U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

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

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

Fax: (202) 512–2250 Mail: Stop SSOP, Washington, DC 20402–0001

92–512PS 2004

H.R. 3970, GREEN CHEMISTRY

RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT ACT OF 2004

HEARING

BEFORE THE

COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

ONE HUNDRED EIGHTH CONGRESS

SECOND SESSION

MARCH 17, 2004

Serial No. 108–47

Printed for the use of the Committee on Science

(

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

(II)

COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE

HON. SHERWOOD L. BOEHLERT, New York, Chairman

RALPH M. HALL, Texas

LAMAR S. SMITH, Texas

CURT WELDON, Pennsylvania

DANA ROHRABACHER, California

KEN CALVERT, California

NICK SMITH, Michigan

ROSCOE G. BARTLETT, Maryland

VERNON J. EHLERS, Michigan

GIL GUTKNECHT, Minnesota

GEORGE R. NETHERCUTT, JR.,

Washington

FRANK D. LUCAS, Oklahoma

JUDY BIGGERT, Illinois

WAYNE T. GILCHREST, Maryland

W. TODD AKIN, Missouri

TIMOTHY V. JOHNSON, Illinois

MELISSA A. HART, Pennsylvania

J. RANDY FORBES, Virginia

PHIL GINGREY, Georgia

ROB BISHOP, Utah

MICHAEL C. BURGESS, Texas

JO BONNER, Alabama

TOM FEENEY, Florida

RANDY NEUGEBAUER, Texas

VACANCY

BART GORDON, Tennessee

JERRY F. COSTELLO, Illinois

EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON, Texas

LYNN C. WOOLSEY, California

NICK LAMPSON, Texas

JOHN B. LARSON, Connecticut

MARK UDALL, Colorado

DAVID WU, Oregon

MICHAEL M. HONDA, California

BRAD MILLER, North Carolina

LINCOLN DAVIS, Tennessee

SHEILA JACKSON LEE, Texas

ZOE LOFGREN, California

BRAD SHERMAN, California

BRIAN BAIRD, Washington

DENNIS MOORE, Kansas

ANTHONY D. WEINER, New York

JIM MATHESON, Utah

DENNIS A. CARDOZA, California

VACANCY

VACANCY

VACANCY

(III)

C O N T E N T S

March 17, 2004

Page

Witness List ............................................................................................................. 2

Hearing Charter ...................................................................................................... 3

Opening Statements

Statement by Representative Sherwood L. Boehlert, Chairman, Committee

on Science, U.S. House of Representatives ........................................................ 13

Written Statement ............................................................................................ 14

Statement by Representative Phil Gingrey, Member, Committee on Science,

U.S. House of Representatives ............................................................................ 14

Written Statement ............................................................................................ 15

Statement by Representative Bart Gordon, Ranking Minority Member, Committee on Science, U.S. House of Representatives ............................................ 16

Statement by Representative Eddie Bernice Johnson, Member, Committee

on Science, U.S. House of Representatives ........................................................ 16

Written Statement ............................................................................................ 17

Prepared Statement by Representative Nick Smith, Member, Committee on

Science, U.S. House of Representatives ............................................................. 18

Prepared Statement by Representative Jerry F. Costello, Member, Committee

on Science, U.S. House of Representatives ........................................................ 18

Prepared Statement by Representative Sheila Jackson Lee, Member, Committee on Science, U.S. House of Representatives ............................................ 19

Witnesses:

Dr. Arden L. Bement, Jr., Acting Director, National Science Foundation

Oral Statement ................................................................................................. 20

Written Statement ............................................................................................ 22

Biography .......................................................................................................... 23

Dr. Paul Gilman, Assistant Administrator for Research and Development,

Environmental Protection Agency

Oral Statement ................................................................................................. 24

Written Statement ............................................................................................ 26

Biography .......................................................................................................... 43

Dr. Berkeley W. Cue, Jr., Vice President of Pharmaceutical Sciences, Pfizer

Global Research and Development

Oral Statement ................................................................................................. 43

Written Statement ............................................................................................ 46

Biography .......................................................................................................... 57

Financial Disclosure ......................................................................................... 58

Mr. Steven Bradfield, Vice President of Environmental Development, Shaw

Industries, Inc.

Oral Statement ................................................................................................. 59

Written Statement ............................................................................................ 62

Biography .......................................................................................................... 65

Financial Disclosure ......................................................................................... 66

Dr. Edward J. Woodhouse, Associate Professor of Political Science, Department of Science & Technology Studies, Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute

Oral Statement ................................................................................................. 67

Written Statement ............................................................................................ 69

Page

IV

Dr. Edward J. Woodhouse, Associate Professor of Political Science, Department of Science & Technology Studies, Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute—

Continued

Financial Disclosure ......................................................................................... 93

Discussion ................................................................................................................. 94

Appendix: Additional Material for the Record

H.R. 3970, Green Chemistry Research and Development Act of 2004 ................. 104

Statement by Arden Bement on the National Institute of Standards and

Technology’s Green Chemistry Activities ........................................................... 111

Additional testimony submitted by Dr. J. Michael Fitzpatrick, President and

Chief Operating Officer, Rohm and Hass Company ......................................... 113

Statement in support of H.R. 3970 by Dr. J. Michael Fitzpatrick, President

and Chief Operating Officer, Rohm and Haas Company .................................. 120

Statement in support of H.R. 3970 by Genencor International, Inc. .................. 121

Statement in support of H.R. 3970 by the American Chemical Society ............. 122

Statement by the American Chemistry Council ................................................... 124

(1)

H.R. 3970, GREEN CHEMISTRY RESEARCH AND

DEVELOPMENT ACT OF 2004

WEDNESDAY, MARCH 17, 2004

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES,

COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE,

Washington, DC.

The Committee met, pursuant to call, at 10:00 a.m., in Room

2318 of the Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Sherwood L.

Boehlert [Chairman of the Committee] presiding.

2

3

HEARING CHARTER

COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE

U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

H.R. 3970, Green Chemistry

Research and Development Act of 2004

WEDNESDAY, MARCH 17, 2004

10:00 A.M.–12:00 P.M. 2318 RAYBURN HOUSE OFFICE BUILDING

1. Purpose

On Wednesday, March 17, 2004 the House Science Committee will hold a hearing

to examine federal and industry green chemistry research and development (R&D)

activities, and to receive testimony on H.R. 3970, the Green Chemistry Research and

Development Act of 2004. This bill would authorize a federal green chemistry R&D

program.

2. Witnesses

Dr. Arden Bement is the Acting Director of the National Science Foundation

(NSF) while continuing in his position as the Director of the National Institute of

Standards and Technology (NIST).

Dr. Paul Gilman is the Assistant Administrator for Research and Development at

the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). He also serves as the Agency’s Science

Advisor.

Dr. Berkeley Cue is Vice President of Pharmaceutical Sciences at Pfizer Global

Research and Development. Pfizer, Inc. has established green chemistry teams at

its facilities throughout the world, and won a 2002 Presidential Green Chemistry

Challenge Award for the redesign of the sertraline manufacture process. Sertraline

is the active ingredient in Zoloft, which is used widely in the U.S. to treat depression. The new process improves worker and environmental safety, reduces energy

and water use, and doubles overall product yield.

Mr. Steven Bradfield is Vice President of Environmental Development at Shaw

Industries. Shaw Industries won a 2003 Presidential Green Chemistry Challenge

Award for the development of EcoWorxΤΜ carpet tile. EcoWorxΤΜ carpet tiles are

made from low toxicity feedstocks and are recyclable.

Dr. Edward Woodhouse is Associate Professor of Political Science in the Department of Science & Technology Studies at Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute. Dr.

Woodhouse studies the social aspects of technological decision-making.

3. Overarching Questions

• How has—and how can—effective application of green chemistry products and

processes contributed to environmental protection and sustainability? What

are the costs associated with using green chemistry products and processes?

• How has private industry benefited from, and contributed to, green chemistry

breakthroughs? To what extent has private industry used green chemistry

products and processes? What are the primary barriers to increased development and adoption of green chemistry products and processes, and how can

these barriers be removed?

• What is the current status of the Federal Government’s efforts in green chemistry R&D? Are expanded federal efforts and increased federal coordination

in green chemistry warranted?

• Does H.R. 3970 establish a program that will result in greater R&D breakthroughs and increased adoption of green chemistry? How can the legislation

be improved?

4. Brief Overview

• Green chemistry is the design of chemical products and processes that reduce

or eliminate the use or generation of hazardous substances. Green chemistry

4

is a form of pollution prevention—preventing pollution rather than treating

emissions.

• A number of success stories have generated a great deal of excitement about

the significant potential of green chemistry for environmental and economic

benefit. Implementation of green chemistry at a Dow Chemical plant aimed

at increasing efficiency and instituting more recycling is showing a 174 percent annual return on a one-time investment. However, even this highly touted example has not been repeated and adoption of green chemistry products

and processes by industry has been limited. Barriers to greater adoption include a workforce unfamiliar with green chemistry, a lack of existing and

demonstrated alternatives, the sometimes high capital costs of changing processes, a lack of regulatory drivers, and inertia.

• Federal support for green chemistry R&D has also been limited. The most notable effort is the joint-NSF/EPA Technology for a Sustainable Environment

(TSE) program. The program, which includes, but is not limited to, green

chemistry activities, awarded $11 million in R&D grants in fiscal years 2002–

03. Other agencies such as the Department of Energy (DOE) and NIST also

provide support for green chemistry.

• EPA also administers the Presidential Green Chemistry Challenge Awards

Program to recognize advances in and to promote green chemistry. Since

1996, this program has made 40 awards to businesses and academics that develop technologies that incorporate the principles of green chemistry and that

have or can be used by industry. Both Pfizer, Inc. and Shaw Industries have

recently won this award.

• On March 16, 2004 Representative Phil Gingrey introduced H.R. 3970, the

Green Chemistry Research and Development Act of 2004. This legislation

would establish an Interagency Working Group to coordinate federal green

chemistry R&D activities and facilitate adoption of green chemistry by the

private sector. The bill would authorize funding for these activities (from

within existing authorizations) at NSF, EPA, NIST, and DOE through fiscal

year 2007.

5. Background

What is green chemistry?

Green chemistry is most commonly defined as chemistry and chemical engineering

that involves the design of chemical products and processes that reduce or eliminate

the use or generation of hazardous substances. It is sometimes characterized as ‘‘benign by design’’ to emphasize that it is green intentionally. Also known as sustainable chemistry, benign chemistry, or source reduction, green chemistry seeks to prevent the creation of hazards, instead of focusing on limiting the spread of pollutants

or cleaning up waste. Its practices are encapsulated in twelve generally accepted

guiding principles (Appendix I) that can be used by chemists to develop processes

and assess how green a process is.

Examples of green chemistry include the development of pesticide alternatives

that are effective at killing target organisms, but are benign to non-target organisms and do not persist in the environment. Another example is the use of the benign solvent supercritical carbon dioxide in dry cleaning processes instead of toxic

perchloroethylene.

