all the more disturbing. And we are especially concerned that the industry 

has covered up the hazards of the replacement chemicals rather than investing in 

truly safer alternatives. 

We urge immediate action on the part of the ACC to live up to its own mission and 

address these behaviors. 

Sincerely, 

Delegate james Hubbard 

Maryland House of Delegates 

Assistant Majority Leader 

(; 

Senator 

~ jackie Dingfelder, Oregon Senate 

Environment & Natural Resources Chair 

Assemblyman Robert Sweeney 

Chair, Environmental Conservation 

Committee, New York Assembly 

Honorable Hannah Pingree 

Former Speaker of the Maine House 

& Safer Chemicals, Healthy Families 

Senator Sandra L. Pappas 

Minnesota Senate 

Speaker of the House Shap Smith 

Vermont House of Representatives 
65 


25110.044

State Representative Ross Hunter 

Washington House 

Senator John Marty, Minnesota Senate 

Senator 

~~~ Sharon Nelson 

Washington State Senate 

Chair, Environment Committee 

Representative Diana Urban 

Connecticut House 

Representative Mark Meadows, 

Michigan House 

m~~~~ 

Representative Mary Lou Dickerson 

Washington House 

Representative Karen Clark 

Minnesota House 

Representative Paul Holvey 

Oregon House 

Senator Mark Hass, Oregon Senate 

Representative Sharon Treat 

Maine House 

~ Seo•toc Ph;J B•rtlet< M•ine Seoote 

Sen,.ocRebekahW~;0 Michigan Senate ~ ~ 

Honorable Deb Kennedy, 

Former Michigan State Representative 

Former Chair of House Committee on the 

Great Lakes & the Environment 

Representative Carolyn Tomei 

Oregon House 

Senator Mark Leno 

California Senate 

Chair of the Senate Budget & Fiscal 

Review Committee 
66 


25110.045

July 16, 2012 

The Honorable Barbara Boxer, Chair 

Senate Environment and Public Works Committee 

112 Hart Senate Office Building 

Washington DC 20510 

The Honorable James M. Inhofe, Ranking Member 

Senate Environment and Public Works Committee 

205 Russell Senate Office Building 

Washington DC 20510 

Re: Request for Oversight Hearing on the Toxic Flame Retardants Scandal 

Dear Senators Boxer and Inhofe, 

As current and former state legislators from across the nation who are concerned 

about regulation of flame retardants, we are writing to request that you hold an 

oversight hearing on the unethical chemical industry activities that many of us 

witnessed firsthand in our legislatures. We want to share our perspective on 

those tactics and make it clear that the pattern of deception practiced by the 

chemical industry in state legislatures is unacceptable. 

The recent four-part Chicago Tribune investigative series, "Playing With Fire" 

(May 2012) brought forth evidence that three chemical manufacturers 

(Albemarle, Chemtura and ICL Industries) engaged in tactics to avoid state 

regulation of toxic flame retardants. The worst industry tactics included 

misrepresenting the science related to both the effectiveness and health risks of 

flame retardant chemicals; employing an expert witness who repeatedly invoked 

a phony story of a child dying in a fire in order to justify flame retardant 

mandates; creating a front group called "Citizens for Fire Safety" to counter the 

opposition to flame retardants among firefighters and health organizations; and 

using racial profiling to mislead community leaders about the impacts of toxic 

flame retardant chemicals. 

We are also disappointed that the trade group American Chemistry Council 

(ACC) has failed to enforce its mandatory code of conduct, known as Responsible 

Care, against these three member companies. When the CEOs of ACC members 

sign on to Responsible Care, they pledge "to lead in ethical ways" and promote 

forthright communication vv'ith governments. And yet, instead of censuring these 

companies for violating these principles, ACC just appointed Albemarle's CEO to 

their board of directors (June 2012). It's unfortunate that these practices seem to 

reflect business as usual to the chemical industry as a whole. 

Clearly, the activities described in the Tribune series go beyond expressing a 

company's views. They are a misrepresentation of the science around flame 

retardants and clearly deserve further review. 

1 
67 


25110.046

During legislative debates on flame retardant bills in states around the country, 

many of us as legislators were faced with public attacks from this same industry 

front group including barrages of misleading paid television and newspaper ads. 

We have attached a few examples to illustrate the kinds of deception and 

intimidation of public officials employed by this industry. 

In the absence of federal action, state legislators will sponsor new policies in 2013 

that move away from flame retardants that have no added fire safety benefit, 

especially in products that impact our children and other vulnerable groups. We 

believe we can and must do better. There are well-documented, safer and more 

effective methods of deterring fires. The State of California is already taking a 

step forward with Governor Brown calling for a re-evaluation of fire safety 

standards. As 2013legislative sessions start up, we will view the testimony of 

these companies in our legislatures through a very critical lens. 

In the meantime, we urge you to treat this flame retardant scandal as an 

opportunity to strengthen our broken federal chemical management system. If 

the Safe Chemicals Act of 2011 (S. 847) were law, chemical manufacturers would 

not get away with replacing old toxic chemicals with new toxic chemicals, another 

practice exposed by the Chicago Tribune series. We need federal leadership. You 

can provide that through a timely markup and Committee vote on S. 847. 

Thank you for your leadership and this opportunity to comment. 

Sincerely, 

Delegate James Hubbard 

Maryland House of Delegates 

Assistant Majority Leader 

Hon. Hannah Pingree, Former Speaker 

of the Maine House, Safer Chemicals, 

Healthy Families 

Honorable Deb Kennedy 

Former Michigan State Representative 

Former Chair of House Committee on 

the Great Lakes & the Environment 

Representative Karen Clark 

Minnesota House 

Representative Beth Kerttula 

Alaska House of Representatives 

House Minority Leader 

Assemblyman Robert Sweeney 

New York Assembly 

Chair, Environmental Conservation 

Committee 

2 
68 


25110.047

Representative Carl Sciortino 

Massachusetts House 

~~ Representative Denise Provost 

Massachusetts House 

~"?.~~ Representative Jay Kaufman 

Massachusetts House 

p_.~<5~/2- Representative Frank Smizik 

Massachusetts House 

b~ Representative Diana Urban 

Connecticut House 

Senator Terry Gerratana 

Connecticut Senate 

Senator Jackie Dingfelder 

Oregon State Senate 

Representative Sharon Treat 

Maine House 

r~/d'~z Senator Phil Bartlett 

Maine State Senate 

r::::i)ebJ,;.,__ q~...l<t.­

Senator Debbie Regala 

Washington State Senate 

Senator Sharon Nelson 

Washington State Senate 

Chair, Environment Committee 

Representative Ross Hunter 

Washington House 

Representative Bob Duchesne 

Maine House 

Representative 

~~ Carolyn Tomei 

Oregon House 

3 
69 


25110.048

m~~ 

Representative Mary Lou Dickerson 

Washington House 

Representative 

'Do.v-(. ~ 

Dave Upthegrove 

Washington State 

Representative joe Fitzgibbon 

Washington House 

Representative Zack Hudgins 

Washington House 

Representative Sue Malek 

Montana House 

./'1 d->'Y' t.Jk. =:r-nn-t'j 

Representative Melissa Walsh Innes 

Maine House 

Representative 

~ Ellie Hill 

Montana House 

Senator Jamie Eldridge 

Massachusetts State Senate 

Representative Chuck Kruger 

Maine House 

Representative Tobias Read 

Oregon House 

Assemblyman 

~~ Alan Maisel 

New York Assembly 

~c~ 

Assemblywoman Ellen Jaffee 

New York Assembly 

Assemblywoman Barbara Lifton 

New York Assembly 

Assemblyman Brian Kavanagh 

New York Assembly 

·/~--: (.t~ ):;-;!/_~ Representative Linda Chapa La Via 

Illinois House 

4 
70 


25110.049

Full list of Signatories to July 16, 2012 Jetter to Senator Barbara Boxer and Senator 

James Inhofe 

Representative Beth Kerttula, House Minority Leader, Alaska House 

Representative Diana Urban, Connecticut House 

Senator Terry Gerratana, Connecticut Senate 

Representative Linda Chapa La Via, Illinois House 

Representative Jay Kaufman, Massachusetts House 

Representative Denise Provost, Massachusetts House 

Representative Carl Sciortino, Massachusetts House 

Representative Frank Smizik, Massachusetts House 

Senator Jamie Eldridge, Massachusetts Senate 

Delegate Jim Hubbard, Assistant Majority Leader, Maryland House of Delegates 

Honorable Hannah Pingree, Former Speaker Maine House, Maine House and Safer 

Chemicals, Healthy Families Consultant 

Representative Sharon Treat, Maine House 

Representative Chuck Kruger, Maine House 

Representative Bob Duchesne, Maine House 

Representative joan Welsh, Maine House 

Representative Melissa Walsh-Innes, Maine House 

Senator Phil Bartlett, Maine Senate 

Honorable Deborah Kennedy, Former Representative, Former Chair of House 

Committee on the Great Lakes & the Environment, Michigan House 

Representative Karen Clark, Minnesota House 

Senator Cliff Larsen, Montana Senate 

Representative Tim Furey, Montana House 

Senator Ron Erickson, Montana Senate 

Representative Carolyn Squires, Montana House 

Honorable Robin Hamilton, Former Representative, Montana House 

Representative Ellie Hill, Montana House 

Betsy Hands, Montana House 

Honorable JP Pomnichowski, Former Representative, Montana House 

Honorable Dave McAlpin, Former Representative, Montana House 

Representative Michele Reinhart, Montana House 

Representative Sue Malek, Montana House 

Assemblyman Robert Sweeney, Chair, Environment Conservation Committee 

New York Assembly 

Assemblyman Alan Maisel, NewYorkAssembly 

Assemblywoman Ellen Jaffee, New York Assembly 

Assemblywoman Barbara Lifton, New York Assembly 

Assemblyman Brian Kavanagh, New York Assembly 

Senator jackie Dingfelder, Environment & Natural Resources Chair, Oregon Senate 

Representative Carolyn Tomei, Oregon House 

Representative Tobias Read, Oregon House 

Representative Willem jewett, Assistant Majority Leader, Vermont House 

5 
71 


25110.050

Representative Mary Lou Dickerson, Washington House 

Representative Ross Hunter, Washington House 

Senator Debbie Regala, Washington State Senate 

Senator Sharon Nelson, Chair, Environment Committee, Washington State Senate 

Representative Dave Upthegrove, Washington House 

Representative Joe Fitzgibbon, Washington House 

Representative Zack Hudgins, Washington House 

6 
72 


25110.051

people are polluted with dozens of 

industrial chemicals, according 

to a new study conducted by Alliance 

Clean and Healthy Maine with help from the 

University of Southern Maine. In 2006, thirteen Maine 

and women volunteered to have their 

tested in the study of chemical pollution 

in study found a total 46 

different chemicals (of 71 tested) in samples of blood, 

and hair. each participant had 

measurable level> chemicals iu their bodies, 

These findings show that Maine people are routinely 

exposed to hazardous industrial chemicals including 

phthalates from cosmetics and vinyl plastic, bromiuated 

retardants from televisions and furniture, 

Teflon chemicals fmm stain-resistant and non-stick coatings, 

bisphenol A from reusable water bottles aud baby bottles, 

and toxic such as lead, mercury and 

These chemicals found iu products we use every 

plastic containers, toys, furniture, fabric, 

automobiles, TVs stereos, water bottles, medical 

supplies, and personal products like shampoo, 

and perfume. They are our homes and offices, food 

and and the breathe. 

research shows that these chemicals are 

hazardous and that even tiny amounts may threaten 

human They are toxic or harmful to life and 

children are especially vulnerable 

growing, Animal and human studies have linked these 

chemicals to learning and developmental disabilities, 

endocrine system damage, in 

development, reproductive harm (including decreased 

sperm count in men), low birth weight and some 

Despite proven and suspected dangers to our health, 

industry is not required demonstrate the safety of 

chemicals before adding them consumer products, 

nor they required use alternatives 

chemicals known to hazardous. 
73 


25110.052
74 


25110.053

chemicals favor safer 

alternatives, for example 

Deca-BDE in electronics and 

furniture, and and 

bisphenol A in 

safe, 

throuahout our homes never intended to end bodies but 

industrial chemicals is broken. New 

are for our 

government should enact comprehensive safer chemicals policy at 

are needed to the in our broken system; 

to-know 

chemicals are in what products. 

state's economy. 

a research 

University 

to assess hazards 

alterr1atives for harmful 

chemicals. 
75 


25110.054

'\odt 811rden Report Re~ults frtble\ 

Table l ~~The Chemicals Tested in Thirteen Mainers 

Table 2 Complete Results of Chemical Screening of Thirteen Mainers 

hHp i IW'iJ'o~.clean~ndheahhyme.orq/tilbles.htm Paqf'Jof5 
76 


25110.055
77 


25110.056

Hody flwrden Report Results Tables 7/22!12) 

Bo!dfacetypelnarvolor<.!dboxlndical<i!sth'i'chemica!wasd<.ltected 

..:: the cllemlca! was not found above the limit of detection Indicated: 1111! chemical might be present below fh!e llm!t 

• the chemica! was cletet:ted but the quantification cr!teria were MOt m"t therefore the res<JI! ropresents the est! mated maximum possible C0>1Centration 

Table 3 ~~ Summary of Results of Maint.' Burden Study 

1 1'NWW.clei!nandhealthynle.orD/t.i!ble;;.htm 
78 


25110.057

i BDE·15 

i BDE·1712S 

I BOE-2813 

I BDE·35 

I BDE·3' 

I BDE4o 

61 7 

94. 1128 

< 5.64 

100 

;9950 

BOE-49 178 

14100 

BDE·51 ·12 

BDE·71 soe~s ~=~·~ss~.=~~+==~~=E~=·=·~=··~=====t==~ < 19 70 ... ·----i-·~,1:-.• p

1

n~o "". ,·· ======= · BDE·75 < 25 

BDE·79 < 2! '61 

BOE-154 96 6 746 200 "'"''"'"""" '"' Oelow 

BDE·155 < 27 '7R 6 '45.9 43 

BDE·183 . 141 1400 l28 218 

PFHxS 

PFOS 

.·BPA 

SPA 

BADGE-4-0H ' < !6 119 2 81 119 933 12 8 

280 

040 

040 

1.44 

256 

' \ -- ·. ' .··· ····. · .. · ... Lead 

I Minimum Maximum Med!an • SO% M;;~~~t~!eor 1 nfh·;~me j S!Jth%ille gs!h%me 

0,51 326 108 140 2.20 340 440 

S 48 PM 
79 


25110.058

Arsenic Mlnlmnm M»lmum ,.5Q% 

Med"n-50% """'''"'' :.-::~~i'i~~~ 

I A"'"''"'" )M 0 

1, ___ , ____ -:::;.~·.:::.... 
80 

Senator BOXER. Thank you so very much. 

We will hear from the next majority witness, Dr. Heather 

Stapleton, Associated Professor of Environmental Chemistry, Environment Sciences and Policy at the Nicholas School of the Environment at Duke University. 

Welcome. 

STATEMENT OF HEATHER M. STAPLETON, PH.D., ASSOCIATE 

PROFESSOR, NICHOLAS SCHOOL OF THE ENVIRONMENT, 

DUKE UNIVERSITY 

Ms. STAPLETON. Good morning. I wish to thank Senator Lautenberg, Senator Crapo, and Senator Boxer and the other members of 

this Committee for inviting me to testify here today. 

I am Heather Stapleton, an Associate Professor of Environmental 

Chemistry at Duke University. For the past 10 years, I have been 

conducting research on flame retardant chemicals, and today I 

would like to talk to you about my research and what we know 

about human health risks. 

Current scientific evidence demonstrates that the U.S. population is exposed to flame retardant chemicals used in consumer 

products at levels that are approximately 10 times higher than levels in European and Asian countries, most likely due to difference 

in our flammability standards. 

According to research conducted by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 99 percent of the U.S. population has flame retardant chemicals in their bodies. Studies have also shown that 

children have much higher body burdens of these chemicals compared to adults. This is a concern given that health studies found 

that higher body burdens of these chemicals were associated in reductions in IQ and motor skills in children, lower birth weights in 

infants, changes in hormone levels, and a reduction in a woman’s 

potential to become pregnant. 

In my opinion, this evidence warrants changes in the way these 

chemicals are currently applied to consumer products and highlights a need to reduce our exposures in vulnerable populations 

such as infants and children. 

I would now like to summarize several key findings from my research. It is impossible for an average person to avoid exposure to 

flame retardants. The primary route of human exposure to these 

chemicals is from inadvertent ingestion of dust particles in the 

home which is more pronounced for infants and young children 

that are more vulnerable to chemical exposures. 

Over the past 8 years, we have analyzed hundreds of samples of 

indoor dust collected from different regions of the U.S., and today 

I have not found one sample that does not contain the flame 

retardants known as PBDEs. 

An average consumer also does not have the choice or an option 

to buy products that are free of flame retardants. There are no labels indicating whether or not a flame retardant chemical has been 

applied. The only way to determine if a product is treated with 

these chemicals is to take a sample of that material and chemically 

analyze it in a laboratory using very expensive analytical equipment. This allows us to determine the chemical structures of these 

81 

flame retardant formulations which are often proprietary and also 

allows us to determine their concentration in the products. 

My research team has analyzed over 100 samples of polyurethane foam collected from residential furniture purchased in the 

U.S. and found that more than 85 percent is indeed treated at levels that can be as high as 10 percent by weight of the foam, as are 

most baby products that are considered furniture items. This includes nursing pillows, sleep positioners, baby mats, car seats, and 

others. Infants spend almost 24 hours a day in intimate contact 

with these items, and no risk assessments have been conducted to 

determine the level of exposure an infant receives during use of 

these products. 

The two most common flame retardants detected in furniture and 

baby products on the market today are chemicals known as 

chlorinated tris and Firemaster 550, replacements for the now 

phased out PBDEs. Chlorinated tris is considered a probable 

human carcinogen, and the Consumer Products Safety Commission 

estimated that a child’s exposure to chlorinated tris from residential furniture would be 5 times higher than the acceptable daily 

limit. This assessment did not include children’s exposure to 

chlorinated tris from baby products which would increase this exposure. 

In addition, a very recent study conducted by my colleagues and 

I found that exposure to Firemaster 550 in rodents resulted in obesity, changes in hormone levels, advanced puberty, and altered behavior at a level that was more than 10-fold lower than what the 

chemical company stated was the lowest level at which any adverse 

effects would be observed. 

Our research also shows that these same two flame retardants 

are now found in more than 95 percent of the U.S. homes, and levels in indoor environments are just as high as the levels of PBDEs, 

implying that exposure levels are the same. 

These points highlight what I call the chemical conveyor belt. 

When one chemical is phased out, another similar chemical is often 

used as a replacement, and we know less about its potential effects 

than a chemical it replaced. 

History has shown us that if often takes millions of taxpayer dollars and several decades collecting data on these new chemicals before we realize there is a health hazard. We should, in my opinion, 

consider how this process could be reformed. 

In closing, I would like to urge this Committee to strongly consider legislation that would reduce our children’s exposure to flame 

retardant chemicals that have known health effects which can be 

done without compromising fire safety as was demonstrated at a 

hearing last week. 

I have dedicated much of my scientific career to testing consumer 

products for these chemicals to provide information on sources 

within the home, and as a result I have received numerous e-mails 

and phone calls from average Americans asking where they can 

find flame retardant-free products or how they can reduce their exposure. Unfortunately, I cannot provide all the answers because we 

still do not yet fully understand how many products are treated or 

exactly what chemicals are used in all applications. 

82 

In my opinion, both as a scientist and as a mother myself, consumer products should be labeled to indicate specific chemical 

treatments to provide consumers a choice, particularly when it involves the use of suspected carcinogens in baby products. 

Last, I would just like to note that my research has been funded 

by the National Institutes of Environmental Health Sciences and 

the National Science Foundation. 

I thank you for considering my testimony. 

[The prepared statement of Ms. Stapleton follows:] 

83 


25110.059

Human Exposure to Flame Retardant Chemicals and Health Concerns 

Testimony before the 

U.S. Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works 

Tuesday, July 24th, 2012 

Dirksen Senate Office Building, Room 406 

Heather M. Stapleton, Ph.D., Associate Professor 

Nicholas School of the Environment, Duke University 

Good morning. I wish to thank Senator Lauten berg and the other members of this Committee for 

inviting me to testify today. I am Heather Stapleton, an associate professor of environmental 

chemistry at Duke University. Since 2001 I have worked closely with a team of researchers 

investigating the sources, fate, and effects of flame retardant chemicals in the environment, in 

addition to monitoring human exposure to these chemicals. Through these unique collaborations 

we have accumulated much information on flame retardants that has helped us to better 

understand the potential hazards of these chemicals, which can now be weighed against their 

purported benefits. Today I'd like to talk to you about flame retardants, my research, and what 

we know about health risks to humans. 

Human Health Studies. According to research conducted by the Centers for Disease Control 

and Prevention, 99% of the US population has flame retardant chemicals in their bodies 1

, and US 

adults have bodl burdens that are an order of magnitude higher than levels in European and 

Asian countries . Studies have also shown that children clearly have much higher exposures and 

body burdens of flame retardants compared to adults 1

•

3

.4 

Over the past 5 years, several studies have observed associations between a specific class of 

flame retardants called polybrominated diphenyl ethers (or PBDEs), and adverse health effects 

among the US population. Most notably were two recent US studies that found that higher 

concentrations of PBDEs in infants at birth are associated with reductions in IQ and deficits in 

gross and fine motor skills later in childhood, and reduction in a women's capacity to become 

pregnant5

•

6 Other studies have shown that PBDE levels in maternal tissues during pregnancy are 

associated with increased risk of undescended testicles in male infants, and lower birth weights 

and head size in newboms7

·

9 Decreases in birth weight are a significant concern as low birth 

weights in infants predisposes children to more health problems later in life. In addition, PBDE 

levels in adults have been associated with significant alterations in thyroid honnone !evcls10-

12 

While none of these studies are definitive, it should be noted that they examined exposures 

occurring among the general population, and iftme, many Americans may be affected: 

Unfortunately, no studies have yet examined human health effects related to newer flame 

retardants used as replacements for PBDEs in consumer products, and which are now found in 

almost all homes (see exposure section below). 