Pfizer and Shaw Industries provide good examples of the potential of green chemistry. Pfizer won a 2002 Presidential Green Chemistry Challenge Award for the redesign of the sertraline manufacture process. Sertraline is the active ingredient in

Zoloft, which is used widely in the U.S. to treat depression. By applying green chemistry principles, Pfizer was able to eliminate 140 metric tons per year of titanium

tetrachloride, 100 metric tons per year of sodium hydroxide, 150 metric tons per

year of hydrochloric acid, and 440 metric tons per year of solid titanium oxide.

These changes improve worker and environmental safety, reduce energy and water

use, and double overall product yield. Shaw Industries won a 2003 Presidential

Green Chemistry Challenge Award for the development of EcoWorxΤΜ carpet tile.

Historically, carpet tile backings have been manufactured using polyvinyl chloride

(PVC). PVC is made from toxic feedstocks and its combustion results in toxic byproducts such as dioxin and hydrochloric acid. EcoWorxΤΜ carpet tiles are made

from low toxicity feedstocks and are recyclable.

What are the benefits of green chemistry?

Besides the inherent advantages to human health and the environment, green

chemistry can offer economic advantages and improvements to worker safety, public

safety, and national security.

5

1 Amato, Ivan, Fortune, New York: July 24, 2000, Vol. 142, Issue 3, pg. 270U.

Many in the private sector have recognized the potential savings that green chemistry offers. For example, by using benign chemical processes, businesses can avoid

the costs associated with treating or cleaning up pollutants. Other savings can come

from simply making more efficient use of raw materials (sometimes referred to as

‘‘atom economy’’) and energy. Dow Chemical Company’s Midland, Michigan facility

is an example of the level of savings a company can achieve. In 1996 Dow partnered

with the Natural Resources Defense Council to conduct a thorough review of the facility’s processes to identify ways to implement more recycling and substitute benign

materials for hazardous ones. By April 1999, after a one-time investment of $3.1

million, the facility had reduced emissions of targeted substances by 43 percent and

the amount of targeted wastes by 37 percent primarily through green chemistry innovations. The improvements are saving Dow $5.4 million per year, a 174 percent

annual return on investment.1 However, even though these benefits are clear, this

process has not been repeated widely by industry and not even by Dow itself. There

are many barriers to adoption of green chemistry that are discussed later. In this

case, one barrier was that even though the return on investment was good, Dow had

other investment opportunities that offered even greater returns.

Many other inherent advantages come from green chemistry in the areas of worker safety, public safety, and national security. For example, many chemical processes are conducted at extreme temperature and/or pressure, two conditions that

present a potential hazard for workers. Also, many processes involve toxic substances. Green chemistry seeks to design processes that can be conducted at or near

room temperature and pressure, and that use benign substances. Both of these steps

can improve working conditions for employees, and reduce the costs of liability protections for employers.

Chemical factories also pose a potential threat to public safety because of the possibility of an accidental release of toxic materials into the surrounding communities.

Green chemistry seeks to replace these toxic substances with benign ones, which

would not pose a threat to the public if accidentally released. Reducing the number

of toxic chemical plants and the transport of toxic chemicals also improves national

security by reducing the number of potential terrorist targets.

What barriers exist to greater adoption of green chemistry?

Despite the numerous potential advantages of green chemistry for the chemical

manufacturing industry, adoption of green chemistry technologies has been limited.

Significant impediments exist that discourage businesses from pursuing such alternatives. These include:

• A workforce unfamiliar with green chemistry—The existing chemical

manufacturing workforce is mainly composed of chemists and chemical engineers that have little or no training in green chemistry techniques. Even

today, most graduate chemistry curricula give little attention to green chemistry. Without appropriate personnel trained in green chemistry, a company

may not know, or be able, to search for and implement green chemistry alternatives to their chemical processes.

• Lack of existing green chemistry alternatives—Green chemistry alternatives have not yet been designed for most of the chemical processes in use

today. Developing a green chemistry alternative might be prohibitively expensive and time consuming, especially for companies that do not have extensive

R&D programs and when time to market is critical.

• Lack of demonstrated green chemistry alternatives—Even for the green

chemistry alternatives that do exist, many of them have not been proven in

an industrial setting. Few companies are willing to take the risk of being the

first to implement a new and unproven technology.

• Costs of up-front capital investment—U.S. companies have invested heavily in existing infrastructure. Switching to green chemistry processes might

require this infrastructure to be extensively retooled, which could make

adopting green chemistry technologies initially very expensive. Even though

the process may be economical when costs are computed over the full life

cycle, many companies may be unwilling to pay the high up-front costs. This

is one reason why there is more green chemistry adoption in manufacturing

sectors that turn over their processes more frequently.

• Lack of regulatory drivers—Few governmental incentives exist for adoption of green chemistry. Most environmental regulations sanction polluters,

6

while few reward pollution prevention. The government could make adoption

of green chemistry more attractive by extending the patent life of green products or accelerating the approval of products that pose minimal hazard.

• Inertia—Perhaps the most important impediment to adopting green chemistry technologies is inertia within industry. For a company that already complies with all existing environmental regulations, there is little impetus to

seek out and implement alternative processes. Additionally, few companies

offer incentives to employees that improve environmental performance. This

lack of motivation often means that only those companies that have made environmental sustainability a priority use green chemistry processes.

H.R. 3970 is designed to overcome some of these impediments. The bill would support undergraduate and graduate education in green chemistry. This should help

create a new generation of chemists and engineers who are familiar with green

chemistry and its advantages, and can bring those skills to bear in the workplace.

The coordinated R&D program would support R&D and demonstration projects at

universities, industry and federal labs, and make the results of these activities readily available through a green chemistry database of accomplishments and best practices. This R&D would develop and demonstrate more green chemistry alternatives

that will be available for implementation by industry.

What is the Federal Government currently doing?

The Federal Government supports activities related to green chemistry through

agencies including NSF, EPA, DOE and NIST. In some cases, as with EPA, these

activities are focused directly on green chemistry. In other cases, such as with DOE,

these activities are byproducts of efforts to achieve other goals, such as improving

energy efficiency. Because some green chemistry investments are direct and some

are indirect, and because green chemistry is not broken out in agency budgets, it

is difficult to determine the exact federal investment in green chemistry.

However, it is clear that the investment in green chemistry and chemical engineering is small as compared to the investment in chemistry and chemical engineering as a whole. In 2000, the four agencies mentioned above spent approximately

$540 million on chemistry and chemical engineering R&D; investment in green

chemistry R&D was probably close to $40 million. In addition, green chemistry activities are not coordinated among the agencies.

Following is a table that indicates, in general, agency budgets for green chemistry

and chemical engineering activities. The table is followed by descriptions of how this

money is spent.

EPA conducts two general types of activities in green chemistry. EPA conducts

and supports R&D through the Office of Research and Development; and EPA conducts outreach and promotion through the Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxic

Substances (OPPTS).

In FY04, EPA will spend approximately $5 million on direct green chemistry and

chemical engineering R&D. The money comes out of a larger spending category,

called Pollution Prevention. Approximately half of this money is spent on internal

R&D, conducted at EPA’s lab in Cincinnati. The lab focuses on developing cross-cutting tools for industry such as benign solvent design software. The other half of this

money funds external R&D, through the Science to Achieve Results (STAR) program. As part of this program, EPA and NSF have developed a partnership, the

Technologies for a Sustainable Environment (TSE) program, which primarily funds

green chemistry and chemical engineering R&D.

The TSE program is the external R&D program most focused on green chemistry

in the Federal Government. The partnership between EPA and NSF has been hailed

as a model of cooperation. EPA and NSF put out a joint request for proposals, and

then award grants based on their own mission. NSF funds more basic green chemistry R&D, while EPA funds more applied R&D aimed at mission oriented problems.

7

TSE was initiated in 1995 and has awarded 204 grants totaling just over $56 million since then. In the FY05 budget, the Administration has proposed to cut EPA’s

funding for this program entirely.

EPA conducts outreach and promotes green chemistry (funded at approximately

$2 million in FY04) through OPPTS. OPPTS administers the Presidential Green

Chemistry Challenge Award Program. This award, first awarded in 1996 and given

annually, recognizes achievements in green chemistry. Appendix II includes a number of examples of green chemistry achievements that have been recognized by this

program. In FY05, the Administration proposes to increase funding for pollution

prevention in OPPTS by $5 million. A portion of this funding will be used for green

chemistry activities, including expanding the focus of the awards program to address existing and emerging chemical priorities.

Outside of the TSE collaboration with EPA, NSF does not put out specific solicitations for green chemistry R&D, but funds a wide range of investigator-driven green

chemistry R&D. While NSF does not have a specific line item in the budget for

green chemistry activities, NSF estimates that in FY04 it will spend approximately

$10.8 million on green chemistry activities in the chemistry division and $13 million

on green chemistry activities in the chemical transport systems division. However,

it is difficult to determine the exact level of investment because much of this funding may be used for ‘‘multi purpose’’ fundamental research that has implications for

green chemistry and other research areas. It is not the intent of the Green Chemistry Research and Development Act to decrease NSF’s investment in green chemistry R&D; instead the bill seeks to focus more NSF funding specifically on R&D

that is intended to advance green chemistry.

DOE does not track spending on green chemistry activities, and does not conduct

activities that it specifically identifies as green chemistry. However, DOE conducts

R&D that has many green chemistry applications. DOE’s fundamental research efforts in chemistry are focused on attaining an atomic and molecular level understanding of processes involved in the generation, storage, and use of energy.

NIST has R&D programs that are yielding green chemistry results. NIST’s mission is to develop and promote measurements, standards, and technology to enhance

productivity and improve the quality of life. Much of the R&D conducted within this

mission has green chemistry applications. For example, the Chemical Science and

Technology Laboratory produces more accurate measurement methods and standards to enable the development and implementation of green technologies and assess its impact.

While the agencies above conduct a number of green chemistry-related R&D,

these efforts are small when compared to their overall R&D, and even the chemistry

and chemical engineering R&D budgets for these agencies. In addition, the efforts

are not coordinated and are not strategic in nature.

6. Summary of H.R. 3970

The Green Chemistry Research and Development Act would authorize an interagency green chemistry R&D program. NSF and EPA would lead an Interagency

Working Group to coordinate federal green chemistry activities. The Working Group

would also include DOE and NIST, as well as any other agency the President designates. The program would be authorized at $26 million in FY05 rising to $30 million in FY07 (from within existing authorizations). See Appendix III for a break

down of funding by agency.

The Program would support R&D grants, including grants for university-industry

partnerships, support green chemistry R&D at federal labs, promote education

through curricula development and fellowships, and collect and disseminate information about green chemistry. A complete section-by-section analysis of the legislation is provided in Appendix III.

7. Questions for the Witnesses

Questions for Dr. Bement

• Please describe the National Science Foundation’s (NSF’s) current activities

in green chemistry. How much does NSF spend on green chemistry research?

Through which NSF programs? How much emphasis is placed on basic research versus applied research and development?

• To what extent does NSF coordinate and collaborate with other federal agencies in green chemistry research and development?

• What are NSF’s views on H.R. 3970, the Green Chemistry Research and Development Act of 2004? How could the bill be improved?