Stapleton Testimony: July 24,2012 Page 1 
84 


25110.060

Human Exposure to Flame Retardants. In the late 1990s, mounting evidence began to 

demonstrate that PBDEs were increasing in human tissues and the environment 2

•

13 Furthennore 

these chemicals were found to be capable of concentrating in tissues following exposure'\ and 

were estimated to persist in the environment for decades 2 They arc now ubiquitous in our 

environment as they are very resistant to degradation and can be transported long distances in the 

atmosphere. 

Exposure to PBDEs results from both diet and indoor exposures primarily from dust. Due to their 

ubiquity in the environment, PBDEs have been detected at low levels in fmits, vegetables, meat, 

dairy and seafood items. 15•

16 However, exposure assessments conducted by the EPA suggest that 

only 17% of an adult's exposure to PBDEs is from tbe diet and 66% is from dust, whereas in 

children more than 95% is from dust exposure17 More recent studies have confirmed that 

exposure to house dust particles contaminated with PBDEs is a significant pathway by which 

people are exposed to PBDEs 18'

20, but we have not been able to determine from where the 

PBDEs in the dust originated. Most researchers assume that treated sources in the home (e.g. 

furniture, TVs, etc), contribute to this exposure, and our data does su~fest that treated furniture 

and TVs are significantly associated with PBDE levels in indoor dust . However, simple 

physical examination of the product and/or its labels will not tell us whether or not a product is 

treated with PBDEs. The only current way to determine whether or not a product is treated with 

a specific flame retardant is to take a sample of the product and chemically analyze it in a 

laboratory, a very expensive and laborious process. 

Over the past six years my research group has examined human exposure to PBDEs, and other 

flame retardant chemicals, in indoor environments. As part of this research we have analyzed 

several hundred samples of indoor dust, including samples from bedrooms, main living areas and 

car interiors. To date I have not found Q.!!.£ dust sample that does NOT contain PBDEs. Every 

home we have tested contains PBDEs, and the levels in indoor dust can vary by a factor of a 

million. For reasons we do not yet fully understand, some people have very low levels of 

PBDEs in their homes (parts per billion), while other people have very high levels (parts per 

thousand). Our studies have also shown that fceople with high levels of PBDEs in their dust, will 

most likely have high levels in their bodies 19• 0 

More recently we have investigated exposure of toddler's to PBDEs20. Using a novel approach, 

we wiped the surface of children's hands to determine ifPBDEs were present on their skin. We 

found that PBDEs were present on 98% of children's hands, and levels of PBDEs on the hands 

were highly related to the concentrations ofPBDEs measured in their bloodstream. This 

suggests than children ingest PBDEs from hand to mouth contact, which is typical in young 

children. EPA studies have demonstrated that toddlers may place their hands in their mouth 18 

times/hour on average22• The PBDE levels on the children's hands most likely results from 

contact with the dust in their homes, or perhaps direct contact with treated products. We also 

found that children from lower socioeconomic backgrounds had levels ofPBDEs in their blood 

that were two times higher than white children born to more educated parents. At present, 

reasons for this difference are unclear. 

Since identifying the new use flame retardants in infant products and furniture (see next section), 

we have started conducting measurements on these new chemicals in indoor dust, and are 

Stapleton Testimony: July 24, 2012 Page 2 
85 


25110.061

developing methods to measure concentrations in human serum and urine. Of particular interest 

to us is a PBDE replacement chemical called "chlorinated tris" or TDCPP. TDCPP is a 

suspected carcinogen according to the Consumer Product Safety Commission23 and is listed as a 

cancer-causing chemical under California's Proposition 65. TDCPP was once applied as a flame 

retardant to children's pajamas during the 1970s. However, studies found that a closely related 

brominated flame retardant was a mutagen, was absorbed through children's skin, and its 

metabolites were detected in urine24'

26 TDCPP was also identified as a mutagen and was 

voluntarily phased out from use in children's sleepwear. Our research now indicates that TDCPP 

is also present in dust samples, as are the components of a second flame retardant mixture called 

Firemaster 550 (FM 550). Similar to PBDEs, TDCPP and FM 550 are present in more than 95% 

of the indoor dust samples analyzed, and levels are equivalent to, or in some cases higher than, 

levels of PBDEs.27·

28 Therefore, daily exposure to these new flame retardants is expected to be 

very similar to PBDE exposure among the general population. In addition, we have identified 

the primary metabolite of TDCPP in more than 98% of human urine samples analyzed to date29 

(and unpublished data), confirming to us that chronic daily exposure to TDCPP is occurring. 

This suggests children are presently receiving exposure to mixtures of these name retardants, 

which may be a concern in light of the neurodcvelopmental toxicities associated with some of 

these chemicals (see toxicity section below) and the observed increase in neurodevelopmental 

disorders occurring in US children (e.g. autism, ADHD, etc). This highlights a critical need for 

labeling information on commercial products so consumers can make informed decision about 

the risks they want to take. 

While our research group is working very hard to measure human exposure to these name 

retardants from contact with indoor dust, no studies to date have investigated an infant's 

exposure to flame retardants found in baby products. Because a majority of the infant products 

are treated with name retardants (typically TDCPP), and because infants spend almost 24 hours 

each day in intimate contact with many of these products, studies must be conducted to measure 

potential exposure to these chemicals. Infants are very vulnerable to toxic exposures as they are 

still rapidly developing, particularly their brain, making them more vulnerable to effects from 

toxic chemicals. Inhalation and skin absorption may be significant routes of exposure to some of 

the chemicals which have not been assessed. A study conducted by the Consumer Product 

Safety Commission (CPSC), evaluated children's exposure to TDCPP from assumed use in 

residential furniture and estimated that exposure levels were 5 times higher than the acceptable 

daily exposure level.23 The report did not consider potential exposure from contact with infant 

products, which may be greater than exposure from residential furniture alone. 

Products Containing Flame Retardants: For more than 30 years additive flame retardants have 

been applied to various types of products, including children's pajamas, furniture, electronic 

items (e.g. TVs, computers, cell phones, DVD players, etc), textiles (e.g. curtains, upholstery), 

and common building materials (e.g. wiring, insulation, etc). There are various state and federal 

nammability codes or standards that have led to the use of these chemicals in different types of 

commercial products, and in transportation equipment (e.g. airplanes, trains, sub-ways, 

automobiles, etc). The type of chemical used to flame retard a specific material or product will 

depend upon several variables, including the type of material being treated, the availability and 

cost of the chemical flame retardants, and the specific standard that is trying to be met. 

Stapleton Testimony: July 24, 2012 Page 3 
86 


25110.062

The chemical structures of flame retardant additives used in consumer products are often 

proprietary; when submitting pre-manufacture notices to the EPA, the chemical companies must 

reveal the chemical structures to the EPA, but can declare the structures confidential business 

information (CBI), which protects that infonnation from being released to the general public. 

This practice has resulted in large data gaps in our understanding of flame-retardant uses, 

application levels, and potential sources of human exposure. Through my personal 

communications with polyurethane foam manufacturers in the US (who produce foam for 

furniture manufacturers), I have learned that foam manufacturers themselves often do not know 

the specific chemicals used in the flame retardant formulations they purchase and apply to their 

foam. This lack of transparency and communication means that academic researchers, and the 

general public, have trouble understanding if and how people are exposed to these types of 

chemicals. 

The lack of transparency in flame retardant use and applications motivated my collaborators and 

I to conduct research on consumer products to determine how often name retardants are used and 

at what levels. Due to the concerns mentioned above, two of the three PBDE commercial 

mixtures were voluntarily phased out from production in the US starting in 2005. However, the 

nammability standards still remain, and thus new flame retardant chemicals have been 

introduced into consumer products as PBDE replacements. When this phase-out went into effect 

in 2005, there was no information available on the chemical replacements. Therefore, my 

collaborators and I started a research project to identify products that contain flame retardants 

and which may be sources of human exposure, to better understand potential health risks. In 

2009 we initiated a study investigating flame retardant use in infant products that contain 

polyurethane foam, inclnding car seats, nursing pillows, infant sleep positioners, portable 

mattresses, and changing table pads. We used advanced analytical methods to test 101 different 

products that were either in use by families at that time, or were purchased new. We found that 

more than 80% of the products contained a flame retardant we could identify at levels that were 

approximately 3 to 4% by weight of the foam30. PBDEs were found in 5% of the products 

tested; however, all products containing PBDEs were purchased prior to the 2005 phase out of 

PBDEs. The most commonly detected flame retardant identified in infant prodncts was TDCPP, 

and the second most common was FM 550. From our research it appears that TDCPP is still 

widely used as a flame retardant in furniture and infant products. The other flame retardant 

chemicals identified in the infant products have little to no health data available, but are similar 

in structure to chemicals that have known toxicity. These points highlight what I call the 

"chemical conveyer belt". When one chemical is phased out, another similar chemical is often 

used as a replacement and we know less about its potential health effects and exposure than the 

chemical it replaced. History has shown that it often takes millions of taxpayers dollars and 

several decades of research on these new chemicals before we realize there is a health hazard. 

This Committee should, in my opinion, consider how this process could be reformed. 

The name retardant standard driving the use of these chemicals in infant products, and in most 

residential furniture, is a California flammability standard known as Technical Bulletin 117 (TB 

117). TB 117 was initiated in 1975 due to increased concerns about house fires that were started 

by small open flames (e.g. candles). While this standard only applies to furniture sold in the 

state of California, it appears to have become a de facto standard across the U.S. More recently 

my colleagues and I have tested foam collected from I 02 different couches purchased from 

Stapleton Testimony: July 24, 2012 Page4 
87 


25110.063

around the U.S. between 1985 and 2010. Our findings are very similar to the infant study 

mentioned above. In this case 85% of the samples contained a flame retardant chemical, even 

when most couches were purchased outside the state of California. While PBDEs were the most 

common flame retardant detected in furniture purchased prior to 2005 (the PBDE phase out 

date), TDCPP was again the primary flame retardant identified in samples purchased after 2005, 

at levels that were typically 4% by weight of the foam. Furthermore, we spent several months 

using very advanced analytical equipment to determine the chemical structures of unknown 

flame retardants detected in 10 of the samples. As with our earlier study, we could find no 

published health information or toxicity testing for the new flame retardant chemicals we 

identified in residential couches. Now that these new chemicals have been identified we can 

begin to measure the extent of exposure among the general public and determine whether or not 

any adverse health effects are associated with this exposure. Of course, it might be better public 

health policy to rigorously examine the safety of these compounds before they are put into the 

products found in the homes of hundreds of millions of Americans. 

Toxicity Studies in Animals. Several review papers have been published highlighting an 

abundant scientific literature on effects of PBDE flame retardants collected from animal studies. 

These papers demonstrate that PBDEs have effects on hormone levels, reproduction potential, 

behavior, and learning and memory functions 31 '

33 • The most significant health effects in animals 

appear to be related to effects on hormone regulation, suggesting they can function as an 

endocrine disruptor. PBDEs have a chemical structure that is very similar to thyroid honnones, 

most notably thyroxine (T4). In laboratory animal studies, PBDE exposures have been shown to 

negatively affect thyroid hormone regulation most notably by decreasing levels of thyroid 

hormones in the blood14'

34•

35 Thyroid hormones are critical for growth and development, 

particularly proper brain development; therefore some limited human health studies have focused 

on examining associations between PBDE exposure and neurodevelopmental outcomes in 

children. 

While a great amount of effort has been spent examining the toxicity ofPBDEs, comparatively 

little to no research has been conducted on the newer flame retardant chemicals that are being 

used as PBDE replacements, and that are now found in consumer products. As mentioned 

earlier, TDCPP was a flame retardant used in children's pajamas during the late 1970s, and then 

discontinued after studies demonstrated that TDCPP was a mutagen, and therefore a suspected 

carcinogen. Studies conducted by the National Toxicology Program have also demonstrated that 

long term exposure to TDCPP in rodents results in increases in tumor formation36 More recent 

studies have also found that TDCPP may affect brain development. Using cells grown in the lab, 

we recently determined that TDCPP has the same potential as a restricted pesticide called 

chlorpyrifos, to disrupt the growth and function of young brain cells37, key factors in brain 

development. In addition, in a very recent study conducted by my colleagues and I, we found 

that exposure to FM 550 in rodents resulted in significant changes in hormone levels, advanced 

puberty, altered behavior, and obesity at exposure levels that were more than 10 fold LOWER 

than what Great Lakes Chemical cited as the lowest dose at which adverse effects would be 

observed 38 

Communications Received from the General Public. Many of these human health studies 

have been highlighted in the news media, increasing the public's concern about exposure to these 

Stapleton Testimony: July 24, 2012 Page 5 
88 


25110.064

chemicals, particularly among pregnant women. As a scientist intimately involved in these 

studies, I have received more than I 00 email and phone call communications asking for help in 

locating products that are not treated with these chemicals. As stated earlier, these products are 

not labeled with any information indicating whether or not they are treated with flame retardant 

chemicals. The only way an average consumer could gather more information on chemical 

treatments in a specific product is to tty and contact the manufacturers themselves. 

Unfortunately, the manufacturers do not always have a clear answer. For example, here is an 

excerpt of. an email I received last week from a consumer !tying to locate residential n1rniture 

that was not treated with flame retardants: 

"I have called and called and 98% of the manufactures simply don't 

know anything. One says no but how do I believe them when I have 

another company telling me it is required in all sofas even outside of 

California ..... one says no we don't while the local dealer says yes we do 

[add flame retardants] so I get so many conflicting stories." 

This example highlights the frustrations of many Americans. Despite the fact that the California 

residential furniture flammability standard (TB 117) only applies to fitrniture sold in California, 

most furniture manufacturers prefer to use this standard nationwide for ease of production and 

marketing, and thus manufacture all their products accordingly. 

Through my conversations with both the media and the public I am often been asked how I 

reduce my exposure in my home and what types of products I use in my own home, since I 

myself am a mother of two young children ages 1 and 3. In my case, I avoid products which our 

studies have shown to be treated with flame retardants, and I have spent considerable time 

searching for an alternative product that is not treated. Fortunately, I have managed to find flame 

retardant free products for all of my baby products with the exception of our car seats, which 

may need to meet additional standards for automobiles. The furniture I use in my home was 

manufactured in Italy, and does not meet TB 117 standards. In addition to these steps, my 

husband and I have chosen to limit carpeting in our homes, which can be laden with flame 

retardants in the padding, and also leads to dust accumulation in homes. I also wash my hands 

and my children's hands frequently. Just like the common cold, we can reduce our exposure to 

these chemicals by simply washing ones hands 39• As both a scientist and a mother, it is 

important to me that I reduce my family's exposure to these chemicals. 

In closing I would like to urge this Committee to strongly consider legislation that would reduce 

our children's exposure to these chemicals, some of which are suspected carcinogens, which can 

be done without compromising fire safety. I have dedicated much of my scientific career to 

testing consumer products for these chemicals to provide information on potential sources in the 

home. In my opinion, these products should be labeled to indicate they are treated with these 

chemicals, to allow consumers a choice, particularly when it involves the use of suspected 

carcinogens in baby products. Lastly I would just like to note that my research bas been funded 

by the National Institute ofEnviromnental Health Sciences and the National Science Foundation 

and I thank you for considering my testimony. 

Stapleton Testimony: July 24,2012 Page 6 
89 


25110.065

References 

Sjodin, A. eta!. Serum concentrations ofpolybrominated diphenyl ethers (PBDEs) and 

polyhrominated biphenyl (PBB) in the united states population: 2003-2004. 

Environmental Science & Technology 42, 13 77-1384, doi: l 0.1 021/es702451 p (2008). 

2 Hites, R. A. Polybrominated diphenyl ethers in the environment and in people: A metaanalysis of concentrations. Environmental Science & Technology 38, 945-956 (2004). 

3 Toms, L.-M. L. eta!. Higher accumulation ofpolybrominated diphenyl ethers in infants 

than in adults. Environmental Science & Technology 42, 7510-7515, 

doi: l 0.1 021/es800719v (2008). 

4 Rose, M. eta!. PBDEs in 2-5 Year-Old Children from California and Associations with 

Diet and Indoor Environment. Environmental Science & Technology 44, 2648-2653, 

doi: I 0.1 021/es903240g (20 1 0). 

5 Herbstman, J. B. eta!. Prenatal Exposure to PBDEs and Neurodevelopment. 

Environmental Health Perspectives 118, 712-719, doi:l0.1289/ehp.0901340 (2010). 

6 Harley, K. G. eta!. PBDE Concentrations in Women's Serum and Fecundability. 

Environmental Health Perspectives 118, 699-704, doi: 1 0.1289/ehp.0901450 (20 1 0). 

7 Chao, H. R., Wang, S. L., Lee, W. J., Wang, Y. F. & Papke, 0. Levels ofpolybrominated 

diphenyl ethers (PBDEs) in breast milk from central Taiwan and their relation to infant 

birth outcome and maternal menstruation effects. Environment Jnternational33, 239-245 

(2007). 

8 Harley, K. G. et al. Association of Prenatal Exposure to Polybrominated Diphenyl Ethers 

and Infant Birth Weight. American Journal of Epidemiology 174, 885-892, 

doi: 10.1 093/aje/kwr212 (2011). 

9 Miranda., M. L., Anthopolos, R., Wolkin, A. & Stapleton, H. M. Relationships between 

Maternal PBDE Levels during Pregnancy and Birth Outcomes. In Review (2012). 

10 Turyk, M. E. et al. Honnone Disruption by PBDEs in Adult Male Sport Fish Consumers. 

Environmental Health Perspectives 116, 1635-1641 (2008). 

11 Chevrier, J. eta!. Polybrominated Diphenyl Ether (PBDE) Flame Retardants and Thyroid 

Hormone during Pregnancy. Environmental Health Perspectives 118, 1444-1449, 

doi:10.1289/ehp.1001905 (2010). 

12 Stapleton, H. M., Eagle, S., Anthopolos, R., Wolkin, A. & Miranda, M. L. Associations 

between Polybrominatcd Diphenyl Ether (PBDE) Flame Retardants, Phenolic 

Metabolites, and Thyroid Hormones during Pregnancy. Environmental Health 

Perspectives 119, 1454-1459, doi:l0.1289/ehp.1003235 (2011). 

13 Betts, K. S. Rapidly rising PBDE levels in North America. Environmental Science & 

Technology 36, 50A-52A (2002). 

14 Tomy, G. T. eta!. Bioaccumulation, biotransformation, and biochemical effects of 

brominated diphenyl ethers in juvenile lake trout (Salvelinus namaycush). Environmental 

Science & Technology 38, 1496-1504 (2004). 

15 Schecter, A., Papke, 0., Tung, K. C., Staskal, D. & Birnbaum, L. Polybrominatcd 

diphenyl ethers contamination of United States food. Environmental Science & 

Technology 38, 5306-5311 (2004). 

Stapleton Testimony: July 24, 2012 Page 7 
90 


25110.066

16 Schecter, A. eta/. Polybrominated diphenyl ether (PBDE) levels in an expanded market 

basket survey of US food and estimated PBDE dietary intake by age and sex. 

Environmental Health Perspectives 114, 1515-1520 (2006). 

17 Lorber, M. Exposure of Americans to polybrominated diphenyl ethers. Journal of 

bxposure Science and Environmental Epidemiology 18, 2-19 (2008). 

18 Johnson, P. I., Stapleton, H. M., Slodin, A. & Meeker, J.D. Relationships between 

Polybrominated Diphenyl Ether Concentrations in House Dust and Serum. 

Environmental Science & Technology 44, 5627-5632, doi: 10.1 021/cs 1 00697q (20 l 0). 

19 Watkins, D. J. et al. Impact of Dust from Multiple Microcnvironrncnts and Diet on 

PentaBDE Body Burden. Environmental Science & Technology 46, 1192-1200, 

doi: 10.1 021/es203314e (2012). 

20 Stapleton, H. M., Eagle, S., Sjodin, A. & Webster, T. F. Serum PBDEs in a North 

Carolina Toddler Cohort: Associations with Hand Wipes, House Dust and 

Socioeconomic Variables. Environmental Health Perspectives doi:IO.l289/ehp.ll04802 

(2012). 

21 Allen, J. G., McClean, M.D., Stapleton, H. M. & Webster!, T. F. Linking PBDEs in 

house dust to consumer products using X-ray fluorescence. Environmental Science & 

Technology 42, 4222-4228 (2008). 

22 Tulve, N. S., Suggs, J. C., McCurdy, T., Hubal, E. A. C. & Moya, J. Frequency of 

mouthing behavior in young children. Journal of Exposure Analysis and Environmental 

Epidemiology 12, 259-264 (2002). 

23 Babich, M.A. Vol. Bethesda, MD 20814 (ed US Consumer Product Safety 

Commission) 129 (USCPSC, 2006). 

24 Gold, M.D., Blum, A. & Ames, B. N. Another Flame-Retardant, Tris-(1,3-Dichloro-2-

Propyl)-Phosphate, and Its Expected Metabolites Are Mutagens. Science 200, 785-787 

(1978). 

25 Blum, A. & Ames, B. N. Flame-Retardant Additives as Possible Cancer Hazards. Science 

195, 17-23 (1977). 

26 Blum, A. et al. Children Absorb Tris-Bp Flame-Retardant from Sleepwear- Urine 

Contains Mutagenic Metabolite, 2,3-Dibromopropanol. Science 201, 1020-1023 (1978). 

27 Stapleton, H. M. eta!. Alternate and new brominated flame retardants detected in US 

house dust. Environmental Science & Technology 42, 6910-6916 (2008). 

28 Stapleton, H. M. eta!. Detection of Organophosphate Flame Retardants in Furniture 

Foam and US House Dust. Environmental Science & Technology 43, 7490-7495, 

doi: 10.1021/es9014019 (2009). 

29 Cooper, E. M., Covaci, A., van Nuijs, A. L. N., Webster, T. F. & Stapleton, H. M. 

Analysis of the flame retardant metabolites bis(l,3-dichloro-2-propyl) phosphate 

(BDCPP) and diphenyl phosphate (DPP) in urine using liquid chromatography-tandem 

mass spectrometry. Analytical and Bioanalytical Chemislly 401, 2123-2132, 

doi: I 0.1 007/s00216-0 11-5294-7 (20 11 ). 

30 Stapleton, H. M. eta!. Identification of Flame Retardants in Polyurethane Foam 

Collected from Baby Products. Environmental Science & Technology 45, 5323-5331, 

doi:IO.l021/es2007462 (2011). 

31 Birnbaum, L. S. & Staskal, D. F. Brominated flame retardants: Cause for concern? 

Environmental Health Perspectives 112, 9-17 (2004). 

Stapleton Testimony: July 24, 2012 Page 8 
91 


25110.067

32 Eriksson, P., Jakobsson, E. & Fredriksson, A. Brominated flame retardants: A novel class 

of developmental neurotoxicants in our environment? Environmental Health Perspectives 

109, 903-908 (2001). 

33 Damerud, P. 0., Eriksen, G. S., Johmmesson, T., Larsen, P. B. & Viluksela, M. 

Polybrominated diphenyl ethers: Occurrence, dietary exposure, and toxicology. 

Environmental Health Perspectives 109, 49-68 (2001). 

34 Zhou, T., Ross, D. G., DeVito, M. J. & Crofton, K. M. Effects of short-term in vivo 

exposure to polybrominated diphenyl ethers on thyroid hormones and hepatic enzyme 

activities in weanling rats. Toxicological Sciences 61, 76-82 (2001). 

35 Fernie, K. J. et al. Exposure to polybrominated diphenyl ethers (PBDEs): Changes in 

thyroid, vitamin A, glutathione homeostasis, and oxidative stress in American kestrels 

(Falco sparverius). Toxicological Sciences 88, 375-383 (2005). 

36 W.H.O. Flame Retardants: Tris (chloropropyl) phosphate and tris (2 chloroethyl) 

phosphate. 129 (Geneva, 1998). 

37 Dishaw, L. V. et al. Is the PentaBDE replacement, tris (1,3-dichloropropyl) phosphate 

(TDCPP), a developmental neurotoxicant? Studies in PC12 cells. Toxicology and Applied 

Pharmacology 256,281-289, doi:IO. 1016/j.taap.2011.01.005 (201 1). 

38 Patisaul, H. et al. Developmental Exposure to the Flame Retardant Mixture Firemaster 

550 in Rats: Accumulation, Metabolism and Endocrine Disrupting Effects. In Review 

(2012). 

39 Watkins, D. J. et al. Exposure to PBDEs in the Office Environment: Evaluating the 

Relationships Between Dust, Hand wipes, and Serum. Environmental Health Perspectives 

119, 1247-1252, doi:10.1289/ehp.1003271 (2011). 

Stapleton Testimony: July 24,2012 Page 9 
92 


25110.068

Questions from Senator Barbara Boxer: 

I. Dr. Stapleton, when flame retardants persist in the environment, can they slowly breakdown into 

other chemicals and, during and after fires, can they more quickly breakdown into other 

chemicals? 

a. Do we know if some of the chemicals that result from this process are more or less toxic 

than the flame retardants? 

Response: We do know that some flame retardants persist for very long times in the 

environment, particularly in indoor environments where they are not exposed to sunlight, 

water or bacteria that can help degrade them. However, some flame retardants can slowly 

degrade over time. At this time, we only have limited information available on the 

degradation rates of a few flame retardants. DecaBDE (a commercial PBDE mixture) has 

been studied most frequently in this regard. Studies do demonstrate that DecaBDE can 

slowly degrade in the environment to smaller PBDEs (that contain fewer bromine atoms) [1-

3]. This is a concern as PBDEs with fewer bromine atoms have been shown to be more 

bioaccumulative and potentially more toxic. Furthermore, studies have also demonstrated 

that during exposure to sunlight and during fires, DecaBDE present in TVs can be degraded 

into a class of chemicals known as furans [4-6]. Furans are a class of chemicals similar in 

structure to dioxins, both of which are considered among the most toxic organic chemicals 

and they are also known to cause cancer in exposed animals. Furans are more toxic than 

PBDEs. The relative rates at which furans are formed depend on the type of product 

DecaBDE is found in, and on the environmental conditions (e.g. temperature and sunlight 

intensity). 

b. What are the potential public health concerns if these are also persistent and 

bioaccumulative? 

Response: Yes, furans are also persistent and bioaccumulative and exposure to furans can 

increase cancer risks among the population. However, to my knowledge, there have been no 

studies that have thoroughly evaluated the amount of exposure to furans during and after fires 

involving PBDE treated products. We know that they are formed because we can detect 

them in both burned materials and in soils/sediments around fires, but it is difficult to predict 

how much exposure occurs to the general population in surrounding areas. 

2. Your testimony references a study that you helped to conduct that examined levels of PBDEs in 

the blood of children, and levels of those chemicals in household dust. Can you go into a little 

more detail about what this study tells us about the prevalence of these chemicals in homes and 

levels that your study found in children? 

Response: During 2009-20 I 0 my research team conducted a study to examine toddlers' exposure 

to PBDEs in indoor environments [7]. We invited families with children between the ages of 12-

36 months, and who resided in central North Carolina, to participate in our research study. 

During the study we collected blood and hand wipe samples from the children, and collected 

Stapleton, Heather M Page 2 
93 


25110.069

samples of the families house dust, for PBDE testing. We found PBDEs in all house dust 

samples and in all blood samples analyzed. On average the levels ofPBDEs in the toddler's 

blood were 70% higher than adults. We also found that toddlers with the highest levels of 

PBDEs in their blood also had the highest levels of PBDEs in their house dust and on their hands 

(as measured on the hand wipe samples). We believe that children are accumulating PBDEs on 

their hands from either direct contact with products containing PBDEs (e.g. furniture), or from 

contact with house dust during normal behavior. This data suggests to us that children are 

receiving most of their exposure from accidental ingestion ofPBDEs in the indoor environment 

(e.g. dust exposure and hand to mouth contact). Our study and other research studies clearly 

demonstrate that PBDEs are found in every home, and some families may have very high levels 

of PBDEs in their horne (parts per thousand), while others may have much lower levels in their 

home (parts per billion). We presume these differences are due to different sources in the home, 

but since products are not labeled for flame retardants, it is impossible to determine where the 

PBDEs originate from. 

3. Dr. Stapleton, researchers from the University of California at Berkeley and the federal Centers 

for Disease Control and Prevention conducted a study that found that Latino children living in 

California have higher PBDE levels than children who live in Mexico. The study also notes that 

PBDEs are being phased out but that "the health consequences of these chemical replacements 

should be investigated and weighed against their purported fire safety benefits." Do you agree 

that we should investigate these alternative chemicals? 

Response: Yes, I do believe it would be in our best interest to not only conduct research on 

potential health effects of these alternative chemicals, but also determine how likely these 

alternative chemicals are to migrate out of treated consumer products. Many of the PBDE 

replacement chemicals are considered "additive chemicals", meaning they are not chemically 

bound to the product they are applied to, and are more likely to migrate out of these products 

over time and contaminate the environment. Give the high application rate of these chemicals in 

consumer products (e.g. 5-15% by weight of the product in some cases), the heavy use of these 

new chemicals increases concerns about human exposure to these untested chemicals and 

potential health effects, particularly in children, because children receive the greatest exposure to 

flame retardant chemicals in indoor environments [8]. 

Furthermore, many of these PBDE replacement chemicals have not been tested for health 

effects on developing organisms. Due to a lack of available data on one current PBDE 

replacement known as Firernaster 550 (FM 550), my collaborators and I conducted a study to 

investigate the effects ofFM 550 on pregnant rats. Our study found that exposure to FM 550 

during pregnancy resulted in early puberty and obesity in the developing pups [9]. In addition, 

the exposure level that resulted in these effects were significantly lower than what the industry 

claims to be an exposure level at which no adverse effects would be seen. Our study highlights a 

need for more testing on FM 550 as data already demonstrate that the chemicals found in FM 

550 are present in more than 95% of all house dust samples tested to date, implying that chronic 

exposure to children is occurring presently. 

Stapleton, Heather M Page 3 
94 


25110.070

References 

l. Soderstrom G, Sellstrom U, De Wit CA, Tysklind M: Photolytic debromination of 

decabromodiphenyl ether (BDE 209). Environmental Science & Technology 2004, 38(1): 127-

132. 

2. Stapleton HM, Dodder NG: Photodegradation of Decabromodiphenyl Ether in Natural and 

Ammended House Dust Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry 2008, 27(2):306-312. 

3. Stapleton HM, Alaee M, Letcher RJ, Baker JE: Debromination of the flame retardant 

decabromodiphenyl ether by juvenile carp (Cyprinus carpio) following dietary exposure. 

Environmental Science & Technology 2004, 38(1):112-119. 

4. Weber R, Kuch B: Relevance ofBFRs and thermal conditions on the formation pathways of 

brominated and brominated-chlorinated dibenzodioxins and dibenzofurans. Environment 

International2003, 29(6):699-710. 

5. Kajiwara N, Noma Y, Takigami H: Photolysis studies of technical decabromodiphenyl ether 

(DecaBDE) and ethane (DeBDethane) in plastics under natural sunlight. Environmental 

Science & Technology 2008, 42(12):4404-4409. 

6. Hagberg J, Olsman H, van Bavel B, Engwall M, Lindstrom G: Chemical and toxicological 

characterisation of PBDFs from photolytic decomposition of decaBDE in toluene. 

Environment lnternational2006, 32(7):851-857. 

7. Stapleton HM, EagleS, Sjodin A, Webster TF: Serum PBDEs in a North Carolina Toddler 

Cohort: Associations with Hand Wipes, House Dust and Socioeconomic Variables. 

Environmental Health Perspectives 2012, doi:l0.1289/ehp.ll04802 

8. Lorber M: Exposure of Americans to polybrominated diphenyl ethers . .Journal of Exposure 

Science and Environmental Epidemiology 2008, 18( I ):2-19. 

9. Patisaul H, Roberts SC, Mabrey N, McCaffrey KA, Gear RB, Braun J, Belcher S, Stapleton HM: 

Developmental Exposure to the Flame Retardant Mixture Firemaster 550 in Rats: 

Accumulation, Metabolism and Endocrine Disrupting Effects . .Journal of Biochemical and 

Molecular Toxicology 2012, In Press. 

Stapleton, Heather M Page4 
95 

Senator BOXER. Thank you very much. 

And now we turn to our two minority witnesses, the first of 

whom is Marshall Moore, Director, Technology, Advocacy and Marketing, Great Lakes Solution, a Chemtura business. 

And you can speak about the manufacture, including of flame 

retardants. Go ahead. 

STATEMENT OF MARSHALL MOORE, DIRECTOR, TECHNOLOGY, ADVOCACY AND MARKETING, GREAT LAKES SOLUTIONS, A CHEMTURA BUSINESS 

Mr. MOORE. Thank you, Senator Boxer, Senator Lautenberg, and 

the Committee. 

Flame retardants have received a lot of attention recently, some 

of which is inaccurate and misleading. So, I want to be very clear. 

Chemtura stands by its products. And we have acted proactively 

with EPA and others to lead our industry in the introduction of 

greener alternatives because of a corporate commitment to continuous improvement. That is why we are participating fully in this 

hearing. 

I will emphasize three points. One, flame retardants are effective 

in reducing the flammability of synthetic materials. Two, EPA has 

conducted an extensive assessment of new flame retardants to ensure that they are safe for use. And three, Chemtura acts 

proactively to develop new flame retardant products with improved 

environmental profiles. 

Our scientists are working every day to find better, safer, and 

greener ways to mitigate the age old risk of fire. By adding flame 

retardants to polyurethane foam, which is highly flammable when 

left untreated, manufacturers have been able to comply with the 

nation’s strictest furniture flammability standard, California Technical Bulletin 117. For over three decades, flame retardants have 

enabled manufacturers to meet this standard by reducing the flammability of their products. 

The introduction of this standard coincided with a dramatic decrease in the number and severity of house fires according to data 

compiled by the National Fire Protection Association. A number of 

labs have replicated these results, most recently at Southwest Research Institute. 

In a study funded by the National Institute of Justice, Dr. Matthew Blais tested foam treated with flame retardants to meet the 

California standard. He concluded, ‘‘The use of California Technical 

Bulletin 117 foam increases the fire safety of home furnishings by 

delaying the onset of free burning conditions and reducing the total 

energy released by the event.’’ 

Scientific data show the relative risk associated with our flame 

retardants is extremely low and is far outweighed by the societal 

benefits of this advancement that reduces the number and severity 

of fires. 

From an environmental perspective, EPA required rigorous review of TBB, a component of Firemaster 550. This product was designed to provide the same or better flame retarding properties in 

furniture foam as earlier products but with an improved environmental profile. Chemtura submitted 15 studies to EPA during the 

assessment of TBB. These included studies designed to assess the 

96 

potential exposure of consumers and the persistence and potential 

for bioaccumulation. Based on these studies, our scientists concluded, and EPA agreed, TBB is less persistent and less likely to 

bioaccumulate than the product it replaced. 

In the years that followed, Chemtura conducted additional environmental fate and toxicity studies. They indicated that the levels 

at which observed effects would be expected are orders of magnitude higher than the predicted exposure levels. That is, the risk 

is minimal. 

The product was subject to Government restrictions until EPA 

received those studies, a process that took more than 13 years. 

Chemtura will be submitting 17 additional studies, all conducted 

for registrations in other regions, as part of EPA’s TSCA Work 

Plan Chemicals Program. We welcome the opportunity to work 

with regulators to conduct a fresh, objective, and scientific review 

of this data as well as studies conducted by academic researchers. 

Based on our experience, the evaluation of new chemical substances under TSCA has been effective and thorough. Yet, we believe that TSCA can be modernized to be more efficient, to use current scientific technologies, and to reflect our improved understanding of how chemicals interact with the human body and the 

environment. You have our commitment to help in this effort. 

In conclusion, Chemtura has fully complied with chemical management regulations while also leading the industry in the introduction of greener alternatives. We have shown our commitment to 

continuous improvement by voluntarily replacing older products 

with new options that are better, safer, and greener. 

Everyone in this room wants the same thing, reduced risk of fire, 

greener chemistry that results in efficient products with reduced 

environmental impact, and a regulatory process that promotes innovation. Chemtura is proud to have led the industry in introducing products that meet the most rigorous fire safety standards 

while protecting human health and the environment. 

Thank you once again for the opportunity to appear before you 

today. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Moore follows:] 

97 


25110.071

Written Testimony of Mr. Marshall Moore 

Great Lakes Solutions, A Chemtura Business 

Director, Technology, Advocacy & Marketing 

Before the 

Committee on Environment and Public Works 

"Oversight of EPA Authorities and Actions to Control Exposures to Toxic Chemicals" 

July 24, 2012 

Good morning. I am Marshall Moore, Director of Technology, Advocacy and Marketing at Chemtura. 

Thank you for the opportunity to speak on behalf of our 4,300 employees. We sincerely appreciate the 

opportunity to share our views about proposals to reform the Toxic Substances Control Act and how 

improvements to the regulatory process would affect the innovative products that Chemtura 

manufactures, including the life-saving and injury-reducing products that we manufacture for the purpose 

of fire prevention. We welcome the opportunity to discuss the important contributions our innovative 

solutions, like our flame retardants, make to modem life. 

At Chemtura, our scientists have used chemistry to make other products more durable, safer, cleaner and 

more efficient in a number of industries, including construction materials such as insulation, furniture, 

electrical and electronics, and transportation. 

One area of which we are particularly proud is our scientists' work in the field of flame retardancy. 

Chemtura flame retardants are proven to protect lives and property by significantly reducing the risk of 

fire. 

Flame retardants have received a significant amount of attention in recent months - some of which has 

been inaccurate and misleading - so I feel compelled to summarize our position in very clear terms: 

Chemtura stands by its products. We have acted proactively with the Environmental Protection Agency 

(EPA) and other agencies not only to fully comply with chemical management regnlations, but also to 

lead the industry in the introduction of greener alternatives. 

These innovations enable mannfacturers to meet the strict fire-safety standards that government regulators 

and independent standards organi7~tions have established to protect the public by reducing the number 

and severity of frres that tlrreaten families, homes, and businesses. 

In my testimony, I want to make three clear points: 

1) Flame retardants are effective in reducing the flammability of synthetic materials; 

2) EPA has conducted an extensive assessment of new flame retardants, such as tetrabromobenzoate 

(TBB), to ensure that they are safe for use; 

3) Chemtura acts proactively to continually develop new flame retardant products with improved 

environmental profiles, and has demonstrated its willingness to cooperate with EPA in its 

assessment of both new and existing chemicals. 
98 


25110.072

Flame Retardants are Effective 

We share a common goal: reduce the number and severity offrres. In contemporary society, it is essential 

for manufacturers to find ways to limit the age-old risk of fire - a risk that has only increased with the 

introduction of modern products into our daily lives. Our scientists are working every day to find better, 

safer, and greener ways to do just that. 

According to the National Fire Protection Association (NFPA), between 2005 and 2009, "U.S. fire 

departments responded to an average of 7,040 home structure fires per year in which upholstered furniture 

was the first item ignited. These fires caused an average of 500 civilian frre deaths, 890 civilian frre 

injuries, and $442 million in direct property damage."1 We are doing our part to lower these numbers even 

more, but this is a significant improvement over the days that preceded the use of effective flame 

retardants. 

By adding flame retardants to polyurethane foam - which is highly flammable when left untreated -the 

manufacturers of furnishings have been able to comply with a variety of standards worldwide, including 

those of California, which has the strictest standard in the United States. California Technical Bulletin 

117, the formal name of the standard, was developed by the California Bureau of Home Furnishings 

through a consensus standards development process and frrst implemented in 1975. This regulation was 

intended to prevent ignition or slow the spread of the flame if the furniture is the first to ignite. When frres 

do occur, multiple studies show that foams treated with flame retardants burn much slower than untreated 

foam, giving occupants precious time to escape. 

The implementation of California TB 117 coincided 

with a dramatic reduction in upholstered furniture 

frres across the United States. From 1980 to 2009, 

upholstered furniture fires dropped 84 percent, from 

36,900 to 5,900, according to NFPA data. 2 Deaths 

caused by furniture frres fell by 67 percent3 During 

the same period, furniture fires from all sources fell 

dramatically4 

The statistics are just as impressive in the United 

Kingdom. A December 2009 report commissioned Figure 1 Side--by-side test of FR and non-FR foam against 

by the Consumer and Competition Policy Directorate open flame in Chemturalab 

of the Department for Business, Innovation and 

Skills, examined the effectiveness of that country's flammability standards for furniture and furnishings 

(F&F). Overall, the report said: "Both the number and lethality of F&F frres rose before the introduction 

of the regulations and fell afterwards. . . . The reduction in the rate and lethality of F&F frres was 

estimated to equate to 54 lives saved per year, 780 fewer casualties per year and 1,065 fewer frres per 

year in the period 2003-2007."5 

1 http:Uwww.nfpa.org/assets/files/PDF/UpholsteredFactSheet.pdf 

2 http:Uwww.nfga.org/assets/files/MbrSecurePDF/OS.Upholstered.pdf 

3 ibid. 

4 1bid. 

5 http://www.bis.gov.uk/files/file54041.odf 
99 


25110.073

A 1989 study conducted by the Commerce Department's National Bureau of Standards at the request of 

an industry group compared fire-retarded (FR) and non-fire-retarded (NFR) products in large-scale fire 

testing. Here is a verbatim quote from the government's report on its study: 

The impact ofFR (flame retardant) materials on the survivability of the building occupants was assessed in 

two w~s: (!) Comparing the time to untenability in the burn room; this is applicable to the occupants of 

the bum room. (2) Comparing the total production of heat, toxic gases, and smoke from the fire; this is 

applicable to occupants of the building remote from the room of fire origin. 

The time to untenability is judged by the time that is available to the occupants before the earlier of (a) 

room flashover, or (b) untenability due to toxic gas production occurs. For the FR tests, the average 

available escape time was more than 15-fold greater than for the occupants of the NFR room. With regard 

to the production of combustion products, 

The amount of material consumed in the fire for the FR tests was less than half the amount lost in the 

NFRtests. 

The FR tests indicated an amount of heat released from the fire which was 114 that released by the 