8

Questions for Dr. Gilman

• Please describe the Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA’s) current activities in green chemistry. How much does EPA spend on green chemistry research? How much of this research is conducted intramurally versus

extramurally? How much emphasis is placed on basic research versus applied

research and development?

• To what extent does EPA coordinate and collaborate with other federal agencies in green chemistry research and development?

• What are EPA’s views on H.R. 3970, the Green Chemistry Research and Development Act of 2004? How could the bill be improved?

Questions for Dr. Cue

• Please describe Pfizer, Inc.’s green chemistry activities. Have past investments in green chemistry paid off for Pfizer, Inc.? What environmental and

human health benefits have resulted from Pfizer, Inc.’s green chemistry activities?

• What impediments exist that deter companies from pursuing green chemistry

solutions? What more can the Federal Government do to encourage adoption

of green chemistry products and processes?

• What are your views on H.R. 3970, the Green Chemistry Research and Development Act of 2004? How could the bill be improved?

Questions for Mr. Bradfield

• Please describe Shaw Industries, Inc.’s green chemistry activities. Have past

investments in green chemistry paid off for Shaw Industries, Inc.? What environmental and human health benefits have resulted from Shaw Industries,

Inc.’s green chemistry activities?

• What impediments exist that deter companies from pursuing green chemistry

solutions? What more can the Federal Government do to encourage adoption

of green chemistry products and processes?

• What are your views on H.R.3970, the Green Chemistry Research and Development Act of 2004? How could the bill be improved?

Questions for Dr. Woodhouse

• What is the potential of green chemistry products and processes to contribute

to environmental protection and sustainability?

• What are some of the reasons that chemists have for so long relied on ‘‘brown

chemistry’’? What are the barriers to more rapid development and adoption

of green chemistry alternatives?

• What should the Federal Government do to accelerate development and adoption of green chemistry products and processes?

• What are your views on H.R.3970, the Green Chemistry Research and Development Act of 2004? How could the bill be improved?

9

2 Anastas, P.T., Warner, J.C. Green Chemistry: Theory and Practice; Oxford University Press;

New York, 1998, pg. 30.

Appendix I

Twelve Principles of Green Chemistry2

1. It is better to prevent waste than to treat or clean up waste after it is

formed.

2. Synthetic methods should be designed to maximize the incorporation of all

materials used in the process into the final product.

3. Wherever practicable, synthetic methodologies should be designed to use

and generate substances that possess little or no toxicity to human health

and the environment.

4. Chemical products should be designed to preserve efficacy of function while

reducing toxicity.

5. The use of auxiliary substances (e.g., solvents, separation agents, etc.)

should be made unnecessary wherever possible and innocuous when used.

6. Energy requirements should be recognized for their environmental and economic impacts and should be minimized. Synthetic methods should be conducted at ambient temperature and pressure.

7. A raw material of feedstock should be renewable rather than depleting

wherever technically and economically practicable.

8. Unnecessary derivatization (blocking group, protection/deprotection, temporary modification of physical/chemical processes) should be avoided whenever possible.

9. Catalytic reagents (as selective as possible) are superior to stoichiometric

reagents.

10. Chemical products should be designed so that at the end of their function

they do not persist in the environment and break down into innocuous degradation products.

11. Analytical methodologies need to be further developed to allow for realtime, in-process monitoring and control prior to the formation of hazardous

substances.

12. Substances and the form of a substance used in a chemical process should

be chosen so as to minimize the potential for chemical accidents, including

releases, explosions, and fires.

10

Appendix II

Presidential Green Chemistry Challenge Award Winners

In 1995, the EPA initiated the Presidential Green Chemistry Challenge Award

program to recognize achievement in green chemistry. Each year since 1996, awards

have been given out in five categories: academic, small business, alternative synthetic pathways, alternative solvents/reaction conditions, and designing safer chemicals. Past winners have included:

• Pfizer, Inc. developed a green chemistry approach to the manufacture of

setraline, the active ingredient in the anti-depressant Zoloft. The new,

streamlined process is accomplished in a single step instead of three, reduces

consumption of some raw materials by as much as 60 percent, and uses a single, benign solvent instead of four. As a result, Pfizer, Inc. has improved

worker and environmental safety, reduced energy and water use, and doubled

overall product yield. (Alternative Synthetic Pathways Award, 2002)

• Shaw Industries, Inc. developed a novel type of carpet tile backing made from

their EcoWorxΤΜ compound. Traditional carpet tile backings are landfilled at

the end of their useful life. Also, the combustion of PVC backings, the most

commonly used carpet tile backings, produces toxic byproducts. EcoWorxΤΜ, on the other hand, is made from low toxicity feedstocks and is recyclable. The

cost of collection, transportation, and recycling of EcoWorxΤΜ carpet tile

backings is less than the cost of using virgin raw materials. (Designing Safer

Chemicals, 2003)

• SC Fluids, Inc. developed a new technology to improve manufacturing processes in the semiconductor industry. The fabrication of integrated circuits currently generates an estimated four million gallons of wastewater and uses

thousands of gallons of corrosive chemicals and hazardous solvents per day.

Supercritical CO2 Resist Remover (SCORR) technology offers a cost-effective

alternative by using supercritical CO2 to strip resist from the silicon wafer.

SCORR outperforms conventional resist removal techniques in the areas of

waste minimization, water use, energy consumption, worker safety, feature

size compatibility, material compatibility, and cost. (Small Business Award,

2002)

• Cargill Dow LLC developed a new family of polymers derived entirely from

annually renewable resources that is competitive on a cost and performance

basis with traditional plastics. Called NatureWorksΤΜ, it requires 20–50 percent less fossil resources than comparable petroleum-based plastics, and is

fully biodegradable or recyclable. (Alternative Solvents/Reaction Conditions

Award, 2002)

• Chemical Specialties, Inc developed an alternative wood preserving product

called ACQ. More than 95 percent of pressure-treated wood is currently preserved with a chemical known as CCA. To manufacture CCA, approximately

40 million pounds of arsenic and 64 million pounds of hexavalent chromium

(both probable carcinogens) are used. These chemicals may pose a risk to children through contact with CCA-treated items such as playground equipment.

ACQ, however, does not contain arsenic or hexavalent chromium. Widespread

adoption of ACQ has the potential to nearly eliminate the use of arsenic in

the U.S., and would eliminate 64 million pounds of hexavelant chromium.

This would also avoid the risks associated with the production, transportation, use and disposal of these chemicals. (Designing Safer Chemicals

Award, 2002)

• Biofine, Inc. developed a novel technique to convert biomass waste into levulinic acid and its derivatives. Biofine, Inc., in collaboration with the Department of Energy, the New York State Energy Research and Development Authority, and Biometics, Inc., developed a method to convert biomass waste, including municipal solid waste, unrecyclable municipal waste paper, waste

wood, and agricultural residues, into levulinic acid and its derivatives, which

are marketable chemicals in many sectors. One full-scale commercial plant

could convert 1000 dry tons of waste per day into 160 million pounds per year

of product. (Small Business Award, 1999)

• Professor Joseph M. DeSimone from the University of North Carolina at

Chapel Hill and North Carolina State University initiated a research program

aimed at dramatically advancing the solubility performance characteristics of

carbon dioxide (CO2). More than 30 billion pounds of organic and halogenated

11

solvents are used each year that have a variety of negative impacts on the

workplace and the environment. CO2 has long been recognized as an ideal

solvent, since it is nontoxic, nonflammable, safe to work with, energy efficient,

cost-effective, waste minimizing, and reusable. This work has applications in

the precision cleaning, medical device fabrication, garment care, and chemical

manufacturing and coating industries. (Academic Award, 1997)

• BHC Company developed a new process for the manufacture of ibuprofen in

which virtually all starting materials are either converted to product or are

recovered and recycled. Using this process, the generation of waste is all but

eliminated. This process has been hailed as a model of source reduction. (Alternative Synthetic Pathways Award, 1997)

12

Appendix III

Section-by-Section Analysis of H.R. 3970, Green Chemistry

Research and Development Act of 2004

Sec. 1. Short Title

‘‘Green Chemistry Research and Development Act of 2004’’

Sec. 2. Definitions

Defines terms used in the text.

Sec. 3. Green Chemistry Research and Development Program

Establishes an interagency research and development (R&D) program to promote

and coordinate federal green chemistry research, development, demonstration, education, and technology transfer activities. The program will provide sustained support for green chemistry R&D through merit-reviewed competitive grants to researchers, teams of researchers, and university-industry R&D partnerships, and

through R&D conducted at federal laboratories.

The program will provide support for, and encouragement of, the application of

green chemistry through encouragement of consideration of green chemistry in all

federally-funded chemical science and engineering R&D; examination of methods to

create incentives for the use of green chemistry; promotion of the education and

training of undergraduate and graduate students in green chemistry; collection and

dissemination of information on green chemistry R&D and technology transfer; and

provision of venues for outreach and dissemination of green chemistry advances

such as symposia, forums, conferences, and written materials.

Establishes an interagency working group composed of representatives from the

National Science Foundation, the National Institute for Standards and Technology,

the Department of Energy, the Environmental Protection Agency, and any other

agency that the President may designate, to oversee the planning, management, and

coordination of all federal green chemistry R&D activities. Names the Director of

the National Science Foundation and the Assistant Administrator for R&D at the

Environmental Protection Agency as co-chairs and requires the group to establish

goals and priorities for the program and provide for interagency coordination, including budget coordination. Requires the group to submit a report to the Committee on Science of the House of Representatives and the Committee on Commerce,

Science and Transportation of the Senate within two years that includes a summary

of federally-funded green chemistry activities and an analysis of the progress made

towards the goals and priorities established for the program, including recommendations for future program activities.

Sec. 4. Authorization of Appropriations

Authorizes appropriations for green chemistry R&D programs, from sums already

authorized to be appropriated, at the National Science Foundation, the National Institute of Standards and Technology, the Department of Energy, and the Environmental Protection Agency.

From sums already authorized to be appropriated for each of the agencies.

13

Chairman BOEHLERT. Good morning. I want to welcome everyone

here today for our hearing on green chemistry, and I want to thank

our colleague, Dr. Gingrey, for introducing the bill that will increase the focus of Congress, and, we hope, the Executive Branch,

on this important and exciting area of research.

We scheduled our green chemistry hearing for today because it

seemed like an especially appropriate topic for St. Patrick’s Day,

but it is really a timely subject, indeed a pressing subject, any day

of the year.

While it is certainly true, to paraphrase the old adage, that without green chemistry, most of us—most of what we take for granted

in modern life would be impossible. It is also true that chemicals

compose a threat to life, and we are discovering more threats all

of the time.

But many of those threats could be lessened and avoided entirely

if we focused more of our research on green chemistry, on chemistry that reduces or eliminates the use of toxic substances and the

generation of toxic byproducts. And the good news is that green

chemistry solutions can also save companies money and give them

a competitive edge, in addition to protecting the environment and

workers. That all is very appropriate. Green chemistry can result

in green cash as well as a green environment. It is the ultimate

‘‘win-win strategy.’’ And I would direct your attention to our Director of Communications, who, appropriately, is dressed in green.

At least it is potentially. While the government and some companies have small and scattered efforts in green chemistry, it is rarely a central focus. That has to change.