NFRtests. 

The total quantities of toxic gases produced in the room fire tests, expressed in "CO equivalents," were 

113 for the FR products, compared to the NFR ones. 

The production of smoke was not significantly different between the room fire tests using NFR 

products and those with FR products. 

Thus, in these tests, the fire retardant additives did decrease the overall fire hazard of their host products. 

The above conclusions are specifically pertinent only to the materials actually examined Thus, while it has been 

demonstrated that very significantly enhanced fire performance can be obtained with fire retarded products, such 

improvements are by no means to be automatically expected from all fire retarded products. Instead, it will still be 

necessary to test and evaluate proposed new systems indiVidually However, these tests do shaw that the proper 

selection of.fire retardants can markedly improve the fire safety of specific products. 6 

Flame retardants remain effective. In a recent study funded by the National Institute of Justice at the U.S. 

Justice Department, Dr. Matthew Blais, the director of the Fire Technology Department at the non-profit 

Southwest Research Institute, tested materials treated with flame retardants in order to meet the strictest 

U.S. furniture flammability standard. He concluded: 

Urethane foam filled fUrnishings have the potential for contributing tremendous energy to a fire and when 

not protected with flame retardants (FR) can lead to rapid transition from incipient fire to a free burning 

condition. The time to reach flashover (spread to the rest of the room) in a recent study performed at 

Southwest Research Institute (SwRJ®) by Janssens et al. was as short as 200 seconds from time of ignition. 

The addition of flame retardant covering over the foam adds a layer of defense that del~s transition to 

flashover to almost 800 seconds from initiation. The additional use of CA TB 117 rated urethane foams 

prevented sustained burning when a small ignition source was used. In cases where the CA TB 117 foams 

are used with flammable coverings, significant reductions in both peak Heat Release Rate (HRR) and total 

HRR were measured and a significant del~ in reaching the free burning condition was observed. The 

impact of adding FR to the covering material and urethane foams adds defense in depth to the fUrnishing 

that undoubtedly saves lives. 7 

That is up to 10 additional minutes for an individual or family to escape to safety. 

6 http :1/fire.nist.gov /bfrlpubs/fire88/PDF /f88003.pdf 7 Blais, Matthew. The Utility of CA TB 117, Does the Regulation Add Value? Southwest Research Institute, 2012. 
100 


25110.074

Flame Retardants have Undergone Extensive Scientific Study 

Figure 2 ACC illustrates the rigorous review process for new chemicals 

Our flame retardants work as intended. They have also undergone rigorous testing and meet the standards 

set by government scientists and regulators, as well as those set forth by our customers. The U.S. EPA 

requires extensive scientific review before it authorizes the production of flame retardants, which are 

among the most carefully studied chemicals used in consumer products. Our Firemaster® 5 50 flame 

retardant led our industry in an innovative move to greener chemicals. 

EPA required a rigorous review of 2,3,4,5-tetrabromo-ethylhexylbenzoate (TBB), the brominated 

component of Firemaster 550. In keeping with our corporate commitment to leading the move toward 

greener innovation, this product was developed to provide the same or better flame retarding properties as 

PentaBDE in furniture foam, but with an improved environmental profile. In total, 15 studies were 

submitted to EPA during the course of the assessment of TBB. These include studies specifically 

designed to assess the potential exposure of consumers to the substance, as well as the persistence and 

potential for bioaccumulation. All of these studies were conducted at independent accredited laboratories 

following standardized methods. Based on these studies our scientists concluded - and the EPA agreed 

- TBB is less persistent and less likely to bioaccumulate than the product it replaced. Perhaps the best 

public summary of this assessment is shown in the final report of EPA's Design for the Environment 

project titled Furniture Flame Retardancy Partnership. In the 2005 final report, TBB is shown to have 

low persistence and low bioaccumulation potential. 

EPA oversight did not stop there. In the years that followed, we conducted additional studies on 

environmental fate and toxicity. Until those studies were provided to EPA, we were subjected to a time 

limit during which we were allowed to produce the product - a process that took more than 13 years. 
101 


25110.075

The result of an assessment of the toxicity and environmental fate studies provided to EPA indicated the 

levels at which observable effects would be expected are orders of magnitude higher than the predicted 

exposure levels. 

In addition to the 15 studies that Chemtura submitted to EPA, 17 additional studies have been conducted 

on this compound for the purpose of registrations in other regions. Chemtura will be submitting these 

studies tu EPA as part of the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) Work Plan Chemicals program. 

We welcome the opportunity tu work with federal regulators to conduct a fresh, objective, and scientific 

review of this data as well as studies conducted by independent academic researchers. Scientific data 

show the relative risk associated with our flame retardants is extremely low, and is far outweighed by the 

societal benefits of an innovation that reduces the number and severity offrres that can threaten lives and 

property. 

Regulatory Reform is Needed 

Chemtura supports efforts to reform TSCA. It is our experience with flame retardants that the current 

process for the evaluation of new chemical substances under TSCA has been effective and thorough. The 

review of substances by EPA is done in a way that effectively minimizes the risk of adverse 

environmental impact, while at the same time not undermining the competitiveness of U.S. manufacturers 

in global markets. 

That said, our nation's primary chemicals management law must be updated to keep pace with scientific 

advances and to ensure that chemical products are safe for their intended use - while also encouraging 

innovation. 

TSCA has been protective of human health and the environment, but we recognize that public confidence 

in the regulatory system has eroded in recent years. This lack of confidence has resulted in regulatury 

inconsistencies at the state level and caused undue concern among consumers, often based on the rhetoric 

of activists rather than published research of scientists. This is not sustainable. 

We all share the desire for a modem regulatory system that gives everyone- consumers, manufacturers, 

and others - confidence in the products of chemistry that have enabled the development of modern 

society and preserved the role of the United States as the world's leading innovator. We believe TSCA 

should be modernized to be more efficient, to use current scientific technologies, and to reflect our 

improved understanding of how chemicals interact with the human body and the environment. 

Despite the need to update TSCA, there is broad agreement that EPA's program to evaluate and approve 

new chemicals before they are manufactured and commercialized works well. Every new chemical, 

including TBB, has had to go through a systematic assessment of human health and environmental risks 

before a company can begin commercial production or import. EPA has full authority- and uses it-to 

collect information, demand additional information and testing, limit uses to manage potential risks, and 

deny the application for manufacture if the agency cannot establish that the new product will not pose an 

unreasonable risk of injury to health or the environment. Existing chemicals and those in long-time use 

are subject to ongoing scrutiny, with the federal government maintaining continuous reporting, testing, 

and evaluation authority under TSCA, and as many as 12 other federal laws. 

The flame-retardant industry has also shown a commitment to self-regulation through its own product 

stewardship initiatives. At Chemtura, for example, we engage in a process of continuous improvement. 

That was why we developed a greener alternative and voluntarily phased out production of PBDEs. We 

also work with our customers to minimize the potential release of flame retardants to the environment 
102 


25110.076

through the Voluntary Emissions Control Action Program (VECAP), an award-winning product 

stewardship program developed by the European Flame Retardants Association (EFRA) and the Bromine 

Science and Environmental Forum (BSEF). 

Going forward, EPA's decisions must consistently be based on a strong scientific framework that uses 

modem technology, proven safety testing methods, and high-quality data. Chemtura has always 

welcomed the opportunity to work with EPA in its efforts to conduct objective, science-based assessment 

of chemicals, including flame retardants. For us it means continuing to provide our company's scientific 

data and other information regarding flame retardants in support of the Design for the Environment 

projects, and the EPA's upcoming assessments of its Work Plan. This will provide the agency with the 

facts it needs to conduct an objective scientific review that sets a direction for the future use and study of 

the products. 

Since scientific understanding is always evolving, a regulatory system that can adapt to advances in 

science and technology will help ensure the safe use of the essential, innovative products made possible 

by chemistry, as well as maintain American competitiveness in this important arena. 

Chemtura is Committed to Continuous Improvement 

We are proud of the fact that Chemtura leads our industry in the introduction of new flame retardants 

through Greener Innovation that maintains the fire safety efficacy that enable manufacturers to meet fire 

prevention standards in this country and around the world. Reducing the number and severity of fires that 

threaten families, homes, and businesses - efficiently and safely - is common ground for all of us. 

As a company, we have shown our commitment to continuous improvement in our scientific endeavors 

by voluntarily replacing older products with newer options that are better, safer, and greener. EPA has 

required rigorous review of these products, which have been found to have an improved environmental 

profile when compared to their predecessors. 

Moreover, we all share the desire for a modem regulatory system that evokes confidence in the products 

of chemistry that have enabled the development of modem society and preserved our national 

competitiveness. We believe TSCA can be modernized to be more efficient, to use current scientific 

technologies, and to reflect our improved understanding of how chemicals interact with the human body 

and the environment You have our commitment to help in this effort. 

Thank you. 
103 


25110.077

July 25, 2012 

The Honorable Barbara Boxer 

Chairman 

Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works 

410 Dirksen Senate Office Building 

Washington, DC 20510 

The Honorable James lnhofe 

Ranking Member 

Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works 

456 Dirksen Senate Office Building 

Washington, DC 20510 

Dear Chairman Boxer and Ranking Member lnhofe: 

Marshall D. Moore 

Dwectol_ Technology, Advocacy & Marketmg 

Great Lakes Solutions, A Chemtura Business 

1801 US Highway 52 West 

West Lafayette, IN 47906 

765-497-6127 tel 

765-497-6395 fax 

Thank you for the opportunity to participate in Tuesday's Environment and Public Works Committee 

hearing on proposals to reform the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA). 

I respectfully request the opportunity to submit the following information in response to questions that 

arose during the hearing: 

EPA Authority 

During the first panel, there appeared to be some confusion about EPA authorities and whether 

or not the agency exercised its authority under section 5 of TSCA to require persistence or 

bioaccumulation data from Chemtura during the regulatory review ofTBB. At the request of 

EPA, Chemtura performed persistence and bioaccumulation studies which were provided to 

and reviewed by EPA and demonstrated that TBB is less persistent and less bioaccumulative 

than prior products. 

Relationships with Other Groups 

Chemtura works with many stakeholders who share our interest in fire safety and greener 

chemistry. Much of that work is done through industry organizations such as the American 

Chemistry Council, North American Flame Retardant Alliance, Bromine Science and 

Environmental Forum, and others with whom we are proud to be associated. As a company 

and through these organizations, we work with legislators, regulators and others to meet the 

most rigorous fire safety and environmental standards. 

We do not perceive any conflict between Chemtura's role as a manufacturer of flame 

retardants and support for independent organizations that promote fire safety. The function of 

Chemtura's flame retardant products is to enhance fire safety and its scientists have unique 
104 


25110.078

July 25, 2012 

Page 2 

expertise in the field of fire science. As such, it is natural for the company and its employees 

to support organizations that share the same concerns about fire safety and flammability 

standards. The common thread that runs through these activities is a shared goal of reducing 

the number and severity of fires that threaten lives and property. 

As I said in my testimony, Chemtura is also a founding member of Citizens for Fire Safety 

(CFFSI). Chemtura holds a seat on the CFFSI Board, but our company has never been 

involved in the day-to-day activities of that organization. We were shocked to learn of the 

allegations reported regarding the professionals who were hired to run CFFSI, including the 

claims they had engaged in activities that would be contrary to our principles. 

Chemtura has a very high ethical standard and takes these allegations seriously. We are 

conducting a review of all of our company's flame-retardant advocacy activities involving 

third parties and consultants including CFFSI, and Chemtura is not participating in any CFFSI 

activities pending outcome of that review. 

Compliance with EPA Regulations 

Chemtura complied with all regulatory requirements under the Premanufacture Notice 

requirements for new chemicals under section 5 of TSCA, including performing and reporting 

the results of all tests EPA required throughout the process of evaluating TBB. 

A question arose during the hearing about the $55,90 I fine that Chemtura paid after the 

Environmental Protection Agency discovered a clerical error during a routine audit of 

Chemtura's Inventory Update Reports, which requires Chemtura to provide information on 

approximately 200 different chemicals. 

Of the approximately 200 chemicals reported, Chemtura inadvertently recorded inaccurate 

volume information for two chemicals in 2002 and inadvertently omitted volume information 

for those two chemicals in 2006. After this omission was brought to the company's attention, 

Chemtura corrected its records and cooperated with EPA during its review process, prompting 

the agency to reduce the fine it had originally levied. 

Thank you again for giving Chemtura the opportunity to participate in this Committee hearing. 

Sincerely, 

Marshall D. Moore 

Director, Technology, Advocacy & Marketing 
105 

Senator BOXER. Thank you, sir. 

And now we turn to the second minority witness, William 

Rawson, Partner, Chair, Environment, Land and Resources Department, Latham & Watkins, attorney for chemical manufacturers 

including of flame retardants. 

Welcome. 

STATEMENT OF WILLIAM K. RAWSON, PARTNER AND CHAIR 

OF THE ENVIRONMENT, LAND AND RESOURCES DEPARTMENT IN WASHINGTON, DC, LATHAM & WATKINS 

Mr. RAWSON. Madam Chair and distinguished members of the 

Committee, good morning. Thank you for inviting me to testify. 

I have co-authored a book on the Toxic Substances Control Act 

and have practiced environmental law for 25 years. I have been 

asked to testify today by Albemarle Corporation, a domestic producer of flame retardants, and ICL-IP, an Israeli company that imports flame retardants. 

I have a strong appreciation for EPA’s mission and have worked 

closely with many EPA managers and staff over the years. I have 

great respect for their efforts in support of EPA’s mission. 

All major stakeholders agree that amendments to TSCA are 

needed. To make progress toward amendments, we need to find 

common ground. Executive Order 13563, signed by President 

Barack Obama last year, states a regulatory system must protect 

public health, welfare, safety, and our environment while promoting economic growth, innovation, competitiveness, and job creation. TSCA amendments should meet those objectives. 

The Executive Order directs each agency to ‘‘propose or adopt a 

regulation only upon a reasoned determination that its benefits justify its costs’’ and to ‘‘tailor its regulations to impose the least burden on society consistent with obtaining regulatory objectives.’’ 

My testimony focuses on TSCA Section 5, which governs approval of new chemicals; Section 4, which governs testing of existing chemicals; and Section 6, which provides authority to regulate 

existing chemicals. 

The strength of Section 5 lies in its flexibility, which allows EPA 

to raise or lower the bar according to the properties of each proposed new chemical. Since TSCA was enacted in 1976, the company 

seeking approval of a new chemical in every case has either agreed 

to EPA’s data requirements and restrictions or withdrawn its premanufacture notice. Several thousand chemicals have been approved with restrictions or not approved at all. There has been no 

litigation under Section 5. Section 5, in my judgment, is doing a 

good job of meeting the objectives of the Executive Order. 

The Senate bill would mandate a new round of EPA review for 

every new use of a previously approved chemical and every significant increase in use of an existing chemical. The implications for 

EPA’s overburdened resources, for EPA’s ability to prioritize, and 

for industry’s ability to innovate would be very significant. 

Section 4. EPA has two ways under TSCA Section 4 to require 

toxicity testing of existing chemicals, a risk-based approach and an 

exposure-based approach. Case law shows that the burden is very 

low. The Section 4 criteria, in my judgment, provide a sound basis 

106 

for deciding what testing is necessary to protect human health and 

the environment. 

Why are there not more test rules? One reason is that industry 

conducts a large amount of testing voluntarily. Also, many chemicals have been evaluated for testing under TSCA and have been determined to be a low priority for testing or not to need any testing 

at all. 

The Senate bill would not require EPA to consider potential for 

exposure before determining the need for testing. EPA has stated, 

‘‘The level, frequency, and duration of exposure of a chemical 

should always be considered when determining the necessity of additional testing.’’ 

Section 6. The asbestos rulemaking did not fail because of the 

statute. It failed because of errors in the rulemaking. This is explained in my testimony. Section 6 requires the EPA to adopt the 

‘‘least burdensome requirements necessary to address the identified 

risks. The Executive Order directs agencies to use the least burdensome tools for achieving regulatory ends.’’ 

The unreasonable risk standard in Section 6 is not unique to 

TSCA. The Federal pesticide statute has a similar standard. The 

Executive Order directs agencies to ‘‘take into account benefits and 

costs, both quantitative and qualitative.’’ The proposed reasonable 

certainty of new harm standard and proposal to require EPA to 

consider exposure from all sources, including those outside of EPA’s 

jurisdiction, is not workable for all chemicals regulated under 

TSCA. 

The Senate bill would make a decision by EPA that a chemical 

fails to meet the safety standard immune from judicial challenge. 

Even arbitrary and capricious decisionmaking could not be overturned. That is very troubling. 

All stakeholders recognize the need for EPA to prioritize its resources. A rational prioritization scheme with reasonable timelines 

would give the public greater confidence that significant risks are 

being addressed in a systematic and timely manner. 

We need to understand which perceived shortcomings of TSCA 

derive from the statute and which derive from implementation. 

Proposed solutions should match the problems. Amendments 

should produce better decisions, not just easier decisions. 

The companies have committed voluntarily to end production and 

importation of Deca-BDE without EPA taking any action under 

TSCA Section 6. Substantial testing has been conducted by the 

companies without the need for any test rule under TSCA Section 

4. The companies support EPA’s efforts to promulgate a significant 

new use rule under TSCA Section 5 that would apply to imported 

articles containing Deca-BDE. 

In conclusion, notwithstanding the voluntary phase-out, the companies believe that Deca-BDE is a safe flame retardant. Health 

Canada recently released a draft health assessment document—— 

Senator BOXER. Mr. Rawson, will you wrap up, please? 

Mr. RAWSON. May I just complete the last sentence, please? 

Senator BOXER. Sure. 

Mr. RAWSON. Health Canada recently released a draft health assessment document that found adequate margins of exposure including for children. 

107 

Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Rawson follows:] 

108 


25110.079

WRITTEN TESTIMONY OF WILLIAM K. RAWSON 

PARTNER AND CHAIR OF THE ENVIRONMENT, 

LAND & RESOURCES DEPARTMENT IN WASHINGTON, D.C. 

LATHAM & WATKINS 

BEFORE THE 

COMMITTEE ON ENVIRONMENT & PUBLIC WORKS 

OF HIE 

UNITED STATES SENATE 

JULY24,2012 

Madam Chair, distinguished members ofthe Committee and staff- good morning. 

Thank you for inviting me to testify today on the topic ofEPA's legal authorities and activities to 

assess exposures and risks to toxic chemicals, including flame retardants. I hope my testimony 

will prove useful to the Committee. 

I am a partner in the law firm of Latham & Watkins and chair its environmental practice 

in Washington, D.C. l have co-authored a desk book on the Toxic Substances Control Act 

(TSCA) published by the Environmental Law Institute, and have been involved in numerous 

rulemaking proceedings and other activities arising under various sections ofTSCA. I have been 

asked to testify today by Albemarle Corporation, a domestic producer of flame retardants, and 

!CL-IP, an Israeli company that produces and imports flame retardants. My testimony will 

reflect my experience representing and counseling companies and trade associations on issues 

arising under TSCA and other chemical regulation statutes over the last 25 years. 

My testimony will focus primarily on EPA's experience implementing its authorities 

under TSCA. It is important to keep in mind, however, that TSCA is only part of the story. EPA 

regulates the use, release and disposal of chemical substances under many other environmental 

statutes. Other federal agencies, including OSHA, FDA and CPSC, also have substantial 

responsibility for ensuring the safe handling and use of chemicals under their respective statutory 

authorities. 

Additionally, chemical manufacturers have implemented various voluntary initiatives and 

product stewardship programs to support the safe manufacture and use of their products. Many 