And that will change only if the government takes action. The insufficient research in and application of green chemistry is a textbook example of market failure. Green chemistry has broad public

benefits, but the market can not supply adequate incentives for the

private sector to invest enough in it. The problems green chemistry

solves are externalities, problems like pollution that have costs

that are borne by the public at large rather than by their source.

And inertia alone is enough to slow investment in new products

and processes.

So Dr. Gingrey’s bill takes a sensible and targeted approach. It

says, ‘‘Let us focus more of the millions of the dollars the government already invests in chemistry research and development on

green chemistry. And let us train more young scientists in this

field. And let us make working on green chemistry R&D a conscious effort with an explicit budget.’’ It is awfully hard to argue

with that.

And indeed, we don’t hear much argument. The bill has already

been endorsed by the American Chemical Society, and industry is

starting to line up behind it.

The Administration will tell us today that green chemistry is

great, but we really don’t need a bill. But that is what every Administration tells every Congress about just about every bill. I don’t

think we will be dissuaded by the traditional, ‘‘Don’t worry; we

have already got that covered,’’ line of argument. Maybe green

chemistry can develop a way to make Article I of the Constitution

more indelible to Executive Branch readers.

14

So we look forward to reporting out this bill within the next

month, and we hope for a time when the announcement of the

Green Chemistry awards will be a red-letter day on everyone’s calendar. Then we will really be able to achieve better living through

chemistry. And I yield to—the balance of my time to the author of

this legislation, Dr. Gingrey.

[The prepared statement of Chairman Boehlert follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF CHAIRMAN SHERWOOD BOEHLERT

I want to welcome everyone here today for our hearing on green chemistry, and

I want to thank our colleague, Dr. Gingrey, for introducing the bill that will increase

the focus of the Congress—and, we hope, the Executive Branch—on this important

and exciting area of research.

We scheduled our green chemistry hearing for today because it seemed like an

especially appropriate topic for St. Patrick’s Day, but it is really a timely subject—

indeed a pressing subject—any day of the year.

While it is certainly true—to paraphrase the old ads—that, without chemistry,

most of what we take for granted in modern life would be impossible; it’s also true

that chemicals can pose a threat to life—and we’re discovering more threats all the

time.

But many of those threats could be lessened or avoided entirely if we focused

more of our research on green chemistry—on chemistry that reduces or eliminates

the use of toxic substances and the generation of toxic byproducts. And the good

news is that green chemistry solutions can also save companies money and give

them a competitive edge in addition to protecting the environment and workers.

Green chemistry can result in green cash as well as a green environment. It’s the

ultimate ‘‘win-win strategy.’’

At least it is potentially. While the government and some companies have small

and scattered efforts in green chemistry, it’s rarely a central focus. That has to

change.

And that will change only if the government takes action. The insufficient research in, and application of green chemistry is a textbook case of market failure.

Green chemistry has broad public benefits but the market cannot supply adequate

incentives for the private sector to invest enough in it. The problems green chemistry solves are externalities—problems like pollution that have costs that are borne

by the public at large rather than by their source. And inertia alone is enough to

slow investment in new products and processes.

So Dr. Gingrey’s bill takes a sensible and targeted approach. It says, ‘‘Let’s focus

more of the millions of dollars the government already invests in chemistry research

and development (R&D) on green chemistry. And let’s train more young scientists

in this field. And let’s make working on green chemistry R&D a conscious effort

with an explicit budget.’’ Awfully hard to argue with.

And indeed we don’t hear much argument. The bill has already been endorsed by

the American Chemical Society, and industry is starting to line up behind it.

The Administration will tell us today that green chemistry is great, but we really

don’t need a bill. But that’s what every Administration tells every Congress about

just about every bill. I don’t think we’ll be dissuaded by the traditional, ‘‘Don’t

worry, we’ve already got that covered’’ line of argument. Maybe green chemistry can

develop a way to make Article I of the Constitution more indelible to Executive

Branch readers.

So we look forward to reporting out this bill within the next month, and we hope

for a time when the announcement of the Green Chemistry awards will be a redletter day on everyone’s calendar. Then, we’ll really be able to achieve ‘‘better living

through chemistry.’’ I yield the balance of my time to Dr. Gingrey.

Mr. GINGREY. I thank the Chairman for yielding, and I want to

first start off by thanking all, and certainly—and especially our

panel of witnesses for being here today. I am looking forward to

all—hearing your testimony. I wanted to also thank Chairman

Boehlert and Ranking Member Gordon for holding this important

hearing on green chemistry.

As a physician, I am a big believer in that old adage, ‘‘An ounce

of prevention is worth a pound of cure.’’ The majority of environmental protection laws passed by Congress focus on limiting the

15

spread of pollutants, cleaning up waste, or assessing fines to polluters. We should be devoting more effort toward finding ways to

prevent pollution in the first place rather than cleaning it up after

it has been created. The Green Chemistry Research and Development Act of 2004 does just that.

As a Chemistry major, trained in traditional chemistry, or what

some have come to call ‘‘brown chemistry,’’ I am very excited about

the potential economic, environmental, and national security benefits from the emerging field of green chemistry. Preventing pollution and waste in the first place is often cheaper than mitigating

and cleaning it up later, and the development of new products and

processes will help spur economic growth. Green chemistry aims to

design processes that can be conducted at or near room temperature and pressure and that use benign materials, decreasing the

present risks for workers, while the replacement of toxic substances with safe ones reduces the potential threat to public safety

due to accidental release. In our post-9/11 world, the reduction of

the number of toxic chemical locations and the transport of toxic

chemicals also improves national security by reducing the number

of potential terrorist attacks and targets.

Yet despite all of the promise of green chemistry, the Federal

Government invests very little, very little in this area. The Green

Chemistry Research and Development Act establishes an interagency research and development program to promote and coordinate federal green chemistry research, development, demonstration, education, and technology transfer activities. I think that this

bill provides modest and prudent funding in an area that deserves

greater federal attention. I look forward to receiving the testimonies and engaging in dialogue on this very important area.

Mr. Chairman, I thank you, and I yield back the balance of my

time.

[The prepared statement of Mr. Gingrey follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF REPRESENTATIVE PHIL GINGREY

I thank the Chairman for yielding. I want to first start off by thanking all and

our panel of witnesses for being here today, I’m looking forward to hearing your testimonies. I wanted to also thank Chairman Boehlert and Ranking Member Gordon

for holding this important hearing on green chemistry.

As a physician, I’m a big believer in the old adage, ‘an ounce of prevention is

worth a pound of cure.’ The majority of environmental protection laws passed by

Congress focus on limiting the spread of pollutants, cleaning up waste, or assessing

fines to polluters. We should be devoting more effort toward finding ways to prevent

pollution in the first place rather than cleaning it up after it’s been created. The

Green Chemistry Research and Development Act of 2004 does just that.

As a Chemistry major, trained in traditional chemistry, or what some have come

to call ‘Brown Chemistry,’ I am very excited about the potential economic, environmental, and national security benefits from the emerging field of Green Chemistry.

Preventing pollution and waste in the first place is often cheaper than mitigating

and cleaning it up later, and the development of new products and processes will

help spur economic growth. Green chemistry aims to design processes that can be

conducted at or near room temperature and pressure, and that use benign materials, decreasing the present risk for workers; while the replacement of toxic substances with safe ones reduces the potential threat to public safety due to accidental

release. In our post-9/11 world, the reduction of the number of toxic chemical locations and the transport of toxic chemicals also improves national security by reducing the number of potential terrorist targets.

Yet despite all of the promise of green chemistry, the Federal Government invests

very little in this area. The Green Chemistry Research and Development Act establishes an interagency research and development program to promote and coordinate

16

federal green chemistry research, development, demonstration, education, and technology transfer activities. I think that this bill provides modest and prudent funding

in an area that deserves greater federal attention. I look forward to receiving the

testimonies and engaging in dialogue on this important area.

Thank you Mr. Chairman and I yield back my time.

Chairman BOEHLERT. Thank you very much, Dr. Gingrey. And

let me once again commend you for your leadership in this effort.

That is the type of thing we have come to expect from the Members

of this committee. We are at the forefront of so many things, and

we are glad to be there once again.

The Chair is now pleased to recognize the distinguished Ranking

Member of the Full Committee, Dr.—Mr. Gordon. I was going to

give you a doctorate, too, Bart. You have had a few honoraries.

Mr. GORDON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thanks for calling

this important hearing. I concur with you that our goal here is to

raise the awareness of the public and the Administration, and I

think that this bill is a good start. Our champion on this side has

been Ms. Johnson, who has taken a lead in this issue. And I would

like to yield the balance of my time to her.

Chairman BOEHLERT. Before she takes the microphone, just let

me commend Ms. Johnson, too, because it is her leadership, combined with Dr. Gingrey, working as a team, bipartisan, across the

center aisle, that is making this happen. And I want to thank her

for her leadership.

Ms. JOHNSON. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. And thank

you, too, Ranking Member Gordon, for giving me this opportunity

to speak on an issue that is so important to me.

Frequently, we, as legislators, preach about how we want to

make this world a better place for those who are to follow. I, for

one, want to help create a better planet, not only for the sake of

my beloved grandchildren, but for all future generations.

Imagine a policy that can help clean the environment by increasing the use of renewable fuels, encourage manufacturing processes

that generate less toxic waste and promote the development of materials which can be easily recycled. These are the goals of green

chemistry. And this bill is an aggressive first step in reaching these

goals. I am so pleased that my colleague, Congressman Gingrey,

has introduced the Green Chemistry Research and Development Act

of 2004, and I am proud to be an original cosponsor of this legislation.

Green chemistry is the utilization of a set of principles that reduces or eliminates the use or generation of hazardous substances

in the design, manufacture, and application of chemical products.

Green chemistry, as defined, tries to get at eliminating hazards in

products and processes, making workplaces safer, dropping costs

associated with safety and hazardous waste disposal, reducing

risks to homeland security, preventing pollution, and creating

healthier products that are effective and desirable. It is especially

helpful in agriculture in conventional and organic crops. It has the

capability of saving companies millions of dollars by reducing waste

and providing a higher rate of return.

Over the past decade, there has been increasing interest in a

fundamentally new approach to environmental protection. In studying green chemistry, we realize that science and technology can

17

help produce processes and products that are both more environmentally benign and economically attractive.

An increased interest in new approaches for environmental protection may also derive, in part, from significantly changed attitudes about the environment over the past few decades. Increasing

numbers of corporate executives may begin to see environmental

protection as an important part of their corporate responsibility.

Many firms now see an increased environmental consciousness as

offering the potential for market niches that can emphasize the environmental benefits of products and services.

That is why I am so excited about our discussion of this legislation today. Although there is more work that can be done to

strengthen this legislation, it still provides just the right impetus

to encourage the science and manufacturing communities to start

in the right direction, not only because green chemistry can save

them money now, in the short term, but because it also can save

our planet in the long term.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I yield.

[The prepared statement of Ms. Johnson follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF REPRESENTATIVE EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And thank you too, Ranking Member Gordon, for giving me this opportunity to speak on an issue that is so important to me.