of the industry's voluntary initiatives have been undertaken in collaboration with EPA and other 

stakeholders. These initiatives and product stewardship programs help meet the objectives of 

TSCA. 
109 


25110.080

I also would like to express strong appreciation for EPA's mission. I have worked 

closely with many EPA managers and staff over the years on numerous challenging issues, and 

have great respect for their efforts in support of EPA's mission. 

TSCA 

All major stakeholders appear to agree that amendments to TSCA are needed. 

Stakeholders have divergent views, however, about what needs to be fixed and why. To make 

progress toward amendments, we need to find common ground. 

A useful starting point for analysis is Executive Order No. 13563, signed by President 

Barack Obama on January II, 20 II. That EO states: "Our regulatory system must protect public 

health, welfare, safety, and our environment while promoting economic growth, innovation, 

competitiveness, and job creation." TSCA amendments should meet those objectives. 

The EO also states that our regulatory system must "identify and use the best, most 

innovative, and least burdensome tools for achieving regulatory ends. It must take into account 

benefits and costs, both quantitative and qualitative." EO No. 13563 directs each agency to 

"propose or adopt a regulation only upon a reasoned determination that its benefits justify its 

costs." It compels each agency to "tailor its regulations to impose the least burden on society, 

consistent with obtaining regulatory objectives." One possible framework for evaluating 

proposed amendments to TSCA, then, would be to ask how well the legislative proposals would 

promote the objectives stated in the President's Executive Order. 

I will focus my testimony on three sections ofTSCA: section 5, which governs approvals 

of new chemicals; section 4 which governs testing of existing chemicals; and section 6 which 

provides authority to regulate existing chemicals. 

Section 5. EPA has taken a flexible approach to data requirements for new chemicals, in 

some cases requiring very little information, and in other cases requiring more information. EPA 

has imposed restrictions on manufacture and use where it has considered restrictions necessary to 

protect health or the environment. While companies often negotiate over data requirements or 

proposed restrictions, in every case since TSCA was enacted in 1976, the company seeking 

approval of a new chemical has either agreed to EPA's data requirements and restrictions, or 

withdrawn its premanufacture notice. Several thousand chemicals have either been approved 

with restrictions or not approved at all. There has been no litigation under TSCA section 5. 

The strength of §5 lies in its flexibility. Chemicals are not all alike. Some can very easily 

be determined to pose low risks. Others require more data and closer scrutiny, and may require 

restrictions to ensure safe use. The flexibility in §5 allows EPA to raise or lower the scrutiny, and 

raise or lower the restrictions, according to the properties of the chemical. 

I believe Section 5 is doing a reasonably good job meeting the multiple objectives of EO 

13563. In my view, those who were involved in the enactment ofTSCA in 1976 should be 

pleased with what has been accomplished under Section 5. This section fundamentally changed 

how companies that manufacture chemicals bring new products to market. 

2 
110 


25110.081

Under the Senate bill - the Safe Chemicals Act of 20 II -- every new use of a previously 

approved chemical, and every significant increase in use of an existing chemical, would require 

another round of EPA review. Under the current statute, EPA has authority to determine when a 

new use would be sufficiently significant to require another round of review, based on 

consideration of relevant factors. The regulatory burdens associated with requiring new review 

for every new usc, and every significant increase in use, would be enormous. The implications 

of the Senate proposal for EPA's overburdened EPA resources, for EPA's ability to prioritize, 

and for industry's ability to innovate, would be very significant. 

Section 4. EPA has two ways under TSCA to require toxicity testing of existing 

chemicals. The first requires EPA to find that a chemical "may present" an unreasonable risk. 

The second is an exposure-based approach, where EPA can base testing requirements on 

production volume and a finding of significant or substantial human exposure or substantial 

releases to the environment. In each case, EPA must also find that existing data are insufficient 

to evaluate potential risks, and that the specific proposed testing is necessary to evaluate 

potential risks. Case law shows that the burden is very low. There is no Catch-22, as some have 

suggested. The "may present" a risk finding can and has been met with very limited toxicity data 

and only circumstantial evidence of potential exposure, such as, for example, that a chemical is 

handled in the workplace. 

I believe the TSCA §4 criteria provide a sound basis for deciding what testing is 

necessary to protect human health and the environment. These criteria are appropriate not only 

for test rules under TSCA, but for industry decisions about what testing to conduct voluntarily. 

Why aren't there more test rules? One reason is that industry conducts a large amount of 

testing voluntarily, without the need for any rulemaking action by EPA. Also, many chemicals 

have been evaluated for testing under TSCA and have been determined to be a low priority for 

testing or not to need any testing at all. The volume of testing and the amount of information 

available to EPA is not accurately measured by counting the number of test rules and section 4 

testing consent orders. 

There have been implementation issues with section 4 that have caused a number of 

rulemakings to get bogged down. I believe a greater willingness on EPA's part to use tiered 

approaches to testing would have helped resolve some of the disputes that have arisen in the past. 

The Senate bill would not require EPA to consider potential for exposure before 

considering the necessity of testing. EPA has stated expressly in the Federal Register that: "The 

level, frequency, and duration of exposure to a chemical should always be considered when 

determining the sufficiency of existing data and the necessity of additional testing." One might 

ask, would it be appropriate to eliminate testing criteria that EPA has expressively stated are 

appropriate? 

The goal of amendments should not be to make it easier for EPA to impose testing 

requirements. The goal should be to ensure that statutory criteria produce scientifically-sound 

and ethical testing decisions. Ifthe current criteria do that, changes to the criteria are not needed. 

The emphasis should not be on the number of test rules that have been promulgated, but on 

3 
111 


25110.082

ensuring that EPA has the information it needs to perform its risk management functions, 

whether that information is gained through test rules, voluntary testing initiatives, or otherwise. 

Section 6. Very few regulations have been promulgated under §6. That is not necessarily 

the right metric for evaluating the adequacy of the statute. Rulemakings take time and money. If 

product stewardship and/or voluntary initiatives render formal action under §6 unnecessary, that 

should be considered a good outcome. Nevertheless, I acknowledge that there has been an 

erosion of public confidence in TSCA, and in particular section 6. So we must ask: how can that 

be addressed, and what changes might improve public confidence in TSCA? 

I will first address the failed effort to ban uses of asbestos, which has been cited as 

evidence that the evidentiary burden EPA must meet under section 6 is too high. A careful 

reading of the court's decision overturning portions of the asbestos ban shows that EPA made 

procedural and substantive errors of a nature that would require any final rule under any 

environmental statute to be set aside. EPA did not give proper public notice of a key element of 

its exposure analysis, that in some cases "completely altered" EPA's assessment, until atler the 

hearings were closed. 1 In the case of asbestos-containing friction products (primarily 

replacement drum and disk brakes), 2 which accounted for "the lion's share of the proposed 

benefits of the asbestos regulation," a study commissioned by EPA raised significant concerns 

about the effectiveness of substitute products. One of the study authors testified that the 

"replacement/substitution of asbestos-based with non-asbestos brake linings will produce grave 

risks," and that '"the expected increase of skid-related highway accidents and resultant traffic 

deaths would certainly be expected to overshadow any potential health-related benefits of fiber 

substitution."'3 Other equally significant errors are noted in the court's opinion. The court 

ruling certainly was disappointing to EPA, which had spent 10 years on the asbestos rulemaking, 

but the court's decision should not be misunderstood. The asbestos rulemaking failed not 

because of the statute, but because of errors in the rulemaking. 

I believe the failure of the asbestos rulemaking has led to an overstatement of the burdens 

associated with promulgation of a §6 rule. EPA successfully promulgated several §6 rules before 

the failed asbestos effort, without becoming embroiled in legal challenges, and without 

conducting a quantitative risk assessment for every alternative control measure. I believe we 

should look at that experience before concluding that section 6 can never work. 

Section 6 requires EPA to adopt the "least burdensome requirements" necessary to 

address the identified health or environmental risks. This precludes a ban of a product if a less 

burdensome approach would protect human health and the environment. Recall that EO 13563 

directs agencies to use the "least burdensome tools for achieving regulatory ends." 

The "unreasonable risk" standard in section 6 standard is not unique to TSCA. The 

Federal Insecticide, Fungicide and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA) requires EPA to consider "any 

unreasonable risk to man or the environment" and take "into account the economic, social. and 

Corrosion Proof Fittings v. EPA, 947 F.2d 1201, 1212-13 (5th Cir. 1991). 

The court's opinion related to after-market brakes and the difficulty of installing non-asbestos replacement 

brakes in vehicles designed to use asbestos brakes. At the time, most new cars were already engineered for nonasbestos brakes. 1 !d. at 1224 n. 25 (citing written testimony). 

4 
112 


25110.083

environmental costs and benefits of the use of any pesticide." EO 13563 similarly directs 

agencies to "take into account benefits and costs, both quantitative and qualitative." 

The Senate bill would apply a "reasonable certainty of no harm" safety standard, which 

EPA uses for food-use pesticides and FDA uses for food contact materials. The bill would 

require EPA to consider aggregate exposure from all sources, including those outside its 

jurisdiction. The level of effort that would be required and implications for EPA resources are 

enormous. Application of this standard to all chemicals regulated under TSCA, regardless of 

their uses and physical, chemical and toxicological properties, would appear unrealistic. 

The Senate bill would provide that an EPA decision that a chemical fails to meet the 

safety determination would be immune from judicial challenge. Even arbitrary and capricious 

decision-making could not be overturned. I find that a very troubling concept. 

Section 6 ofTSCA places the burden on EPA to demonstrate the need for regulation. 

This is not unique. When EPA promulgates an air quality or emission standard under the CAA, 

for example, it typically carries the burden of demonstrating the need for the level of protection 

and/or specific control measures that are proposed. Courts typically give EPA wide latitude to 

make these kinds of judgments. While the burden should be on industry to develop the 

information EPA needs to perform its risk management functions, it is not unreasonable, nor out 

ofline with other environmental statutes, to expect EPA to support a proposed regulation under 

TSCA with good science. 

All stakeholders recognize the need for EPA to prioritize its resources. I believe a rational 

prioritization scheme with reasonable time lines would give greater confidence to the public that 

significant risks are being addressed in a systematic and timely manner. I offer this as an 

example of an important area where all stakeholders might be able to get together, and craft a 

more comprehensive approach to risk management under TSCA. 

To conclude my general remarks about TSCA, all stakeholders agree TSCA amendments 

are needed. We need to understand which perceived shortcomings derive from the statute, which 

derive from implementation, and make sure the proposed solutions match the problems. 

Amendments should produce better decisions, not just easier decisions. I cite the EO because I 

believe TSCA should live by the same principles that govern other statutes and ti.mdamentally 

should remain risk-based. Important risk management decisions under TSCA should remain 

subject to judicial review, just as occurs under other environmental statutes. 

DecaBDE 

I would like to offer a few comments about EPA activities regulating decaBDE, one of 

the polybrominated diphenyl ethers, under TSCA. 

The three major producers and importers of decaBDE in December, 2009 submitted 

letters to EPA committing to phase out production and importation over a four year period. 

Some uses could be phased out relatively quickly; some require much longer lead times, and for 

some even the lour-year phase-out might be very challenging or might yet prove infeasible. 

5 
113 


25110.084

EPA has proposed to issue a Significant New Use Rule (SNUR) under TSCA section 5 

that would apply to imports of articles containing decaBDE, and also has proposed to require 

testing of any companies that wish to continue manufacture or import of decaBDE or articles 

containing decaBDE. The three companies that submitted voluntary commitments to discontinue 

production and importation of decaBDE generally support these regulatory proposals. 

Thus within a reasonable period of time, it appears that manufacture and use ofdecaDBE 

in the United States will have been ended, without any action under TSCA section 6. Having 

said that, I wish to dispel some misunderstandings about decaBDE, and make clear that there has 

been no failure ofTSCA with respect to dccaBDE. 

First, DecaBDE has been extensively tested. Much of the toxicity testing has been 

conducted voluntarily by industry and made publicly available, without the need for any test rule 

under TSCA. A substantial amount of exposure information is available as well. 

Second, the available test data and exposure information supports the conclusion that 

decaBDE can be used safely as a flame retardant. Levels that have been detected in humans are 

far below levels that might present a concern. Potential exposures from dust are far below levels 

that might present a concern. DecaBDE does not accumulate in the body. Health Canada 

recently released a draft health assessment document that found adequate margins of exposure 

for the most highly exposed age groups of children. 

Third, much of the concern about decaBDE originated with a study that used a novel 

protocol and that has been shown in the published literature to have significant flaws. EPA used 

this study in 2008 to calculate a safe daily exposure level. Since then the companies funded a 

much more robust study, following internationally-accepted and EPA-approved protocols, that 

failed to replicate the findings of the earlier, flawed study. This robust guideline study was 

published in the peer-reviewed literature in 20 II. This study and other published literature 

support a considerably higher safe daily level than EPA has calculated. The National Academy 

of Sciences in 2004 calculated a safe daily level that is approximately a 1000-fold higher than the 

level calculated by EPA. The producers believe the safe daily level calculated by NAS is a 

scientifically sound value. 

Fourth, the companies agreed to sponsor DecaDBE under EPA's Voluntary Children's 

Chemical Evaluation Program (VCCEP). That effort ended at the end ofTier I when EPA and 

the companies did not reach agreement on whether certain additional environmental fate and 

transport testing was needed. EPA's testing requests to the companies were rendered moot by 

their decision to phase out production. However, at the same time, the companies conducted the 

guideline study described above, without any need for a test rule under TSCA. 

Fifth, the companies voluntarily committed to stop production of decaBDE not because 

they thought the product posed significant risks to health or the environment. Concerns had been 

raised in the marketplace by state ban bills, and by the flawed study described above. The 

companies responded to those concerns. 

Sixth, CPSC has not conducted any tests that call into question the efficacy of decaBDE 

as a flame retardant. Rather, a very robust literature supports the use of flame retardants like 

6 
114 


25110.085

decaBDE to slow the spread of flames and increase escape time, and thereby to save lives, not 

just in household furniture but in many other applications, including electronics, aviation and 

other transportation. 

In summary, the companies committed to end production and importation of decaBDE 

without EPA taking any action under TSCA section 6. Substantial testing has been conducted by 

the companies without the need for any test rule under TSCA section 4. The companies support 

EPA's efforts to promulgate a SNUR under TSCA section 5 that would apply to imported 

articles containing decaBDE. 

I hope my testimony is helpful to the Committee. 

Thank you. 

7 
115 


25110.086

SUPPLEMENTAL WRITTEN TESTIMONY OF WILLIAM K. RAWSON 

PARTNER AND CHAIR OF THE ENVIRONMENT, 

LAND & RESOURCES DEPARTMENT IN WASHINGTON, D.C. 

LATHAM & WATKINS 

BEFORE THE 

COMMITTEE ON ENVIRONMENT &PUBLIC WORKS 

OF THE 

UNITED STATES SENATE 

JULY 24,2012 

Senator Boxer: 

Q. Do you agree that chemical manufacturers should have to prove through unbiased studies that 

their products are safe for pregnant women, for infants and for children before they can sell those 

chemicals in the US? 

A. The answer in principle is yes, but the answer requires explanation. EPA's data requirements 

for new chemicals should be designed to ensure safe use for everyone, including, of course, 

infants, children and pregnant woman. Companies that submit requests for approval of new 

chemicals should meet those information requirements, which is why the answer in principle is 

yes. Further, if restrictions are necessary to ensure safe use, those restrictions should be put in 

place, as happens often with new chemicals. 

However, as stated in my initial written testimony, the strength of section 5 lies in its flexibility. 

Some chemicals can be determined not to pose unreasonable risks with very little information. 

Some chemicals, because of their physical or chemical properties, require more information. 

Some chemicals require restrictions to ensure safe use. Others do not. Recognizing this, under 

the current law, EPA has taken a flexible approach to data requirements and restrictions applied to 

new chemicals. Since TSCA was enacted, every time a chemical manufacturer has sought 

approval for a new chemical, it has either met EPA's data requirements or restrictions, or the 

chemical manufacturer has withdrawn its request for approval. That should continue. 

lfthe question is intended to suggest the same amount of data should be required for all 

chemicals, that would not be appropriate, as the current flexible approach is scientifically more 

appropriate. Also, there are some chemicals that by regulation do not require prior EPA 

approval, because their properties or uses are such that prior EPA approval is not considered 

necessary, If the question is intended to imply that those exemptions should be eliminated, that 

would not be appropriate. 

It is not clear what is meant unbiased research. It is a policy of this country, stated in section 2 of 

TSCA, that companies that manufacture and process chemicals should develop the data to 

support assessments of their chemicals. Toward that end, chemical manufacturers typically 

sponsor studies following EPA-approved test guidelines and applying Good Laboratory Practices. 

We consider such industry-funded research to be unbiased. If the question is intended to imply 

that industry-funded research should not be used to support assessments of new chemicals, that 

would not be appropriate. 
116 

Senator BOXER. Thank you, Mr. Rawson. 

Our final witness is Tony Stefani, President, Founder of San 

Francisco Firefighters Cancer Prevention Foundation. He is a majority witness. He is a cancer survivor. He is going to discuss local 

efforts to help firefighters who are exposed to chemicals during and 

after fires including with medical monitoring. 

Welcome. 

STATEMENT OF TONY STEFANI, FOUNDER, PRESIDENT, SAN 

FRANCISCO FIREFIGHTERS CANCER PREVENTION FOUNDATION 

Mr. STEFANI. Thank you, Chairman Boxer, and good morning. 

My name is Tony Stefani. I am a retired captain from the San 

Francisco Fire Department with 28 years of service. I would like 

to begin by giving you a brief history of myself and our foundation. 

I spent the last 13 years of my career as a captain at Rescue 1, 

I am proud to say one of the busiest companies in the United 

States. After 27 years on the job, I was diagnosed with transitional 

cell carcinoma, a rare form of cancer, in my right renal pelvis. I 

was told by my physician at UCSF it is normally found in people 

that are exposed to chemicals or in the chemical industry. 

During my treatment and recovery, two more firefighters from 

Station 1 contracted transitional cell carcinoma, only a more common form, bladder cancer. It also seemed like every month we were 

going to a funeral of another firefighter that had succumbed to 

some form of this hideous disease. 

In 2006, with the complete support of the department’s administration and Firefighters Local 798, I formed a nonprofit foundation, 

the San Francisco Firefighters Cancer Prevention Foundation, that 

has been dedicated to the early detection and prevention of cancer 

in both our active and retired firefighters. 

Since its inception, we have conducted five major cancer 

screenings, and through these screenings we have identified five retired firefighters and one active firefighter with various forms of 

cancer. And at the time of these screenings, these individuals were 

not aware they had this disease. 

Our foundation has also been involved in three studies. The first 

was published in 2007 and was conducted by the Department of 

Urology at UCSF Medical Center, and it identified bladder cancer 

rates in the San Francisco Fire Department greater than the population in general and of a major concern for the entire firefighting 

profession. 

Firefighters are exposed every day in the same manner as the 

general population is to the effects of flame retardants that escape 

from household products and settle in dust, whether it be in their 

workplace or in their homes with their families. But once a firefighter enters a burning building, it is a completely different set of 

circumstances. 

Firefighters are fully aware that we work in a chemical cocktail 

every time we enter a building on fire. Does that hinder the fire 

extinguishment? The definitive answer there is absolutely not. It is 

our job to extinguish the fire, preserve life and property, and the 

job gets done. 

117 

The firefighter’s biggest fear is what occurs once the fire is extinguished and the overhaul process begins. It is during this period 

of time where off gassing occurs. Products of combustion have been 

extinguished, but the emission of toxic gases continues. We are now 

aware that even if all personal protective equipment remains in 

place on firefighters, brominated and chlorinated fire retardants 

have the ability to permeate this equipment. Additionally, if this 

equipment is not properly decontaminated immediately when returning to quarters, firefighters risk continual exposures every 

time they don them. 

A question that lingers in our profession right now is do these 

chemicals combine synergistically with other toxins in the atmosphere at a fire and actually exacerbate their carcinogenic properties? What we do know is that our rates of contracting various 

forms of cancer is increasing. We also are fully aware that these 

flame retardant chemicals bioaccumulate in our blood, our fat tissue, and in mother’s milk. 

Chairman Boxer and honorable members of this Committee, I 

have before me a study that is soon to be released, and I have been 

given permission to talk about certain aspects of this study. The 

title of the study is Halogenated Flame Retardants, Furans, 

Dioxins and Other Persistent Organic Pollutants in the Serum of 

Firefighters from Northern California. 

The firefighters from Northern California that the study refers to 

is a cohort of 12 firefighters from San Francisco. These firefighters 

willingly gave their blood after two separate working fires in the 

city, and the study examined the levels and patterns of halogenated compounds in the serum of the firefighters and compares 

contaminant concentrations in this cohort with those in the general 

population and other studies in the United States and worldwide. 

The study of our firefighters showed polybrominated diphenyl 

ethers or PBDEs over 30 percent higher than the general population of California and over 60 percent higher than the general 

population of the United States. We had one firefighter with a 

PBDE level 11 times greater than the average of the general population, and the PBDE concentration in the San Francisco firefighters were 20 to 30 times higher than the levels found in the 

general population of Japan, Hong Kong, and the United Kingdom. 

Last Tuesday, I received an e-mail from Dr. Susan Shaw, one of 

the lead scientists of the study. In this e-mail, she states despite 

the small sample size, the paper reveals a wealth of information 

about the exposure of firefighters to a wide range of harmful 

chemicals during firefighting. It provides evidence that firefighters 

are exposed to cancer causing dioxins and furans, their congener 

profiles for brominated dioxins and furans, polybrominated diphenyl ethers, and perflourinated chemicals that are clearly indicative of exposure during firefighting. 

Another issue that we have to address in regards to flame 

retardants in chemicals is the rising cases of breast cancer we are 

seeing in our female firefighters in San Francisco. We have over 

200 female firefighters in our department, the largest of any major 

metropolitan department in the United States. 

Senator BOXER. Excuse me. I am going to have to stop you there, 

and I will ask you questions about this as I go. 

118 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Stefani follows:] 


25110.087

TONY STEFAN! CHAIRMAN/PRESIDENT 

KEITH ONISHI VICE-PRESIDENT 

ANITA PAAATLEY SECRETARY 

JEFF MALONE TREASURER 

CONSULTING PHYSICIANS 

KIRSTEN GREENE, M.D. 

MARSHALL L. STOLLER, M.D. 

RAMON J. TERRAZAS, M.D. 

SAN FRANCISCO FIREFIGHTERS 

CANCER PREVENTION 

FOUNDATION 

1139 MISSION STREET, SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94103 

TELEPHONE (415) 621-7103 • FAX (415) 621-1578 

SFFCPF@YAHOO.COM 

Senate testimony of Tony Stefani 

DIRECTORS 

DAVID E. AMITUANAI 

SHANE FRANCISCO 

KAREN HEALD 

GARY MASSETANI 

KATENOERR 

SHERMAN TILLMAN 

VICTOR WYRSCH 

SAN FRANCISCO 

FIRE FIGHTERS LOCAL 798 

PRESIDENT: 

THOMAS P. O'CONNOR 

Founder/President, San Francisco Firefighters Cancer Prevention Foundation 

Hearing on Oversight of EPA Authorities and Actions to 

Control Exposures to Toxic Chemicals 

Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works 

July 24,2012 

Good morning. My name is Tony Stefani I am a retired Captain from the SFFD 

with 28 years of service. I would like to start by giving a brief history of myself 

and the San Francisco Firefighters Cancer Prevention Foundation. I spent the last 

13 years of my career as an officer at Rescue 1, Station 1 and proud to say one of 

the busiest firehouses in the United States. After 27 years on the job, I contracted 

Transitional Cell Carcinoma in my right renal pelvis--a rare form of cancer usually 

found in people who work in the "chemical industry" according to my doctor. 

During my treatment and recovery, two more firefighters from my station also 

contracted Transitional Cell Carcinoma--only the common form, bladder cancer. It 

also seemed like every month we were attending a funeral of another firefighter 

that had lost his battle with some form of cancer. In 2006, with the support of the 

Department's Administration and San Francisco Firefighters Local 798, I formed 

the San Francisco Firefighters Cancer Prevention Foundation dedicated to the early 

detection and prevention of cancer in both active and retired firefighters. Since its 

inception we have conducted five major cancer screenings. Through these 

screenings we have identified five retired firefighters and one active firefighter 

with various forms of cancer. At the time of the screenings these individuals were 

not aware they had cancer. 

Our foundation has also been involved in three studies. The first study (published 

in 2007) was conducted by the Department of Urology at UCSF and identified 

bladder cancer rates in the SFFD greater than the population in general and of 

major concern for the entire firefighting profession. 
119 


25110.088

Our second study is currently being conducted by N.I.O.S.H at the Centers for 

Disease Control and Prevention looking at causes of death in a cohort of 30,000 

firefighters (5,538 participants from San Francisco Fire, 15,461 from Chicago Fire, 

10,652 from Philadelphia Fire) dating back to 1950. The study should be published 

with results sometime in 2014. 

The third study is one that I will address in my testimony. 

Firefighters are exposed everyday in the same manner that the population in 

general is to the effects of flame retardants that escape from household products 

and settle in dust whether it be in the workplace or at home ... But once a firefighter 

enters a burning building it is a completely different set of circumstances. 

Firefighters are fully aware that we work in a "chemical cocktail" every time we 

enter a building on fire. Does that hinder the fire extinguishment? The definitive 

answer is, "absolutely not". It is our job to extinguish the fire, preserve life and 

property and the job gets done. The firefighters' biggest fear is what occurs once 

the fire is extinguished and the "overhaul" process begins. It is during this period 

of time where "off gassing" occurs. Products of combustion have been 

extinguished but the emission of toxic gasses continues. Most departments have 

Combustion Gases Indicators (CGI's) that are used to measure various toxins in 

the atmosphere once a fire is extinguished. Once the CGI indicates a "clear" 

atmosphere, firefighters are allowed to remove their self-contained breathing 

apparatus (scba's). The problem with this is that the CGI's have the ability to pick 

up a few toxic gases but nowhere near the I 00 plus toxic chemicals that can be 

encountered in the atmosphere by firefighters on the scene. We are now being told 

that even if all personal protective equipment remains in place brominated and 

chlorinated fire retardants have the ability to permeate the protective equipment 

worn by firefighters. Additionally, if this protective equipment is not properly 

decontaminated immediately when returning to quarters, firefighters risk continual 

exposures every time they don the protective equipment. 

Flame retardant chemicals (Polybrominated diphenylethers (PBDE'S)) are applied 

onto or in many common household goods, furniture foam, plastic cabinets, 

computers, small appliances, consumer electronics, wire insulation, back coatings 

for draperies and upholstery to name a few. These gases are not picked up by 

CGI's. These chlorinated and brominated flame retardants produce both toxic 

dioxins and furans when they bum which have been proven to cause cancer. The 

significantly elevated rates of cancer reported in firefighters (Kang et a! 2008, 

LeMasters et a! 2006, Hansen 1990) include four types that are potentially related 
120 


25110.089

to exposure to dioxins and furans--Multiple Myeloma, Non-Hodgkin's Lymphoma, 

prostrate and testicular cancer and now our major concern over the rising rates of 

breast cancer in female firefighters. A question that lingers in our profession is do 

these chemicals combine synergistically with other toxins in the atmosphere and 

exacerbate the effect of other toxic carcinogens? What we do know is that our rate 

of contracting various forms of cancer is increasing. We are also fully aware that 

these flame retardant chemicals bioaccumulate in our blood, fat tissue and in 

mother's milk. 

Chairman Boxer and honorable members of this committee I hold in my hands the 

third study our department is involved in. This particular study should be published 

sometime in September of this year. I have been given permission to discuss 

various findings of the study. The title of the study is "Halogenated Flame 

Retardants, Dioxins, Furans, and other Persistent Organic Pollutants in the Serum 

of Firefighters from Northern California." The Northern California firefighters that 

this study refers to is a cohort of twelve firefighters from San Francisco. These 

firefighters willingly gave their blood after 2 separate working fires in San 

Francisco. The study examined the levels and patterns of halogenated compounds 

in the serum of the firefighters and compares contaminant concentrations in this 

cohort with those in the general population and other studies in the United States 

and worldwide. 

The study of our firefighters showed levels of Polybrominated diphenylethers 

(PBDE'S) over 30% higher than the general population of California and over 60% 

higher than the general population of the United States. We had one firefighter 

with a PBDE level of 442ng/g of lipid weight which is 11 times greater than the 

average of the general population of the United States.The PBDE concentration in 

the San Francisco Firefighters were 20-30 times higher than levels found in the 

general population of Japan (Uemura et al2010), Hong Kong (Qin et al 2011) and 

the United Kingdom (Thomas et al 2006). 

Last Tuesday I received an email from Dr. Susan Shaw one of the lead researchers 

of this study. In this email she states, "Despite the small sample size, this paper 

reveals a wealth of information about the exposure of firefighters to a wide range 

of harmful chemicals during firefighting. It provides evidence that firefighters are 

exposed to cancer-causing dioxins and furans, and their congener profiles for 

brominated dioxins and furans (PBDD/F), polybrominated diphenyl ethers 

(PBDE's) and perfluorinated chemicals (PFC's) that are clearly indicative of 

exposure during firefighting (versus background exposure)." 
121 


25110.090

Another issue that has to be addressed in regards to flame retardants is the rising 

cases of breast cancer we are seeing in our female firefighters in San Francisco. 

We have over 200 female firefighters in San Francisco--the most of any major 

metropolitan city in the United States. Many of these women are nearing the age of 

retirement. To our knowledge there have been no major studies in regards to the 

health of female firefighters. In our 40 to 49 year old group of female firefighters 

we have 117 women. In that group we have had 8 cases of breast cancer. The 

national average of breast cancer for the 40-49 year old female group is 1 in 69. It 

is a known fact that PBDE's bioaccumulate in mother's milk in the general 

population. It is also known that PBDE's are neurodevelopmental toxicants. The 

unknown is what level of PBDE's is in the mother's milk of a female firefighter 

and what effect that is having on their children. Our foundation is in the 

preliminary stages of a study addressing the health issues of our female 

firefighters. 

On a daily basis the men and women of this profession willingly walk into this 

toxic soup of chemicals. We are deeply concerned that the federal government 

does not have the tools or the authority to regulate even the worst of them. Senator 

Lautenberg's Safe Chemicals Act would allow firefighters to better understand the 

negative health impacts of the chemicals we are exposed to. It would also give the 

EPA the tools necessary to regulate those toxic chemicals before they reach the 

homes and businesses that we are sworn to protect, regardless of the risk to 

ourselves. We thank Sen. Lautenburg for sponsoring this important legislation and 

our own Senator Boxer for her leadership in holding this hearing. 

In closing I would like say it is probably too late for this generation of firefighters 

to be protected by a change in the current toxic flame retardant standard, but the 

generations of firefighters to come will be forever thankful that this very important 

step was taken. One of the researchers of our flame retardant study made a 

profound statement by saying, "You are the modem day canaries being sent into 

the cave". With our rising rates of cancer this is very close to the truth. We urge the 

Committee to pass the Safe Chemicals Act. 

My best, 

Tony Stefani 

President, San Francisco Firefighters Cancer Prevention Foundation 

Retired Captain Rescue 1 SFFD 

www .sffcpf.org 
122 


25110.091

Questions from Senator Boxer: #1.Mr. Stefani, your testimony highlighted 

concerns over breast cancer in female firefighters in San Francisco. During the 

hearing, you testified that your organization is putting together a panel of 

researchers to look into rates of this cancer in female firefighters and that you 

would keep the Committee informed as the study progresses. Can you provide 

an update to the Committee on the progress on this study? 

To address mounting concerns about chemical exposures in this important 

profession, the San Francisco Firefighters Cancer Prevention Foundation has 

begun work on developing a community-based, participatory biomonitoring study 

that entails a collaboration, entitled the Women Firefighter Biomonitoring 

Collaborative (WFBC), between two environmental health scientists (Rachel 

Morello-Frosch, University of California, Berkeley School of Public Health and 

Ruthann Rudel, Silent Spring Institute based in Massachusetts); two firefighter 

advocacy groups (Heather Buren, United Fire Service Women (UFSW) and Tony 

Stefani, San Francisco Firefighters Cancer Prevention Foundation (SFFCPF)); 

and two environmental health advocacy organizations (Sharyle Patton, 

Commonweal Biomonitoring Resource Center and Connie Engel, The Breast 

Cancer Fund). 

The proposed Women Firefighters Biomonitoring Collaborative Study (WFBC) 

will: 

1. Prioritize a subset of chemicals identified as causing mammary tumors in 

animals, and compare these chemical exposures between San Francisco women 

firefighters ("exposed group") and age and sex matched controls among school 

teachers and a subset of age matched co-habitants (female or male) from each 

group. Specifically, we will focus our biomonitoring efforts on those mammary 

carcinogens identified by a systemic review conducted by Silent Spring Institute, 

which includes products of combustion, flame retardants, and other compounds 

that are likely to be encountered by firefighters. 

2. Identify newer chemicals through novel applications of Time of Flight (TOF) 

LC/MS technology or high-performance metabolic profiling (HPMP) methods. 

Both of these analytic methods can provide a non-targeted, and thus more 
123 


25110.092

)A.N fRA.NCIKO flREFlGHH~' 

CANCER PREVENTION 

fOUNDATION 

systematic, agnostic, and comprehensive approach to assessing chemical 

exposures in our study population. This aspect of our study will provide 

unprecedented data to characterize exposures to environmental contaminants to 

a uniquely vulnerable population of women. We anticipate that this research will 

identify a number of chemicals (including substitutes for currently banned 

substances) that have not been previously measured in the human population. 

3. Report back individual-level and aggregate results to study participants who 

want them. We will develop a results communication strategy to provide 

individual biomonitoring results to those study participants who request them. 

Members of the study team have extensive experience in the development and 

evaluation of personal exposure assessment report-back methods, and we will 

tailor our approach to reporting individual and pooled study results for this 

specific study population. 

4. Finally, the collaborative is discussing the possibility of having the 

Commonweal Cancer Help Program do a one-day training for firefighters with 

cancer who would like information about maintaining health and well-being during 

treatment, and getting informed about cancer therapies and the decisions that 

need to be made in designing a course of treatment, as well as an environmental 

health training, which will acquaint firefighters with the complexities of breast 

cancer's links to environmental threats. 

#2.Can you please describe the different types of exposures to dangerous 

chemicals that firefighters could encounter on an average day? 

Firefighters during the course of a working day are exposed to harmful chemicals 

not only at the scene of a working fire but also at the firehouse. At the fire scene, 

firefighters are potentially exposed to various mixtures of particulates, gases, 

mists, as well as fumes of an organic and/or inorganic nature. Many of these 

chemicals are known carcinogens. These include benzene, polycyclic aromatic 

hydrocarbons, benzo(a)pyrene, formaldehyde, chlorophenols, dioxins, ethylene 

oxide, flame retardants, polychlorinated biphenyls, vinyl chloride, methylene 

chloride, trichloroethylene, arsenic, asbestos, perchlorethylene, toluene, xylene, 

to name a few. (There have been over 130 chemicals documented at working 

fires.) 
124 


25110.093

CANCER PRE:VENllON 

fOUNDAHON 

At the firehouse where firefighters spend long hours, exposures may occur to 

complex mixtures that comprise diesel exhaust (benzene), particularly if trucks 

are in closed stations without adequate outside venting. 

Firefighter exposure to chemicals occurs in several ways. The most easily 

perceived way is through direct contact with a chemical liquid that has the ability 

to permeate the protective clothing worn by the firefighter. Chemical 

contamination of a firefighter's clothing is now an ongoing problem in our 

profession. The persistency of chemicals that do not easily evaporate will tend to 

stay in the material. Soot on a firefighter's clothing can act like sponges to the 

chemicals in the air. The retention of chemicals in the clothing can provide a long 

lasting, chronic-like exposure of firefighters to hazardous chemicals. 

A second and more common fireground exposure is by contact with fire smoke or 

other vapors at the fire scene. In this situation the firefighter's entire body is 

exposed and because turnout clothing is not vapor-protective, the fire gases and 

vapors will penetrate interfaces and other portions of the turnout gear where it 

can come in contact with their skin. 

Many firefighters believe that the wearing of their self-contained breathing 

apparatus (SCBA) during emergencies will prevent their exposure to hazardous 

chemicals, other than by direct liquid contact. SCBA's are effective and have 

provided outstanding protection to firefighters in the past several decades. 

However, inhalation is but one route of exposure. Skin absorption is also a 

significant route of exposure to many chemicals. As I mentioned in my testimony 

in July, firefighters are now aware that even if all personal protective equipment 

remains in place brominated and chlorinated fire retardant chemicals have the 

ability to permeate the protective equipment worn my firefighters. 

A study conducted by N.I.O.S.H. concluded that different areas of a firefighter's 

protective ensemble are likely to demonstrate varying propensities for the 

absorption of chemicals. Any porous fabric material found in the clothing or other 

items may be contaminated. These include: turnout clothing outer shell, moisture 

barriers, thermal liners, collars and wristlets, station/work uniforms, glove shells 

and liners, protective hoods, helmet straps and self-contained breathing 

apparatus straps. Coated materials such as moisture liners, reflective trim, 

rubber boot outers, respirator masks are more likely to be affected by 

permeation. The same is true for hard plastics or resins such as those used in 

the helmet, SCBA components and certain turnout hardware. 
125 


25110.094

SAN flRHIGHHR> 

CANCER PREVENTION 

fOUNOATION 

A book can be written on the different types of exposures to dangerous 

chemicals that firefighters can encounter on an average day. This was a brief 

overview. 

#3.Mr. Stefani, firefighters put their lives on the line every day to help save 

people in need. I do not believe that they should also have to risk their long-term 

health by being exposed to dangerous chemicals, especially when there are 

safer alternatives to those chemicals. Can you describe how important it is that 

TSCA is reformed to help ensure that chemicals are safe and that less toxic 

alternatives are developed for chemicals that could threaten public health? 

Nationwide the rates of cancer among both active and retired firefighters are on 

the rise. We are seeing this trend first hand in San Francisco. In the last month 

we have had 2 of our active female firefighters undergo double mastectomies. 

This is in a population of approximately 117 female firefighters in the 40 to 50 

year old age group (National average is 1 in 69). It brings a total of 11 women in 

this age group that have contracted this disease. One of them has lost her battle 

to the disease. We have approximately 213 women firefighters in our 

department. Also in the last month we lost a 62 year old male firefighter to brain 

cancer and have had a 59 year old firefighter diagnosed with brain cancer along 

with a 44 year old firefighter diagnosed with prostate cancer. None of them have 

a family history of the disease. These are but a few examples. 

The Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) of 1976 that is currently in place to 

assess chemical safety is a complete failure. It has failed to protect our 

profession, our families and the environment. Its failure has resulted in 

Americans being exposed to numerous potentially toxic chemicals from everyday 

consumer products. As harmful as that is to the public, when those products 

ignite the exposure of the men and women of our profession walking into fires to 

save lives is greatly increased. As I stated in my testimony, firefighters are fully 

aware that we work in a toxic chemical cocktail every time we enter a burning 

building. Our profession does all it can to limit the toxic chemical exposures that 

firefighters endure during and after a "working fire". We realize that many of the 