Frequently, we as legislators preach about how we want to make this world a better place for those who are to follow. I for one want to help create a better planet

not only for the sake of my beloved grandchildren, but for all future generations.

Imagine a policy that can help clean the environment by increasing the use of renewable fuels, encourage manufacturing processes that generate less toxic waste,

and promote the development of materials which can be easily recycled. These are

the goals of Green Chemistry. And this bill is an aggressive first step in reaching

these goals. I am so pleased that my colleague, Congressman Gingrey, has introduced the Green Chemistry Research and Development Act of 2004, and I am proud

to be an original co-sponsor of this legislation.

Green Chemistry is the utilization of a set of principles that reduces or eliminates

the use or generation of hazardous substances in the design, manufacture and application of chemical products. Green chemistry as defined tries to get at eliminating

hazards in products and processes, making workplaces safer, dropping costs associated with safety and hazardous waste disposal, reducing risks to homeland security,

preventing pollution and creating healthier products that are effective and desirable. It is especially helpful in agriculture in conventional and organic crops. It has

the capability of saving companies millions of dollars by reducing waste and providing a higher rate of return.

Over the past decade, there has been increasing interest in a fundamentally new

approach to environmental protection. In studying Green Chemistry we realize that

science and technology can help produce processes and products that are both more

environmentally benign and economically attractive.

An increased interest in new approaches for environmental protection may also

derive in part from significantly changed attitudes about the environment over the

past few decades. Increasing numbers of corporate executives may begin to see environmental protection as an important part of their corporate responsibility. Many

firms now see an increased environmental consciousness as offering the potential for

market niches that emphasize the environmental benefits of products and services.

That is why I am so excited about our discussion of this legislation today. Although there is more work that can be done to strengthen this legislation, it still

provides just the right impetus to encourage the science and manufacturing communities to start in the right direction. Not only because Green Chemistry can save

them money now in the short-term, but because it can also save our planet in the

long-term.

[The prepared statement of Mr. Smith follows:]

18

PREPARED STATEMENT OF REPRESENTATIVE NICK SMITH

Today we meet to review the Green Chemistry Research and Development Act of

2004. The legislation establishes a modest interagency green chemistry R&D program at the National Science Foundation, Environmental Protection Agency, Department of Energy, and National Institute of Standards and Technology.

Green chemistry is defined as ‘‘the utilization of a set of principles that reduces

or eliminates the use or generation of hazardous substances in the design, manufacture and application of chemical products.’’ It is a relatively new term that describes

relatively old ideas regarding our application of chemistry and related technologies

to protect the environment. Today we actively think of such technologies as ‘‘green,’’

and actively think ‘‘green’’ when applying these technologies.

By almost every indicator, the environment in the United States is substantially

better than it has been at any time over the last thirty years. For example, emissions of chemicals such as nitrogen oxides from automobiles and mercury from

power plants have decreased significantly. Drinking water is cleaner, and we’re releasing much lower quantities of toxic chemicals into the environment in general.

We have achieved all of this in concert with rapid population and economic growth.

How have we had such great success improving the environment? To be sure, sensible regulations and increased public awareness have been important overall contributors. But if I had to give an award to the single most important factor responsible for the clean environment in America today, it would be technology.

Technological advancement and information allows us to minimize wastes, improve efficiencies, and address nearly any environmental problem. So-called green

chemistry is an important piece in this effort. As a farmer, I have to be tested and

licensed to handle pesticides for the growing of crops. Thanks to our improved understanding and application of green chemistry, the safety of the chemicals I use

on the farm has improved dramatically during the last 25 years.

Still, there is much room for improvement. We continue to have a problem with

environmentally toxic chemicals in many industries. For example, in agriculture, we

are searching for safer alternatives to potential environmental hazards such as

Atrazine and Methyl Bromide. Green chemistry provides a fresh and different approach to addressing these ongoing environmental challenges.

Too often, we romance about the environmental benefits of regulations and other

environmentally benign practices without regard to their impact on businesses and

the economy. That approach is shortsighted, especially in today’s globally competitive environment where even the most minor misguided regulation can drive entire

industries overseas. With it’s potential to provide non-regulatory, economically competitive solutions to some of today’s most pressing environmental challenges, green

chemistry can be a win-win approach to what is all too often a lose-lose situation.

To that end, the Federal Government can play an important role in stimulating

green chemistry advances that are otherwise too risky and expensive for industry

to undertake. The legislation before us today outlines that role and will hopefully

move us closer to a broader goal I think we all share: economically friendly environmental protection through science, technology, and the dissemination of information.

I look forward to today’s discussion.

[The prepared statement of Mr. Costello follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF REPRESENTATIVE JERRY F. COSTELLO

Good morning. I want to thank the witnesses for appearing before our committee

to examine federal and industry green chemistry research and development activities and to receive testimony on the Green Chemistry Research and Development Act

of 2004.

Green chemistry is the use of chemistry for pollution prevention. More specifically, green chemistry is the design of chemical products and processes that reduce

or eliminate the use and generation of hazardous substances.

Private industry has benefited from and contributed to green chemistry efforts.

Pfizer and Shaw Industries should be commended for their work in this area. However, barriers to greater adoption of green chemistry products and processes by industry include a workforce unfamiliar with green chemistry, a lack of existing and

demonstrated alternatives, the high capital costs of changing processes, and inertia.

I am interested to know about the current status of the Federal Government’s efforts in green chemistry research and development and if efforts are underway to

alleviate some of the above mentioned barriers. While agencies have conducted numerous green chemistry related R&D, these efforts are small, not coordinated and

strategic in nature. Further, I am interested to know if expanded federal efforts and

19

increased coordination in green chemistry is warranted and if so, how this legislation would further the effort.

I welcome our panel of witnesses and look forward to their testimony.

[The prepared statement of Ms. Jackson Lee follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF REPRESENTATIVE SHEILA JACKSON LEE

Mr. Chairman,

Thank you for calling this timely hearing to discuss the importance of ‘‘green

chemistry’’ and the federal investment in that important subject. I commend my colleague from Georgia, Dr. Gingrey, for authoring a bill that may help focus some of

our attention on the need to encourage our schools, and labs, and industries to work

toward protecting and preserving our environment.

I also welcome this distinguished panel. I thank you all for taking the time to be

here today, to share your views on green chemistry and this bill.

I assume that everyone in this room is ‘‘for’’ green chemistry. It only makes sense

that if there are two ways to do something—a harmful way and a non-harmful

way—we would all want to choose the non-harmful way. And assuming we agree

that it is a responsibility of the Federal Government to stimulate research and investment in areas that could have a beneficial impact on our nation, I believe we

would all agree that we should focus some of the Nation’s research energies on

green chemistry.

The questions are: how much of our resources should be allocated to program, and

where should they come from? These are especially tough questions in a budget environment like the one we have today. Massive tax cuts for the rich and a violent

and expensive foreign policy have left us with little money left to fund critical programs.

The President’s latest budget has slashed dozens of research and education programs. I have been very pleased with the bold leadership of the Chairman and

Ranking Member of this Science Committee, pointing out that under-investing in

science and technology is a grave error. It could jeopardize our position at the front

of the world economy, and cost us jobs galore. I feel we need to find money to make

investments in growth industries, and green chemistry certainly qualifies.

I am concerned, however, that the bill we are discussing, although well-intentioned, may not make the necessary improvement of investment in the field. Because the bill only draw from funds that have been previously authorized, existing

programs will have to be cannibalized, or simply renamed to fit the ‘‘green chemistry’’ label. As important as green chemistry is, I would hate to see it come at the

expense of programs at NIST or DOE that we have been fighting for years. Some

of the programs that are to be incorporated into the green chemistry initiative have

not even been re-authorized in years, further confusing the matter of funding.

Again, I am a firm supporter of green chemistry. It holds great promise for allowing our economy and standard of living to grow, while protecting our environment.

However, I look forward to a serious discussion of how it will be funded, and what

the bill we are discussing will accomplish.

Thank you.

Chairman BOEHLERT. Thank you very much.

Our witness list today, the sole panel we have, is Dr. Arden

Bement, Acting Director, National Science Foundation, and a frequent visitor here.

Dr. BEMENT. Thank you, sir.

Chairman BOEHLERT. Dr. Paul Gilman, Assistant Administrator

for Research and Development, Environmental Protection Agency.

And let me commend Dr. Gilman and the Governor for the statement issued yesterday on mercury. Dr. Berkeley Cue, Vice President of Pharmaceutical Sciences, Pfizer Global Research and Development. Dr. Cue, good to have you here. Mr. Steven Bradfield, Vice

President of Environmental Development, Shaw Industries, Incorporated. Mr. Bradfield. And Dr. Edward Woodhouse, Associate Professor of Political Science, Department of Science & Technology

Studies at that great institution, Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute.

20

It is a pleasure to have all of you here. We would ask that you

try to summarize your statement in approximately five minutes.

The Chair will not be arbitrary, because we really want to hear

what you have to say, but we also want the advantage of a dialogue between Members and the panel, and I would advise all that

your statements will appear in the record in their entirety.

Dr. Bement.

STATEMENT OF DR. ARDEN L. BEMENT, JR., ACTING

DIRECTOR, NATIONAL SCIENCE FOUNDATION

Dr. BEMENT. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Good morning to you, to

Ranking Member Gordon and Members of the Committee. I am

pleased to have the opportunity to testify before you this morning

on the National Science Foundation’s support of research on green

chemistry and engineering, and specifically on the legislation under

consideration by the Committee.

Green chemistry and engineering are critical components of a

comprehensive approach to manufacturing, an approach that considers not just the desired product, but the feedstocks, energy costs,

purification procedures, and environmental impact associated with

making the product.

Over the past dozen years, the National Science Foundation,

principally through the Division of Chemical and Transport Systems and the Division of Chemistry, has been investing in basic research that supports this holistic view of what might be called ‘‘the

molecular economy.’’ Through existing partnerships with the Environmental Protection Agency, the Department of Energy, and the

National Institute of Standards and Technology, NSF has been

leveraging its investments in green chemistry and engineering for

almost a decade.

In 1991, NSF announced a joint program in Environmentally Benign Chemical Synthesis and Processing, whose goal was to reduce

the environmental footprint of manufacturing processes while

maintaining economic competitiveness. In 1994, a Memorandum of

Understanding was signed between NSF and EPA that had three

components, one of which was a program to support Technology for

a Sustainable Environment.

The current NSF investments in green chemistry and engineering are approximately $11 million per year in the Division of

Chemistry, and $13 million per year in the Division of Chemical

and Transport Systems. Areas of support include chemical synthesis, catalysis, separations research, and environmental research.

Advances in chemical synthesis provide new products and alternative chemical routes to existing products that minimize or eliminate potentially harmful byproducts. New catalysts can be used to

accelerate desired reactions, lower the energy costs associated with

them, and reduce their hazards and environmental impact. Separations research can lead to more environmentally friendly and costeffective methods for purifying chemical feedstocks and products.

NSF funding supports both individual investigators and multi-investigator interdisciplinary teams of researchers working on green

chemistry and engineering projects. A number of young investigators supported through NSF’s CAREER program have projects related to green chemistry and engineering. Adding value to NSF

21

awards in these areas is a Memorandum of Understanding with

NIST under which NSF awardees may apply for supplements that

enable them to travel to NIST and take advantage of NIST facilities and expertise.

An example of a team approach to green chemistry and engineering is the Science and Technology Center for Environmentally Responsible Solvents and Processes, based at the University of North

Carolina at Chapel Hill. The center has pioneered the industrial

use of carbon dioxide as a reaction medium, thereby avoiding production, use, and subsequent release into the environment of contaminated water, volatile organic solvents, chlorofluorocarbons, and

other noxious pollutants. DuPont has recently invested in the construction of a plant in North Carolina to use this technology in the

manufacture of materials like Teflon. Research supported at this

center has also yielded new, less hazardous dry cleaning technologies, and this research is being extended to process applications for the microelectronics industry.

Current manufacturing processes in the semiconductor industry

involve toxic solvents, poisonous metals, and corrosive chemicals.

The NSF Engineering Research Center on Environmentally Benign

Semiconductor Processing, based at the University of Arizona with

partners at Stanford University and MIT, is developing alternative

technologies that both substitute safer materials in the production

of semiconductor devices and minimize waste and water use. This

Center has demonstrated the use of high-pressure carbon dioxide

as a green solvent, and it has developed improved methods for

water purification and recycling. In the past five years, this Center

has spawned four new start-up companies that are commercializing

their novel, environmentally friendly technologies.

Mr. Chairman, I would like now to briefly comment on the draft

Green Chemistry Research and Development Act of 2004. As I mentioned earlier, NSF and the Environmental Protection Agency have

an ongoing, sustainable environmental program that appears to be

meeting many of the goals of this bill. NSF has worked with both

the Department of Energy and NIST in this area, as well. So we

are in complete agreement on the value of research and processes

and products that reduce the generation or use of hazardous substances. And I might add that my visit last night with the bright,

young people in the Intel Science Award Program introduced me to

at least two or three that are very active in this field, and I was

very heartened by that. Although we welcome congressional attention and oversight in this area, we are always concerned about the

unintended consequences of codifying research programs into law.

While we look forward to working with the Committee to implement the goals of this legislation, the Administration believes that

it is unnecessary to enact this legislation at this time.

Thank you for this opportunity to testify on a topic of great importance to the science and engineering community, to the economy, and to the environment, and I would be pleased to respond

to any questions that you might have.

[The prepared statement of Dr. Bement follows:]

22

PREPARED STATEMENT OF ARDEN L. BEMENT, JR.

Good morning, Mr. Chairman and Members of the Committee. I am pleased to

have the opportunity to testify before you this morning on the National Science

Foundation’s support of research on green chemistry and engineering, and specifically on the legislation under consideration by the Committee.

Green chemistry and engineering are critical components of a comprehensive approach to manufacturing—an approach that considers not just the desired product,

but the feedstocks, energy costs, purification procedures, and environmental impact

associated with making the product.

Over the past dozen years, the National Science Foundation (NSF), principally

through the Division of Chemical and Transport Systems and the Division of Chemistry, has been investing in basic research that supports this holistic view of what

might be called ‘‘the molecular economy.’’ This approach integrates manufacturing

with environmental considerations. Through existing partnerships with the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), Department of Energy (DOE) and the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST), NSF has been leveraging its investments in green chemistry and engineering for almost a decade.

Beginning in 1991, the two NSF divisions announced a joint program in Environmentally Benign Chemical Synthesis and Processing, whose goal was to reduce the

environmental footprint of manufacturing processes while maintaining economic

competitiveness. In 1994, a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) was signed between NSF and the EPA that had three components, one of which was a program

to support Technology for a Sustainable Environment (TSE). The TSE program,

launched in 1995 and administered nearly annually since then, will be formally reviewed in May, 2004. In addition, some components of Biocomplexity in the Environment, an NSF Priority Area, support studies of the use of resources and pollutant

transport in the environment.

The current NSF investments in green chemistry and engineering are approximately $11 million per year in the Division of Chemistry and $13 million per year

in the Division of Chemical and Transport Systems. Areas of support include chemical synthesis, catalysis, separations research, and environmental research. Advances in chemical synthesis provide new products and alternative chemical routes

to existing products that minimize or eliminate potentially harmful byproducts. New

catalysts can be used to accelerate desired reactions, lower the energy costs associated with them, and reduce their hazards and environmental impact. Separations

research can lead to more environmentally friendly and cost-effective methods for

purifying chemical feedstocks and products. The design of green manufacturing

processes is guided by NSF-supported basic research that characterizes the fate of

molecular species in the environment through experimental, theoretical, modeling

and simulation studies.

NSF funding supports both individual investigators and multi-investigator, interdisciplinary teams of researchers working on green chemistry and engineering

projects. Projects typically include undergraduate and graduate students and

postdoctoral research associates, who are trained through these awards. A number

of young investigators supported through NSF’s CAREER program have projects related to green chemistry and engineering. Adding value to NSF awards in these

areas is an MOU with NIST under which NSF awardees may apply for supplements

that enable them to travel to NIST to take advantage of NIST facilities and expertise.

An example of a team approach to green chemistry and engineering is the Science

and Technology Center for Environmentally Responsible Solvents and Processes,

based at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill (Partners include North

Carolina State University, North Carolina A&T University, the University of Texas

at Austin, Georgia Institute of Technology, and a large number of industrial affiliates). Research at this center has already led to new green manufacturing processes.

For example, the center has pioneered the industrial use of carbon dioxide as a reaction medium, thereby avoiding production, use and subsequent release into our environment of contaminated water, volatile organic solvents, chlorofluorocarbons and

other noxious pollutants. DuPont has recently invested in the construction of a plant

in North Carolina to use this technology in the manufacture of materials like Teflon. Research supported at this center has also yielded new, less hazardous dry

cleaning technologies and this research is being extended to process applications for

the microelectronics industry.

For example, current manufacturing processes in the semiconductor industry involve toxic solvents, poisonous metals, and corrosive chemicals. The NSF Engineering Research Center (ERC) on Environmentally Benign Semiconductor Processing,

based at the University of Arizona with partners at Stanford University and MIT,

23

is developing alternative technologies that both substitute safer materials in production of semiconductor devices and minimize waste and water use. This Center has

demonstrated the use of high-pressure carbon dioxide as a green solvent in

microchip fabrication and has developed improved methods for water purification

and recycling. One of the young faculty members at Arizona was recognized this

year as one of Scientific American’s 50 most influential researchers. In the past five

years this Center has spawned four new start-up companies that are commercializing their novel, environmentally friendly technologies.

The NSF supports smaller projects in green chemistry and engineering involving

partnerships of academic institutions with industry and/or national laboratories

through its Grant Opportunities for Academic Liaisons with Industry (GOALI) and

its Environmental Molecular Science Institutes (EMSI) programs. The EMSI program is managed by the Division of Chemistry and includes the Geosciences Directorate at NSF and the Department of Energy as partners. Several EMSI projects

provide a molecular-level perspective on industrial processes that allow an understanding of their environmental impact at the level of ecosystems.

A measure of the quality of investments made through NSF awards is that nearly

all of the academic winners who have received the EPA’s Presidential Green Challenge Award have been NSF-supported investigators. This award recognizes major

contributions to green chemistry and engineering research that have significant societal impact.

Broader impacts of green chemistry and engineering are supported both through

a variety of technical workshops and through education and outreach activities.

Many Research Experiences for Undergraduates (REU) projects provide summer research opportunities for advanced undergraduates in basic research related to green

chemistry and engineering. Instrumentation and curricular investments across NSF

likewise contribute to education and the development of the future workforce that

will be needed to develop and implement ideas to promote green chemistry and engineering.

Mr. Chairman, I would like to briefly comment on the draft Green Chemistry Research and Development Act of 2004. As I mentioned earlier, NSF and the Environmental Protection Agency have an ongoing technology for a sustainable environment

program that appears to be meeting many of the goals of this bill. NSF has worked

with both the Department of Energy and NIST in this area as well. So we are in

complete agreement on the value of research on processes and products that reduce

the generation or use of hazardous substances. Although we welcome Congressional

attention and oversight in this area, we are always concerned about the unintended

consequences of codifying research programs into law. While we look forward to

working the Committee to implementing the goals of this legislation, the Administration believes that it is unnecessary to enact this legislation at this time.

Thank you for this opportunity to testify on a topic of great importance to the

science and engineering community, to the economy, and to the environment. I

would be pleased to respond to any questions you might have.

BIOGRAPHY FOR ARDEN L. BEMENT, JR.

Arden L. Bement, Jr., became Acting Director of the National Science Foundation

on February 22, 2004.

He joins NSF from the National Institute of Standards and Technology, where he

has been director since Dec. 7, 2001. As head of NIST, he oversees an agency with

an annual budget of about $773 million and an onsite research and administrative

staff of about 3,000, complemented by a NIST-sponsored network of 2,000 locally

managed manufacturing and business specialists serving smaller manufacturers

across the United States. Prior to his appointment as NIST director, Bement served

as the David A. Ross Distinguished Professor of Nuclear Engineering and head of

the School of Nuclear Engineering at Purdue University. He has held appointments

at Purdue University in the schools of Nuclear Engineering, Materials Engineering,

and Electrical and Computer Engineering, as well as a courtesy appointment in the

Krannert School of Management. He was director of the Midwest Superconductivity

Consortium and the Consortium for the Intelligent Management of the Electrical

Power Grid.

Bement came to the position as NIST director having previously served as head

of that agency’s Visiting Committee on Advanced Technology, the agency’s primary

private-sector policy adviser; as head of the advisory committee for NIST’s Advanced

Technology Program; and on the Board of Overseers for the Malcolm Baldrige National Quality Award.

Along with his NIST advisory roles, Bement served as a member of the U.S. National Science Board from 1989 to 1995. The board guides NSF activities and also

24

serves as a policy advisory body to the President and Congress. He also chaired the

Commission for Engineering and Technical Studies and the National Materials Advisory Board of the National Research Council; was a member of the Space Station

Utilization Advisory Subcommittee and the Commercialization and Technology Advisory Committee for NASA; and consulted for the Department of Energy’s Argonne

National Laboratory and the Idaho National Engineering and Environmental Laboratory.

Bement joined the Purdue faculty in 1992 after a 39-year career In industry, government, and academia. These positions included: vice president of technical resources and of science and technology for TRW Inc. (1980–1992); deputy under secretary of defense for research and engineering (1979–1980); director, Office of Materials Science, DARPA (1976–1979); professor of nuclear materials, MIT (1970–1976);

manager, Fuels and Materials Department and the Metallurgy Research Department, Battelle Northwest Laboratories (1965–1970); and senior research associate,

General Electric Co. (1954–1965).

He has been a director of Keithley Instruments Inc. and the Lord Corp. and was

a member of the Science and Technology Advisory Committee for the Howmet Corp.

(a division of ALCOA).

Bement holds an Engineer of Metallurgy degree from the Colorado School of

Mines, a Master’s degree in metallurgical engineering from the University of Idaho,

a doctorate degree in metallurgical engineering from the University of Michigan, an

honorary doctorate degree in engineering from Cleveland State University, and an

honorary doctorate degree in science from Case Western Reserve University. He is

a member of the U.S. National Academy of Engineering.