chemicals we come in contact with have the ability to permeate our protective 

equipment. One of our biggest fears is that these particular chemicals are known 
126 


25110.095

to be persistent, bioaccumulative and toxic, greatly increasing our chances of 

contracting some form of cancer. 

Cancer rates among firefighters provide a loud and clear call for the need to 

address toxic chemicals in our society. Firefighters can no longer act as the 

"modern canaries in the mine!" The impact of toxic chemicals on firefighters 

should prompt Congress to act now to reform TSCA. 

Comprehensive reform is needed to ensure that the alternatives replacing toxic 

chemicals are in fact safer. It is time for the chemical industry to develop and 

provide information on the health and environmental safety of their chemicals. It 

is time for chemicals to be proven safe before being put to use. It is time for 

passage of the Safe Chemicals Act. 

Tony Stefani 

President, San Francisco Firefighters Cancer Prevention Foundation 
127 

Senator BOXER. What we are going to do, first of all, thank you 

all. We are going to start with Senator Carper. We are going to 

each have 10 minutes to question so we can really get to some of 

the issues here. 

Senator Carper. 

Senator CARPER. Thank you. I will not use all of this. Thank you 

very much for allowing me, and thank you all for joining us today. 

First question is pretty simple, and I only ask that you keep your 

responses brief. But if you could, each of you, just share with us, 

maybe the single most important lesson that you all have learned 

or gained from your experiences in really focusing on this U.S. 

chemicals issue that you think we can learn from or benefit from. 

Just one. Single best. 

Would you like to go first? 

Mr. STEFANI. Is that question posed—— 

Senator CARPER. For the whole panel. 

Mr. STEFANI. I think what we have learned—— 

Senator CARPER. Just be brief. 

Mr. STEFANI. What we understand right now is that these are 

important chemicals that have to be dealt with because of this bioaccumulative process that is actually proven in medical science 

right now. 

Senator CARPER. OK. Thanks. Did you want to say something 

else? 

Mr. STEFANI. No. 

Senator CARPER. OK, fine. 

Mr. Rawson. 

Mr. RAWSON. I think we should think of TSCA as providing a 

framework for making good decisions. But I do not think we should 

count the number of test rules promulgated or the number of Section 6 rules promulgated when deciding how effective it is. I think 

what we should look at is how can we best get EPA the information 

it needs, how can industry and EPA and other stakeholders work 

together to meet the objectives of TSCA. 

Senator CARPER. All right. Thank you. 

Mr. Moore. 

Mr. MOORE. In the context of the discussion on flame retardants, 

I think what I would most like to say is that, I guess, as a scientist, 

also as a father, I think in terms of looking at the risk of fires 

versus other risks in society. We cannot forget the risk of fires and 

the statistics showing that it is a clear and present risk and we 

have to take that into consideration in the entire discussion about 

the review of the risks and hazards associated with flame 

retardants, fires, and the use of those chemicals. 

Senator CARPER. All right. Thank you. 

Ms. Stapleton. Dr. Stapleton. 

Ms. STAPLETON. Just in regards to flame retardants and based 

on the research data I have collected and then what I have read 

in the peer reviewed literature it seems apparent to me that the 

potential health effects and other disadvantages of using these 

chemicals potentially outweigh any purported benefits that some 

industry members claim that they have in terms of their applications in some consumer products. 

Senator CARPER. OK. Thank you. 

128 

Ms. Pingree. 

Ms. PINGREE. Thank you. Good question. I think as a former 

State legislator I would say our experiences in Maine, as highlighted by the Chicago Tribune and other States, what we learned 

is that the chemical industry does not always tell the truth. And 

they will do a variety of means to beat back regulation of chemicals, especially considering they are making considerable profits 

selling these chemicals. 

And in Maine, we had an industry front group. We had many of 

the companies represented at this table, the American Chemistry 

Council, spending huge amounts of money misleading legislators 

and doing whatever they could to deny that, for example, the chemical Deca had both health impacts and was building up in people. 

So I have great respect for all the folks up here, but I really 

would say as a parent I do not trust these companies to tell the 

truth about their chemicals, and I do not think the American public 

or you, as Senators, should either. 

I think that is my No. 1 learning, and I hope that that has been 

made clear through my testimony today. 

Senator CARPER. OK. Thanks so much. 

Madam Chairman, I am going to ask unanimous consent to enter 

a statement for the record, and I have a couple of questions I would 

like to submit for the record. I am supposed to be in three places 

at once, so I am going to slip out. 

Senator BOXER. Oh, my goodness. 

Senator CARPER. I appreciate you all being here and for this conversation today and the work that Senator Lautenberg and certainly Senator Inhofe and others have done on this issue. 

Thank you. 

Senator BOXER. Thank you. Senator Carper, thank you for coming by, because I think the question you asked was very important, 

I thought. 

I have a lot of questions, so if I run out of time I am going to 

take a second round. So, I am going to get to all of you. 

I will start with Ms. Pingree. Your testimony contains a letter 

from the Professional Firefighters of Maine to the American Chemistry Council that expresses shock and concern about an array of 

disturbing actions by member companies of the American Chemistry Council including the creation of a phony fire safety group, a 

phony fire safety group that lobbied on behalf of the industry. 

The letter asks the American Chemistry Council to expel three 

companies, Albemarle, Chemtura, and ICL, for their unethical behavior. Do you know if the ACC has responded to this letter or if 

they have committed to expel these members? 

Ms. PINGREE. I will say there is another letter in my testimony 

also from a group of State legislators and legislative leaders from 

around the country of which I signed that made a similar request 

following the Chicago Tribune story. And we received a response to 

our legislator letter. I do not know if there was a response made 

to the firefighter letter. 

The response we got from Cal Dooley, the head of the American 

Chemistry Council, was that they were going to let the member 

companies respond on their own. They thought that there were 

some misleading facts out there in the Chicago Tribune story; they 

129 

were not prepared to take this action despite their own ethics and 

responsibility code that they said that they abide by. 

In fact, the American Chemistry Council in that same letter said 

we are not involved in these State legislative battles so we will 

leave it to these folks to respond on their own—— 

Senator BOXER. So, they took no responsibility. 

Ms. PINGREE. They took no responsibility, yes. 

Senator BOXER. For this phony group that said they posed as a 

fire safety group. 

Ms. PINGREE. Yes. 

Senator BOXER. And it included Mr. Moore, so I am going to ask 

Mr. Moore, following up, who was on this fire safety group that actually was an honest broker? 

Mr. MOORE. In terms of Citizens for Fire Safety, Citizens for Fire 

Safety is an organization in which we were a founding member and 

have been a member of. Like many organizations, trade organizations, professionals were hired to organize it and run the organization. 

Senator BOXER. So, wait a minute. The chemical companies were 

a member of the fire safety group. This was your credential. You 

are a chemical company, but you are suddenly considered some 

kind of advocate for fire safety and expert on that? Is that what 

you did by joining? 

Mr. MOORE. Yes, Senator Boxer, we are members of that organization. As a provider of flame retardants we do have—— 

Senator BOXER. You do not see a conflict of interest? Let us just 

talk between us and make believe no one is listening. You make 

these products and yet you do not see an ethical problem with 

being on a group that says you are for fire safety? You do not see 

an ethical problem, a conflict of interest in that? 

Mr. MOORE. Respectfully, Senator, I do not see a conflict of interest in that. 

Senator BOXER. Well, you ought to take a little lesson in ethics 

if you do not see it. 

Now, your testimony states that your company has acted 

proactively to fully comply with EPA’s chemical management regulations. You talked about that today. We fully complied. But last 

month your company was assessed a $56,000 penalty for failing to 

comply with the reporting requirements of TSCA and EPA regulations for manufacturing two brominated flame retardant chemicals 

in 2005. Why did your testimony fail to mention this? Why would 

you say you fully complied when you did not? 

Mr. MOORE. Senator, my understanding of the that particular 

case if that there were clerical errors at the time of the—— 

Senator BOXER. That there were what? I am sorry. 

Mr. MOORE. There were errors in the reporting at the time of 

that reporting which occurred several years ago. The penalty that 

was assessed was a reduced assessment because of our proactive 

cooperation to correct those errors. 

Senator BOXER. But you were assessed a $56,000 fine, were you 

not? 

Mr. MOORE. That is my understanding, yes, Senator. 

Senator BOXER. Well, I think if you are going to say that you 

complied you should have mentioned that. Just in fairness. 

130 

Mr. Moore, your testimony cites a 1988 study conducted by the 

U.S. Department of Commerce to support your claim that adding 

flame retardant chemicals to household items are effective fire protection. Now, the Chicago Tribune cited the study’s lead author 

who said that the chemical industry has grossly distorted the findings of the study. That—the study’s lead author said the chemical 

industry distorted the findings of the study and that flame 

retardants in home furnishings offer little or no fire protection. 

Do you not think it is time that the chemical industry stopped 

grossly distorting the study’s findings? When the author says that 

is what you are doing? Do you not owe people an apology? 

Mr. MOORE. With all due respect, Senator, we have not distorted 

the findings of that study. You will find—— 

Senator BOXER. Whoa, whoa, whoa. The author said you did. 

Who is a better source? The study’s lead author said the chemical 

industry has quote unquote grossly distorted the findings of the 

study and that flame retardants in home furnishings offer little or 

no fire protection. Why are you not apologizing for grossly distorting the study? I do not get it. 

Mr. MOORE. Senator, if you would refer to my written testimony, 

the exact conclusions from that study are presented in those findings. There were several other authors at NBS, which is now NIST, 

that participated in that study. I have personally spoken to some 

of those scientists who have assured me that the conclusions of 

those studies are as valid today as when they were published and 

that study is still available through NIST. 

Senator BOXER. Well, if I wrote a study, and people took it out 

of context and distorted it, I think the right thing to do is to say 

I am not going to use it any more. But that—it is an ethical question. You have to live with yourself over it. 

Dr. Stapleton, when flame retardants persist in the environment, 

can they slowly break down into other chemicals? And during and 

after fires, can they more quickly break down into other chemicals? 

And can these other chemicals be more toxic than flame 

retardants? 

Ms. STAPLETON. Yes. When speaking about PBDE flame 

retardants, there is evidence suggesting that the Deca-BDE can 

break down in the environment to Penta- and Octa-BDE which are 

known to be more bioaccumulative and potentially toxic. 

In addition, when these chemicals are present in consumer products and they do burn, they can form what are known as 

brominated dioxins and furans, which are much more toxic than 

the parent compounds and are linked to cancer. 

In addition, I would just like to comment that peer reviewed 

studies have also demonstrated that the presence of these chemicals in consumer products leads to the generation of more soot, 

smoke, and carbon monoxide when they do burn which one could 

argue actually increases fire hazards. 

Senator BOXER. And Doctor, I would assume you believe that the 

substitutes for these chemicals, as they come out, you would believe they should be tested thoroughly. 

Ms. STAPLETON. I do think we need more data on them, and that 

is something my colleagues and I are trying to provide, more data 

on the potential health effects from these chemicals in relation to 

131 

the current exposure levels that are occurring in the general population, particularly for children. 

Senator BOXER. And of course, that is the essence of Senator 

Lautenberg’s bill, which is to make sure that these are safe before 

they are routinely used. 

And we have people like our heroes, our first responder heroes 

like Mr. Stefani here who beat back cancer. And he describes—and 

I am going to ask you—one of the main concerns that firefighters 

have following a fire is during the overhaul process when the fire 

is extinguished by burned material at the site, and you have this 

off gas. Can you explain what you mean by off gas? 

Mr. STEFANI. Sure. The products of combustion that have been 

extinguished, if you can actually visualize this, you are in a room 

and you would have still some smoke weeping. But there are also 

toxic gases that you cannot see. We have what is called Combustion Gas Indicators and these indicators are capable of picking up 

various toxic gases, usually about four of them. The problem herein 

lies that they do not pick up the 100 plus other chemicals that we 

are confronted with. 

And once these CGI monitors deem the atmosphere to be cleared, 

the incident commander can have firefighters remove some of their 

self-contained breathing apparatus and continue the overhaul process and actually increase the level of exposure. But the problem is 

that even if this self-contained breathing apparatus is taken off, we 

are now told that these chemicals do have the ability to permeate 

parts of this equipment, even though they are in place. 

Senator BOXER. Well, Mr. Stefani, firefighters put their lives on 

the line every day, and I do not believe that you should have to 

risk the long-term health effects of being exposed to these dangerous chemicals and because there are certain people in this society who seem to put their business interests ahead of safety. 

You started to talk about female firefighters, and I would like to 

ask you about that. Could I put that whole study into the record? 

Is that all right? 

Mr. STEFANI. Absolutely. 

Senator BOXER. All right. We will do that. But is there—I understand that in San Francisco these breast cancers have come forward in female firefighters. Are there researchers looking into this 

rate and doing some studies on it? 

Mr. STEFANI. We have just put a panel together, and we are 

going to address that issue. One of the things that we have come 

to find is the women in the fire service have not been in for a 

large—long period of time, maybe 30 to 40 years right now. And 

there have been no studies that we know nationwide of female firefighters. We are in the initial stages right now of putting that exact 

study together. 

Senator BOXER. That would be very helpful. Would you keep this 

Committee informed as you go forward? 

Mr. STEFANI. Yes, Senator. 

Senator BOXER. Thank you. 

Senator Lautenberg. 

Senator LAUTENBERG. Dr. Stapleton, studies have found that 

children born in this country have higher levels of toxic chemicals 

than those in other countries. What is it that puts newborns at risk 

132 

at the level that we have with flame retardants in their bodies? 

How does that take place? 

Ms. STAPLETON. Animal exposure studies have demonstrated 

that when you expose young animals, developing organisms, that 

these are very critical, sensitive time points when their brain is developing that the effects can manifest into adulthood and be more 

pronounced that if you expose them, let us say, during adolescence 

or adulthood. 

So, the concern is that the ability of these chemicals to influence 

the way that our neurons develop, the way that they differentiate, 

the communication between brain cells which can lead to problems 

with neural development which are reflective of studies that I have 

seen of the effects on children such as reductions in IQ and problems in gross and fine motor skills in the U.S. population. 

Senator LAUTENBERG. So, have these exposures taken place in 

the development of the fetus that the mother passes on? 

Ms. STAPLETON. Yes. Studies have demonstrated that when a 

pregnant woman or a pregnant animal is exposed to these, they are 

transferred to the developing fetus through placental transfer and 

through lactation. So, when a mother breast feeds her child, they 

are exposed to those chemicals as well. 

Senator LAUTENBERG. Ms. Pingree, you make a point in your testimony that the States are running around trying to ban these fire 

retardants and flame retardants. Would you not think that if EPA 

had the authority to address these chemicals under TSCA that the 

States could be relieved of a burden knowing that they are doing 

the right thing and leveling the playing field, no matter what State 

you are operating in? 

Ms. PINGREE. That is a good question. Certainly, State legislators 

have started to act on this issue and have acted for the last 10 

years because of the failure of the Federal law. I think our interests at the States is to respond directly to our citizens who we represent, and if there is a public health interest, the State legislator 

will work toward protecting that public health. 

Certainly, if the EPA had had authority starting in 1976 to really 

regulate these chemicals and protect public health, and we did not 

see a chemical like Deca on the market that we knew was bad for 

people’s health, or PBA or one of the hundreds of chemicals that 

we know are of concern, the States would not have to take action. 

But that being said, the States will continue to take action until 

we are confident that public health is protected. 

In the case of Deca, which I talked about, it was—a phase-out 

was agreed to in 2009. In 2010 I actually proposed a bill because 

they had agreed to stop using it in certain products, but there was 

a new use. They started using it in huge quantities in plastic pallets, pallets that were used to transport food, all kinds of consumer 

items, and we knew that these pallets were already leaching Deca 

onto the packages, into the environment. So, the challenge is, we 

know, that even when we took action in Maine, it led to the industry trying to figure out another use for that chemical in another 

place. 

So, the States will certainly, I am sure—slow action if the Federal Government is able to act to a degree that we know protects 

public health. But until then, I think the States will keep acting. 

133 

Senator LAUTENBERG. Mr. Rawson, I noticed that in the letterhead on your testimony, that you describe yourself as Partner and 

Chair of the Environment, Land and Resources Department in 

Washington, DC. It then lists Latham & Watkins. Is that a position of great responsibility, Partner and Chairman of a department 

within the law firm? 

Mr. RAWSON. I am a partner in the firm. Thank you. I am a partner in the firm. We have a very large environmental practice. We 

have a Global Department Chair who is based in Los Angeles, and 

I am the local Department Chair. I am the Chair of the practice 

in Washington, DC. 

Senator LAUTENBERG. I must say that there is a subtle implication here that this is some part of either Government or otherwise, 

but do it as you may, I do not think it lends particular credibility. 

But that is up to you. 

And we hear the appeals that go on to say that everybody is 

dealing in good faith and that the Albemarle Corporation, our 

Chairman noted, had some problems. How do you explain that 

these problems occurred? I was not sure I got the answer before. 

Mr. RAWSON. With apologies, I do not understand your question. 

Senator LAUTENBERG. OK. Was there a fine imposed on Albemarle Corporation for a reason? 

Mr. RAWSON. This might be a question that should be directed 

to the person to my right if you are referring to the fine that Senator Boxer was—— 

Senator LAUTENBERG. I am sorry. Yes, you are right. 

Mr. Moore, you did deal with it, and you described it as clerical 

error that caused this problem. 

Mr. MOORE. Yes, Senator. I was not personally involved in the 

resolution of this, but I do understand that there was an error— 

again this goes back to 2002, 2006—just a simple error in the reporting. But our representatives that worked with the EPA worked 

proactively to resolve this and in recognition of our proactivity in 

resolving this, got a—the penalty was reduced. 

Senator LAUTENBERG. Mr. Stefani, your testimony is really important. I was amazed at the number of firefighters that are represented by the organization that you are talking about, 290,000. 

Is that the number of firefighters that the organization represents? 

Mr. STEFANI. No. The San Francisco Firefighters Cancer Prevention Foundation, our foundation, is based in San Francisco, and it 

is both retired and active firefighters that we deal with. 

Senator LAUTENBERG. Some years ago, we had an incident in 

Elizabeth, New Jersey, when firefighters went into a building 

aflame, and what happened is the exposure to the chemicals that 

were stored in this facility and the uniforms that the fireman were 

wearing actually began to melt. 

Thus, I wrote a law that was called the Right to Know Law, and 

the consequence was that there was a substantial—and that was 

in 1986—there was a substantial reduction in the amount of toxic 

emissions that were coming from these companies. And I am not 

surprised when you talk about your experience and how heavy a 

burden it was on you and what the ultimate outcome was for having to go into these situations and face these chemical presence as 

it is. 

134 

So, I thank all of you for being here and testifying. But I must 

say that the unwillingness of our two friends in the middle of the 

table to acknowledge that there can be value in getting testing to 

protect the people who are subjected to these influences in the environment. And I would think that the companies that you talk 

about or talk up would want to be part of an effort to reduce the 

risk to the people in our country from the fire retardants for which 

substitutes are apparently available. 

Thank you. 

Senator BOXER. Thank you, Senator. 

Senator Whitehouse. 

Senator WHITEHOUSE. Thank you, Chairman, and thank you for 

holding this hearing and Senator Lautenberg for his long standing 

leadership in this area. This obviously hits home in Rhode Island 

because researchers at the University of Rhode Island have found 

these PBDEs throughout Narragansett Bay with concentrations 

highest near Providence where most of our population lives. 

And from Dr. Stapleton’s findings, it seems to be consistent with 

the national findings. She says that the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention have said that 99 percent of the U.S. population has flame retardants in their bodies. U.S. adults have body 

burdens that an order of magnitude higher than European and 