Chairman BOEHLERT. Thank you very much, Dr. Bement, but

once again, the Chair will observe, this Administration, like all previous Administrations, usually finds the work of Congress unnecessary. The Administration feels that the source of all wisdom is

vested in 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue and the environs, but we

want to be active, working partners——

Dr. BEMENT. I am your canonical messenger.

Chairman BOEHLERT. And I was pleased to see you note the relationship with NIST, because the Chair understands that you have

some familiarity with NIST.

Dr. BEMENT. Yes, I do have some familiarity, and if I had more

time, I could go into a long list——

Chairman BOEHLERT. For the benefit of the audience that might

not be aware, Dr. Bement is taking over the responsibility of NSF

to fill a void created by the retirement of Dr. Rita Colwell. He is

on leave from his job as Director of NIST, where he has performed

with exceptional skill. So they give him another burden, taking on,

at least on a temporary basis, NSF. But Dr. Bement, we really

appreciate——

Dr. BEMENT. Well, I would welcome, for the record, to submit

work that NIST is doing in this area as well.

[The information referred to appears in Appendix: Additional Material for the Record.]

Chairman BOEHLERT. Thank you very much.

Dr. Gilman.

STATEMENT OF DR. PAUL GILMAN, ASSISTANT ADMINISTRATOR FOR RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT, ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

Dr. GILMAN. We welcome the Committee’s interest, and look forward to working with you on your legislation, as it proceeds

through the Congress.

A critical part of EPA’s mission is really embodied in the green

chemistry and green engineering that you are addressing in this

25

bill. We have historically addressed the issue. We hope to focus on

it in the future. It is the kind of science that takes us beyond the

limits of ‘‘command and control’’ approaches to keeping our environment clean and cleaning it up. Recently, our Administrator

challenged the Agency to try and accelerate our pace in improving

the environment using science and technology, market-based mechanisms, results-oriented work and collaborations in large networks.

I would like to tell you a little bit about a new framework we are

implementing in the research side of the organization, and more

broadly, within which green chemistry and green engineering is

captured. We will be releasing next week some solicitations in the

area of ‘‘Collaborative Science and Technology Network for Sustainability,’’ really a cornerstone of our approach for the future, working with states, local government, and industry to address high-priority challenges with rigorous science. We will be announcing two

pilots that we are initiating with the Delaware River Basin Commission and the Canaan Valley Institute in West Virginia looking

at ecological restoration and watershed practices for sustainability.

We are also opening up today a portal in sustainability on the EPA

website, which is trying to organize the dozens of programs

throughout the EPA that embrace principles of sustainability, the

scientific tools, and the programs aimed at that, including green

chemistry and green engineering. And lastly, in an effort to encourage a focus on sustainability in our university systems, we have released what we call a P3 Award. The P3 standing for people, prosperity, and the planet, really an effort to solicit, through competitive grants, projects, and interdisciplinary teams trying to address

solutions to environmental challenges. The National Academy of

Engineering has agreed to serve as a judging organization for us

in that regard, and we are very pleased with the early response to

that effort.

Your Green Chemistry R&D Act really does build on a lot of successes that have already taken place in government. We are in the

process of trying to really document the productivity of those

grants that have already been done. Looking at the first 64 that

we have been able to gather information on, those 64 first grants

under the Technology for a Sustainable Environment (TSE) program that we have done in collaboration with the NSF, have resulted in 347 articles, 25 chapters in books, six patents, and one

of the recipients received a Nobel Prize for Chemistry in 2001. You

will hear a lot of examples of successes today. I would only note

several teams of our grant recipients at Georgia Tech are working

at making water a better solvent and using water-based coatings

to replace more hazardous solvents. You have heard the story of

the CO2 work in North Carolina, the work of Professor Dorgan on

polylactic acid to make bio-based materials a feedstock for the future, and Professor Wool at Delaware working on, again, bio-based

products where today John Deere is using bio-based products in the

manufacture of its tractors. And Professor Wool even has a patent

on a bio-based silicon replacement for silicon chips that would utilize chicken feathers as part of the matrix of those chips. And while

you may laugh at that sort of thing, I would only note that the chip

operates at about two times the pace of silicon-based chips.

26

So there are wonderful examples out there. Some of those that

I named are noteworthy not just because of their curiosities, but

because industry is investing not tens, but hundreds of millions of

dollars in the commercial use of those technologies.

Some programs that have also borne fruit are things like the

Presidential Green Chemistry Challenge. Just the award winners

of that since 1996 represent a reduction of 326 million pounds of

hazardous substances, 390 million gallons of water saved, and 120

million pounds of CO2 reduction.

Those are the kinds of results that we think this work will lead

to, and not only noting the competitive nature of those products,

I should also point out that, for those projects I mentioned, those

were grants in the late ’90s. The time from the lab bench to the

commercial enterprise for these kinds of research projects is on the

order of 10 years or less. And this is a committee that often hears

that the basic research is 20 years or more away from practical application. So the fruits of this work are being seen as we speak.

Thank you for the opportunity to testify today.

[The prepared statement of Dr. Gilman follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF PAUL GILMAN

Good morning, Mr. Chairman and Members of the Committee, I am honored to

appear before you today to discuss the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s

green chemistry and engineering research and development activities, the subject of

the draft Green Chemistry Research and Development Act of 2004. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) welcomes the interest of the Committee on green

chemistry and engineering. The subject of this bill represents a critical part of

EPA’s focus on environmental and human health protection. EPA historically has

and continues to address the goals in the proposed legislation. I will highlight today

some of our ongoing efforts in green chemistry and engineering.

Every day decisions are made at local, state, and regional levels that affect our

quality of life. To the extent possible, each of these decisions, from new building construction, highway development or ecosystem management, should be based on the

best available scientific information and scientific tools available. Industry leaders

are also making decisions on chemical, product, and process design that will have

significant environmental and economic impacts. Sustainability draws on sound

science to support these decisions to protect our natural systems, to provide a higher

quality of life for people, and to further a competitive economy.

By building on traditional ‘‘command-and-control’’ regulations, EPA has been refocusing its efforts by conducting and funding research in areas such as green chemistry and engineering, global change, economics and decisions sciences, watershed

management, industrial ecology, environmental justice, ecological forecasting, and

emerging technologies. In the future, EPA will continue to focus on rigorous science

as a better way to advance EPA’s mission of protecting human health and the environment.

INTRODUCTION

Administrator Leavitt has outlined EPA’s strategy to achieve its mission quickly

and efficiently based on four key components: science and technology innovation,

market mechanisms, results, and collaborative networks. Science and technology innovation provides new, cost-effective alternatives that better protect human health

and the environment. Results ensure that our programs and processes achieve environmental and human health results. Collaborative networks serve to solve problems through partnerships and open dialogues among private and public stakeholders.

EPA’s next step in achieving its mission is to apply this framework to specific environmental and human health challenges. Traditionally, environmental protection

programs have focused on a particular medium or problem through command-andcontrol regulations. These programs have been very effective at reducing point

source pollution and improving environmental quality over the past three decades.

However, the environmental challenges we face today involve several media types

and diffuse sources that are less amenable to command-and-control programs. EPA

is looking for solutions that seek to address the various causes of environmental

27

problems and understand the interrelationships between human behavior and the

environment in specific areas.

A place-based approach is one example that supplements and complements the

traditional environmental protection approach by focusing on the health of an ecosystem and the behavior of the humans who live within the boundaries of the ecosystem, instead of concentrating on a specific medium or particular problem. This

strategy, therefore, moves beyond media-based or issue-based strategies to a holistic

perspective that will lead to comprehensive, long-term, sustainable solutions.

FOCUS ON SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY THROUGH GREEN CHEMISTRY

AND ENGINEERING

EPA is focusing on science and technology programs that incorporate the principles of green chemistry and engineering. The concept of green chemistry and engineering is a very real and specific component of our science and technology. The

goals of green chemistry and engineering move us towards innovation and collaboration for the mutual benefit of human health and the environment while furthering

economic competitiveness. Green chemistry and engineering are unique in that they

focus on inherently benign alternatives for chemical products and processes that can

address many challenges in a broad, multi-media framework. The advances of green

chemistry and engineering have demonstrated results that provide cost-effective environmental and human health improvements. For these reasons, green chemistry

and engineering represent the kind of science on which EPA is focusing to move to

the next level of environmental and human health protection.

Before I discuss EPA’s specific programs in green chemistry and engineering, I

want to describe the broader context of EPA’s focus. Three approaches are underway

that cut across Administrator Leavitt’s framework of science and technology innovation, results, and collaborative networks including: the ‘‘Collaborative Science and

Technology Network for Sustainability,’’ the Sustainability Portal, and the P3

Award: A National Student Design Competition for Sustainability.

Collaborative Science and Technology Network for Sustainability (CSTNS)

At the cornerstone of EPA’s focus on sustainability is the ‘‘Collaborative Science

and Technology Network for Sustainability’’ (CSTNS). Through CSTNS, EPA will be

funding innovative, regional-scale projects that address the high-priority challenges.

These projects will be a testing ground for developing and applying tools while

drawing on scientific understanding of the consequences of decisions and actions.

CSTNS will provide an opportunity for communities, states, the private sector, EPA,

and other government agencies to explore new approaches to environmental protection that are systems-oriented, forward-looking, and preventative.

EPA is developing a number of pilot projects that illustrate the potential for this

approach. One pilot project that is under development in EPA’s Region 3 (Pennsylvania, West Virginia, Virginia, Delaware, Maryland, and the District of Columbia)

is sustainable watershed management in the Delaware River Basin. This project

will develop and implement strategies for sustainable water resource management

in a watershed threatened by high population growth. EPA will work in cooperation

with the United States Geological Survey; Delaware River Basin Commission

(DRBC); the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania; local municipalities; the Brodhead

Watershed Association and other stakeholders to evaluate the effects of growth and

land use on groundwater, stream flows, and ecology in Pocono Creek. Tools will be

developed to determine the appropriate ground water withdrawal limits considering

environmental, economic, and social concerns. Those limits will be implemented by

Monroe County, Pennsylvania to maintain the high quality of life in the watershed

as future growth occurs. Research findings and results will be transferred to other

parts of the Delaware River Basin as well as to other regions of the country. As

evidenced by this project, CSTNS will transcend traditional regulatory approaches

for air, water and land and rely on a more place-based perspective that takes a longterm view while measuring short-term outcomes.

A second project, in collaboration with the Canaan Valley Institute; local communities; State and local governments of the Mid-Atlantic Highlands area (portions of

Maryland, Pennsylvania, Virginia, and West Virginia); West Virginia University;

and other stakeholders, will develop and evaluate sustainable restoration technologies. Methods for stream restoration, which address the problems of sedimentation, riparian habitat loss and biological degradation will be included. In addition

to the environmental benefits, it is expected that there will be increased potential

for job creation as a result of restoration activities. Research findings and results

will be transferred throughout the Mid-Atlantic Highlands area as well as to other

regions of the country.

28

We envision that these projects, as well as those funded under the upcoming competitive solicitation for the next phase of CSTNS projects, will serve to integrate the

many existing EPA programs, identify gaps and demonstrate how such practices can

be applied in the real world.