Asian countries and that studies have shown that children clearly 

have much higher exposure and body burdens of flame retardants 

compared to adults. 

Could you tell me, Dr. Stapleton, kind of go—take it back a step, 

why does a chemical bioaccumulate? Have we not developed processes as organisms for processing chemicals through our bodies? 

Ms. STAPLETON. Well, certainly we have enzymes or proteins in 

our body that are capable of metabolizing certain compounds. However, substantial data exists to show that there are certain chemical features that are resistant to metabolism. And in the case of 

PBDEs, those structures are clearly represented. They are very 

non-polar, they are halogenated, they are quite large, they have 

what we call a high hydrophobicity factor, a low KOW, which leads 

to this bioaccumulation potential and resistance to metabolism in 

the body. 

Therefore, some of these PBDEs are estimated to have what we 

call a half-life, or the time it takes for the concentrations of these 

compounds to decrease in the body by 50 percent, of up to 7 years. 

So, it takes a long time before the levels will drop. 

Senator WHITEHOUSE. And from a layman’s point of view or from 

a more general point of view, are new and manmade chemicals 

more likely to be difficult for the human body to process than ones 

that have been—ones that we have adapted to over years, generations of exposure? 

Ms. STAPLETON. Well, this is a little outside my area of expertise 

as I am a chemist and not a toxicologist or a physiologist. But I 

can say that typically our bodies are not used to processing these 

chemicals for sure, and they can lead to more increased exposure 

or accumulation in our tissues. 

However, some of the chemicals in PBDEs are a classic example 

of this heavy structure that is actually very similar to hormones in 

our body, which is what results in what we believe are—is responVerDate Aug 31 2005 07:05 Aug 01, 2017 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00138 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 S:\_EPW\DOCS\25110.TXT SONYA
135 

sible for their potential toxicity. PBDEs have a structure, a chemical structure, that is very similar to thyroid hormones, for example, which is one of the reasons they are known to effect thyroid 

hormone regulation. 

Senator WHITEHOUSE. Now, when you were looking into your research, you have indicated that claims about confidential business 

information inhibited your ability to do the research that you are 

trying to do. Could you elaborate a little bit on what limitations 

you experienced? 

Ms. STAPLETON. Certainly. Well, with the growing evidence that 

the PBD concentrations were increasing in human tissues, many 

academic researchers were interested in conducting exposure studies or trying to identify the primary routes by which people are exposed and identify what the most common sources were in our 

homes or to which we come in contact with on a daily basis. 

And unfortunately, these products, as I said, they are not labeled. When speaking with the Polyurethane Foam Manufacturers 

Association, for example, several of them have told me that sometimes they do not even know what chemicals they are putting into 

their products that they manufacture in terms of furniture. 

The only way we were able to determine what chemicals are actually used, are found in products on the market today, was by taking samples of those products and spending a lot of money and 

using very expensive equipment to analyze them in my laboratory. 

We found many of them to have proprietary chemicals, but with 

the technology today, we can determine what those structures are. 

Now we are beginning to assess exposure to those new chemicals 

and trying to determine what the potential health hazards may be. 

Senator WHITEHOUSE. So one could hypothesize that if one were 

concerned about a competitive business motive for protecting this 

information, it would be within the realm of most major corporations to be able to afford the kind of testing that you did. So, they 

would really have no problem being able to figure it out. It is independent testers who do not have access to that kind money that 

are most disabled by the confidential business information claims. 

Ms. STAPLETON. That is correct. In this day and age it is not that 

difficult to determine what the chemical structures are in all of 

these different products. 

Senator WHITEHOUSE. So, if a big company wanted to do what 

you did they could do it pretty readily? 

Ms. STAPLETON. Yes. 

Senator WHITEHOUSE. But a researcher, it is a real handicap for. 

Ms. STAPLETON. Well, this is why we are doing this, determining 

what their structures are so that we can determine what the levels 

are in our indoor environments and what the levels or the exposure 

levels are for children and then run some toxicity studies with 

them. 

Senator WHITEHOUSE. Mr. Moore, what dangers at what levels of 

exposure exist with respect to the flame retardants that Chemtura 

manufactures? 

Mr. MOORE. First, we manufacture a wide variety of flame 

retardants. With respect to the ones we are discussing today, 

Firemaster 550 and TBB within that, we have conducted over 30 

studies for regulatory agencies as part of the pre-manufacturing 

136 

notification review of TBB. Those studies were reviewed, submitted 

to EPA, 15 of those studies were required by EPA. The assessment 

of those found that the relative risk of those are extremely low and 

were acceptable for safe use in their application. 

I would like to comment on your other question, if I may. 

Senator WHITEHOUSE. Well, let me try to get an answer to my 

first question. Does Chemtura concede any danger from its—from 

these two flame retardants that you have identified? 

Mr. MOORE. Again, in terms of the expected exposures, in 2006 

EPFC published expected exposures or predicted exposures of TBB 

and those are much lower than any level that was predicted to 

have any sort of an effect. So, in those terms, the answer to your 

question would be that no, those are—— 

Senator WHITEHOUSE. They are perfectly safe. OK. 

Ms. Pingree, I wanted to go to a section of your testimony, and 

I would like to highlight it. Maine does not have disclosure laws, 

you said, that would allow us to understand the full magnitude of 

the spending against your bill to regulate these flame retardants. 

We know that the chemical industry hired many of the State’s 

top paid lobbyists and public relations groups. They proceeded to 

pay for several weeks of high saturation television and newspaper 

advertising across the State urging defeat of a chemical ban. They 

ran 27 full-page ads in the State’s largest newspaper, and in addition to weeks of television ads, they purchased radio spots, direct 

mail to voters, and paid robo-calls. Was this all done through the 

front group? 

Ms. PINGREE. Yes. 

Senator WHITEHOUSE. Or was some of it done in the name of the 

chemical companies? 

Ms. PINGREE. In Maine, it was all done through a front group 

called Keep America Safe which has been replaced by Citizens for 

Fire Safety. 

Senator WHITEHOUSE. The chemical industry front group which 

did all of this, right, at the time was called Keep America FireSafe, since renamed Citizens for Fire Safety. As you said, despite 

their name, during their time before the Maine legislature, the 

chemical industry and its allies had no support from State fire 

safety groups or fire professionals. 

Keep America Fire-Safe even paid for an ad that claimed Maine 

legislators were seeking to weaken fire safety accompanied by video 

of a burning house. You could imagine what that would look like. 

The ad urged the public to call their legislators and tell them to 

vote against these proposed changes for the sake of fire safety. 

You also noted that flame retardants bans, your legislation, were 

strongly supported by Maine’s fire professionals including the State 

Fire Chiefs Association and the major State firefighters union, the 

International Association of Firefighters. Both groups, you say, 

worked aggressively for the bill’s passage, and the firefighters 

spoke passionately about the negative impacts of these chemicals 

on firefighter health. 

I gather there was one group that went with the chemical industry. It was called the National Association—not Maine Association—the National Association of State Fire Marshals which received pro bono work from the public relations firm that was repVerDate Aug 31 2005 07:05 Aug 01, 2017 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00140 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 S:\_EPW\DOCS\25110.TXT SONYA
137 

resenting the chemical companies and received significant financial 

support from those chemical companies, and then turned around 

and lobbied for more stringent State flammability standards which 

would require more flame retardant chemicals. That would appear 

to be a conflict of interest. 

Ms. PINGREE. And I will say, speaking directly to the National 

Fire Marshals Association, at the time we were working on our bill 

in Maine, John Dean, our State Fire Marshal in Maine, was the 

head of the National Fire Marshals Association and was prepared 

to testify against our bill. He works for the Governor, and he was 

somewhat outed for their relationship in Washington with the 

flame retardant industry. And he either ended up testifying neither 

for nor against or actually supporting the legislation. 

But we had uncovered this relationship which was obviously a 

huge conflict for the State fire marshals who at the time were receiving significant funding from the chemical companies who produced flame retardants. So, that was a relationship that obviously 

was not working for the benefit of public health or fire safety. 

Senator WHITEHOUSE. It just strikes me, Madam Chair, that this 

is what Rhode Islanders hate about politics and about the manipulation of politics. It really has got all of the ingredients. You have 

got a lack of disclosure. We just went through this big exercise on 

the Disclose Act in Washington to try to put a little bit of sunlight 

into who is spending $1 million, $2 million, $4 million to achieve 

special interest influence around here, and we were defeated, unfortunately. 

You have got a sort of high intensity bombardment of the public 

by the special interests. You have got dishonesty in the way it is 

done with what looks to me like a phony group that is set up just 

for the purpose of pretending to represent fire safety interests 

when it truly actually supports chemical company interest. You 

have got all sorts of lobbyists and maneuvers involved. You have 

got legitimate associations that have lent themselves to conflict of 

interest and are now, unfortunately, perhaps working more consistent with the conflict of interest than with the true interests of 

the fire marshals around the country. And the result was that— 

what happened? 

Ms. PINGREE. Well, I mean, you point out that like the people in 

Rhode Island, the people of Maine did not buy it. They did not call 

us. They did not tell us to vote against this bill. And the bill ended 

passing nearly unanimously in the House and Senate. Republicans, 

Democrats, all supported it because they did not want to be on the 

wrong side of protecting kids, protecting pregnant women, protecting people’s health. 

I think we made a strong case, and despite a lot, a lot of money, 

we still won. And so, certainly, that is what we are hoping to see 

in your Committee. Thanks. 

Senator WHITEHOUSE. So, congratulations. Sometimes the good 

guys can win despite all of the machinations of special interests. 

Thank you, Madam Chair. 

Senator BOXER. Thank you so much. 

If I could just talk about California for a minute. We know that 

UC San Francisco studied the blood samples from pregnant women 

in California. We, in our State, generally had higher levels of 

138 

PBDEs than other women in the United States as well as Europe 

and Asia and that the women also had lower levels of hormones 

produced by the thyroid. 

Now, one theory is that California was an early State that said 

we needed flame retardants. So, they are now working on the details of that study. But it very disturbing. 

And I want to thank you, Tony, very much for the work you are 

doing. I mean, I am so grateful to you. And all of you for coming 

here today. 

So, I have a question I want each of you to answer yes or no. 

There is no other answer. Just yes or no. And I am going to start 

with Hannah. 

Do you agree that chemical manufacturers should have to prove 

through unbiased studies that their products are safe for pregnant 

women, for infants, and for children before they can sell those 

chemicals in the U.S.? 

Ms. PINGREE. Yes. 

Ms. STAPLETON. Yes. 

Mr. MOORE. Yes, I agree. 

Mr. RAWSON. Could you repeat the question? 

[Laughter.] 

Senator BOXER. Do you agree that chemical manufacturers 

should have to prove through unbiased studies that their products 

are safe for pregnant women, for infants, and for children before 

they can sell those chemicals in the U.S.? 

Mr. RAWSON. Respectfully—— 

Senator BOXER. No, not respectfully. Yes or no. 

Mr. RAWSON. The question cannot be answered without explanation. 

Senator BOXER. Mr. Stefani. 

Mr. STEFANI. Yes. 

Senator BOXER. Thank you. Majority wins. Let me just say the 

reason we are having the markup is just to answer that question. 

If someone cannot answer that question with an affirmative response, then they are putting the special interests before the 

health of the people, before the health of their own kids, before the 

health of the first responders. 

You can say, with due respect I am a lawyer, and I see every side 

of it. Well, I am married to a lawyer, my son is a lawyer, my dad 

was a lawyer. I know that it is a little harder for lawyers to answer 

yes or no. 

But this one? Do you agree that chemical manufacturers should 

have to prove through unbiased studies that their products are safe 

for pregnant women, for infants, and for children before they can 

sell those chemicals in the U.S.? And the reason we are having the 

markup of Senator Lautenberg’s bill is because that is what we are 

going to do here. 

Now, we are going to have a hard time because the chemical industry and their spokespeople are very strong. We are going to 

have a hard time because there is a lot of money on the line, and 

you know about follow the money. But at the end of the day, the 

people are going to be on the side of making sure products are safe 

for pregnant women, for children, for infants, for firefighters whom 

they revere. And I am going to do everything I can. 

139 

I want to say thank you to all of you. I know our minority witnesses lost a little bit of back up for some reason, but I do not 

know why, but that is what happened here. So, that is the situation. 

I thank you all. If you have anything further we will keep the 

record open for 24 hours if you want to expand on anything you 

said here today. Thank you very much. 

We stand adjourned. 

[Whereupon, at 12:10 p.m., the Committee and Subcommittee 

were adjourned.] 

[An additional statement submitted for the record follows:] 

STATEMENT OF HON. JEFF SESSIONS, 

U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF ALABAMA

Good morning. Thank you, Chairman Boxer and Subcommittee Chairman Lautenberg, and Ranking Member Inhofe and Subcommittee Ranking Member Crapo, for 

calling this hearing on chemical safety and flame retardants. The impact of chemicals on human health is an important issue and worthy of serious consideration. Exposures to chemicals in the home environment tend to pose greater risks to children 

than other members of the general public. Likewise, children are often more vulnerable to serious injury or death than adults when home furnishings catch fire. 

Last week, Senator Durbin held a Senate Appropriations subcommittee hearing 

on this same topic. My colleague Senator Lautenberg is a member of that subcommittee as well and spoke eloquently at that hearing on the topic of chemical 

safety and flame retardants. Senator Lautenberg, I know this is a priority for you, 

and I thank you for your leadership and work on this issue. 

I would agree with my colleagues that Federal laws governing the use of chemicals—including the Toxic Substances Control Act and the Flammable Fabrics Act— 

should be modernized. But we must do so in a manner that is warranted, protects 

public health, employs a transparent science-based process that takes into account 

relative risks, provides appropriate safeguards for intellectual property and proprietary information, and appropriately considers cost. 

The United States has a vibrant chemicals industry generating over $720 billion 

each year in products, employing over 800,000 Americans, and providing millions 

of other related jobs. Our nation’s chemical sector is a global leader, and we need 

a regulatory framework that keeps it that way, while also protecting public health 

and the environment. 

The testimony of today’s witnesses focuses primarily on concerns with chemical 

flame retardants. Fire deaths are a major concern in my State. In 2009 Alabama 

ranked #3 among the 50 States in the rate of fire-related deaths, with approximately 21 fire-related deaths per 1 million people. The national average in 2009 was 

11 deaths per million people. According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, ‘‘deaths from fires and burns are the third leading cause of fatal home injury.’’ While more progress is needed, the national fire death rate has declined approximately 20 percent since 2000. 

Studies have shown that flame retardants can be effective at making homes, 

clothing, furniture, and electronics less prone to catching fire—although it is also 

true that not all flame retardants are without health concerns. For example, in 2005 

the furniture industry voluntarily phased out the use of PBDEs (polybrominated diphenyl ethers)—a chemical that has been used as a flame retardant in textiles, plastics, wire insulation, automobiles, and other applications. Likewise, around the same 

time, EPA issued a rule banning the manufacture or import of two chemicals in the 

same chemical family as PBDEs. And presently, EPA has additional rulemaking 

procedures underway related to flame retardants. It is absolutely critical for public 

health, safety, and economic competitiveness that any such rules be based on sound 

science. 

Finally, I wanted to read from the testimony of the CEO of the American Home 

Furnishings Alliance, who testified at last week’s Senate Appropriations subcommittee hearing on this same topic. That witness stated, ‘‘[C]ost must be a consideration. The statistics of residential fires have told us repeatedly over the years that 

the residential fire problem in the United States primarily lies in households with 

lower incomes, less education, and a higher proportion of single parents. This segment of the population is the most sensitive to cost increases, yet this segment is 

clearly the most in need of the protection that safer upholstery will provide . . . ’’ 

140 

Thank you again for holding today’s hearing. I look forward to hearing from our 

witnesses. 

[Additional material submitted for the record follows:] 

141 


25110.096

C-\1 Doo!tY 

Mr. John Martell 

President 

Professional Fire Fighters of Maine 

41 Brickyard Cove Rd. 

Harpswell, Maine 04079 

Dear Mr. Martell: 

July 20, 2012 

1 am writing in response to your recent Jetter regarding ilame retardants. The American 

Chemistry Council and our member companies have great respect for the critical work you Jo, 

and share your interest in pursuing sate and effective ways to prevent the spread of fires. 

L"''""'"''""· Chemtura Corporation and ICL Industrial Products have great confidence in 

their supported by substantial and studies on safety and cflicacy. IJowevcr, 

they understand that recent news stories should addressed in order to dispel misinformation. 

To that end, they will continue to share data that supports the safety and efficacy of their 

products in the markets they supply with regulators and the public, and I would encourage you to 

review information about these products available on the company websites. 

Please note that. while the three companies that produce tlame retardants are long-time members 

of the American Chemistry Council. we are not affiliated with Citizens J(,r Fire Safety, and 

neither ACC stan· nor its resources \\ere used to support activities undertaken by the group. 

To increase public confidence in the of chemicals in consumer products, ACC continues 

w support bipartisan rerL)rm of the chemical regulatory system that \-Vill health and 

safety while ensuring U.S. manutf:lcturers can innovate and has 

c-onsistently called for a bipartisan process to modcmize the Control Act, and 

we have been encouraged by the mid-June agreement between Senator Lautcnberg and several 

Republican Senators, led by Senator David Vittcr, to put aside and develop a 

new approach. \Vc remain hopeful that this hipmiisan pmccss vvill that can be 

supported by all stakeholders and become law. 

Sinc~rcly. 

Cal Dooley 

americanchemlstry.com" "\i '.\! 1\ 
142 

Æ 


25110.097

The Honorable l3arbara Boxer 

Chairman, Committee on Environment and 

Public Works 

United States Senate 

Washington, DC 20510 

Dear Chainncn Boxer and Lauten berg: 

July 25,2012 

The llonorable Frank Laulenberg 

Chairman, Subcommittee on Superfund, 

Taxies and Environmental Health 

Committee on Environment and Public Works 

United States Senate 

Washington, DC 205 I 0 

Modernizing the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) is a top priority of the American Chemistry Council 

(ACC) and our members companies. To make that goal a reality, we have been engaged in numerous 

Subcommittee and Committee stukeholder discussions to construct a workable, science-based legislative 

proposal. offering extensive, detailed suggestions on how to improve TSCA. We also worked e~tensively 

during the winter and spring with Members ofhoth parties to help launch the tirst bi-partisan TSCA 

negotiation process. beginning from a blank slate. That process was fully undt.:':rway in mid-June befOre being 

interrupted after only four weeks by a decision to instead to move tbrward with the July 25th Committee 

markup of the Safe Chemicals Act. 

During lhe July 24rh Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works hcari.ng entitled ''Oversight of EPA 

Authorities and Actions to Control Exposures to Toxic Chemicals," several troubling statements were made 

concerning supposed ACC engagement in advocacy in the state of Maine, '"vith activities of groups unaffiliated 

with ACC being erroneously attributed to ACC. Those allegations. stated as facts, were inaccurate. 

During the hearing. questions were also raised regarding whether or not ACC responded to a letter from the 

Professional Firefighters of Maine regarding flame retardants. We would like to submit the enclosed response 

to the firefighters that we hope will help set the record straight that ACC did in fact respond to their 

correspondence. 

ro foster the type of bi-partisan collaborative process required to achieve TSCA reform, we believe it is 

impo11ant that future hearings focus on addressing important public policy issues, rather than questioning 

AC'C's long-standing committncnt to public health and safety. 

Jt is not surprising that much work needs to be done to address the myriad of issues associated with updating a 

statute as complex and far reaching as TSC A. We remain committed to working with the Senate Committee 

on Envi~onment and Public Works to help create a world~c!ass regulatory framework that will ensure the safe 

use of chemicals while fostering American innovation and job growth. 

Sim::erc!y, 

Walter Moore 

amedcunchemistry.com