Sustainability Portal

EPA has dozens of programs and activities that support elements of science and

technology for sustainability. To provide better access to these programs and work

to integrate them, EPA is developing a web portal (www.epa.gov/sustainability).

This portal will provide easy access to EPA tools and programs that can help individuals, communities, and institutions achieve their sustainability goals. Links are

provided to EPA programs and research for planning and practices, scientific and

technical tools, measuring results and evaluating progress. The programs and research presented under ‘‘planning and practices’’ promote the integration of existing

social, economic and environmental policies while anticipating new programs. Longrange, integrated planning and educating the next generation in sustainability practices are also included. The ‘‘scientific and technical tools’’ section highlights the development of underlying scientific and engineering knowledge needed to develop

sustainability tools and techniques. ‘‘Measuring results and evaluating progress’’ focuses on providing a science-based foundation for monitoring and assessing trends

in the environment and providing support for decision-making in businesses, communities, and across government. The website provides a ‘‘one-stop’’ portal to EPA’s

programs and research appropriate to advancing the goal of sustainability.

P3 Award: A National Student Design Competition for Sustainability

To encourage the integration of sustainability into higher education and training,

EPA launched the P3 Award competition in November 2003. ‘‘P3’’ was chosen to

highlight people, prosperity and the planet—the three pillars of sustainability. The

P3 Award is a partnership between the public and private sectors to achieve the

mutual goals of economic prosperity while protecting the natural systems of the

planet and providing a higher quality of life for its people. The P3 Award program

(www.epa.gov/P3) will provide up to 50 grants to interdisciplinary teams of college

students to research, develop, and design sustainable solutions to environmental

challenges in both the developed and the developing world. A panel convened by the

National Academy of Engineering will select the P3 Award winners at an event on

the National Mall. The winner(s) of the P3 Award will be eligible for additional

funds from EPA to match contributions from the private sector for further development, implementation and placement in the marketplace. This will ensure that EPA

is supporting the research and development of innovative, inherently benign, integrated scientific and technical solutions that will advance the goal of sustainability.

EPA’S ONGOING PROGRAMS SUPPORTING GREEN CHEMISTRY AND

ENGINEERING

The framework for EPA’s ongoing programs is also based on Administrator

Leavitt’s four components that the Agency is adopting to better and more quickly

achieve its mission: science and technology innovation, market-based mechanisms,

results, and collaborative networks. Focusing on research, development, and implementation in this Agency-wide framework is one mechanism that EPA will use to

move to the next level of environmental and human health protection.

While the approaches previously discussed were developed to address all of the

framework’s components, current EPA activities can also be classified using this

model. The following sections highlight EPA’s activities in green chemistry and engineering, and more broadly, based on science and technology innovation, market

mechanisms, results, and collaborative networks.

Science and Technology Innovation

Green chemistry and engineering are a critical part of EPA’s current activities on

science and technology. Research, development, and implementation of green chemistry and engineering are components of both the extramural Science to Achieve Results (STAR) grant program as well as intramural activities.

The Green Chemistry Research and Development Act of 2004 will build upon the

active and successful research and development traditionally supported and conducted by the EPA. Since the mid-1990’s EPA has partnered with the National

Science Foundation on a grants program called Technology for a Sustainable Environment (TSE) that focuses on green chemistry and engineering. In addition, EPA’s

intramural research program is centered on innovative scientific and technical advances in alternative energy sources, alternative reactor design, alternative solvent

and catalyst strategies, and green metal finishing.

29

EPA has supported green chemistry and engineering research in both its intramural and extramural research programs. Including support for personnel, approximately $6.9 million is included in the FY04 budget for green chemistry and engineering activities. Of this amount, research is about $5.1 million, including about

$1.9 of personnel costs. About $2.4 million of the extramural funding is for competitive grants through the TSE program. (Approximately 70 percent of the research

under TSE—which was $3 million in FY04—is focused on green chemistry and engineering.) Due to a redirection of funds within EPA, funding for EPA’s portion of the

TSE program was not provided in the President’s FY05 budget request. However,

grants funded with prior year resources will continue.

EPA’s Small Business Innovation Research (SBIR) program is another funding

mechanism for innovative science and technology with economic and environmental

benefits. EPA has also concentrated on the potential for innovative technologies to

move us to the next level of environmental protection. Efforts include third-party

environmental technology verification (ETV), an environmental technologies opportunity web portal (ETOP), and the creation of the Environmental Technology Council (ETC). These programs focus on researching and developing a knowledge base

to support the development sustainable alternatives, through green chemistry and

engineering, to enhance or replace current designs that present environmental and

human health challenges.

Except for the SBIR and ETV, program, EPA’s research is pre-competitive. The

research under TSE is relatively more fundamental and the in-house research is

somewhat more applied. However, in both cases, the priorities for the research are

driven by EPA’s goals and the research is in support of those goals.

Technology for a Sustainable Environment (TSE)

Since 1995, EPA and the National Science Foundation (NSF) have been partners

in the Technology for a Sustainable Environment (TSE) program, a grants program

designed to support research in pollution prevention. TSE (http://www.epa.gov/

greenchemistry/tse.html) is an integral part of EPA’s research program to support

Agency program offices and regions and demonstrates leadership in addressing

emerging environmental issues and advancing science and technology. TSE strongly

encourages the collaboration of interdisciplinary academic researchers with industrial investigators who represent the eventual customers for the products of this research.

Together, EPA and NSF have funded over 200 TSE grants totaling approximately

$56 million for applied and fundamental research in the physical sciences and engineering that will lead to the discovery, development, implementation and evaluation

of innovative environmentally benign molecules, products and processes. Due to a

redirection of funds within EPA, funding for EPA’s portion of the TSE program was

not provided in the President’s FY05 budget request. However, grants funded with

prior year resources will continue. TSE research focuses on ideas that advance the

development and use of innovative science, technologies, and approaches directed at

avoiding or minimizing the generation of pollutants at the source. As such, TSE focuses primarily on green chemistry and green engineering research.

Green Chemistry. The goal of the green chemistry research portion, similar to the

Green Chemistry Research and Development Act of 2004, is to develop safer commercial substances and environmentally benign chemical syntheses to reduce risks

posed by the manufacture, use and disposal of commercial chemicals. By preventing

pollution at its source and designing inherently benign chemicals and processes,

green chemistry has the potential to reduce environmental risks while providing

more cost-effective products.

Green Engineering. The green engineering supported by TSE focuses on developing novel engineering approaches for preventing or reducing pollution from industrial manufacturing activities. The scope of green engineering includes equipment

and technology modifications, reformulation or redesign of products, substitution of

alternative materials, and in-process changes. Although these methods are often

linked to the chemical, biochemical, and materials process industries, they can be

utilized in many other industries, such as semiconductor manufacturing systems.

Quantifying Benefits. TSE also encourages research in physical sciences and engineering that will lead to the development of novel measurement and assessment

techniques for green chemistry and engineering, and pollution prevention. Activities

in this area include life cycle analysis, computational simulations, and process design algorithms as well as the development of appropriate measurement methods

to quantify outcomes in terms of direct benefits to human health and the environment

Environmental Benefits. To better demonstrate these benefits, research proposals

for a grant under TSE must include a section entitled ‘‘potential impacts.’’ While the

30

research supported by this program may be related to an individual reaction, unit

operation or unit process, the investigators must address the environmental benefits

or impacts of the research in the broader context of the industrial system of which

it is a part. In this regard, the proposal must contain a discussion of expected potential environmental benefits or impacts in the broadest systems sense, which could

include considerations of the efficient use of natural resources and energy and materials flows in manufacturing, product use, recycling, recovery or ultimate disposal.

In this section, it is strongly recommended that the investigator address issues such

as: the pollutant or class of pollutants the research proposes to prevent or minimize;

the seriousness and importance of the environmental problem; and how the proposed technology or method is more economical and more environmentally benign

than current technologies or methods.

Results. The goal of the TSE program is the discovery of innovative chemical alternatives with economic and environmental benefits through the design of inherently benign chemicals, materials, and energy for reduced risks, liabilities, accidents, and vulnerabilities. The first 64 of the 211 research grants funded under the

TSE program produced 347 peer-reviewed journal articles, 25 book chapters, and six

patents. In addition, one of the investigators funded under TSE was awarded the

2001 Nobel Prize in Chemistry.

Examples of research conducted through TSE (Appendix 1) highlight the potential

for green chemistry and engineering research supported by the Federal Government

to move from the laboratory to the marketplace. This research demonstrates mutual

benefits to the economy and the environment in a wide array of industrial processes

from alternative solvents to renewable and biodegradable materials to benign alternatives for oxidation.

All the TSE products that moved to commercialization had an important feature

in common. These scientific and technical advances met or exceeded current cost

and performance criteria, were competitive in the marketplace, and benefited

human health and the environment. While it is extraordinary that there are TSE

examples (Appendix 1) that have moved from the bench to commercialization in

such a short timeframe (less than ten years), it demonstrates the potential for scientific and technical innovation in green chemistry and engineering to mutually

achieve environmental and economic goals in the long-term. These innovations provide a basis for science and technology for sustainability by achieving the mutual

goals of economic prosperity while protecting the natural systems of the planet and

providing a higher quality of life for its people.

Green Chemistry Program

EPA’s Green Chemistry Program (www.epa.gov/greenchemistry), in collaboration

with EPA’s Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxic Substances, is directed at preventing pollution by promoting the design of less toxic chemical substances and

identifying alternative chemical pathways that involve less toxic reagents or solvents and generate fewer toxic products or co-products. As part of this program,

EPA initiated the Green Chemistry Challenge that includes an award to recognize

those in industry and academia that have met the objectives of Green Chemistry

in an exemplary way. The Challenge also includes TSE as a research component to

enhance support for innovative, inherently benign alternative chemical products and

processes.

The Presidential Green Chemistry Challenge Awards Program (http://

www.epa.gov/greenchemistry/presgcc.html) is an opportunity for individuals,

groups, and organizations to compete for annual awards that recognize innovations

in cleaner, cheaper, and smarter chemistry. The Awards Program provides national

recognition of outstanding chemical technologies that incorporate the principles of

green chemistry into chemical design, manufacture, and use, and that have been or

can be utilized by industry in achieving their pollution prevention goals.

Award nominations are invited that describe the technical benefits of a green

chemistry technology as well as its human health and environmental benefits. The

Awards Program is open to all individuals, groups, and organizations, both nonprofit

and for profit, including academia, government, and industry. The nominated green

chemistry technology must have reached a significant milestone within the past five

years in the United States; e.g., been researched, demonstrated, implemented, applied, patented, etc.

To date, the Award winning technologies alone are responsible for the following

cumulative green chemistry benefits since 1996: eliminating 326,000,000 pounds of

hazardous substances from commercial and industrial products and processes; saving 390,000,000 gallons of water; and preventing 120,000,000 pounds of carbon dioxide emissions.

31

EPA’s Intramural Science and Technology for Sustainability Research

The mission of EPA’s intramural sustainability research (http://www.epa.gov/

ORD/NRMRL/std/index.html) is to advance the understanding, development, and

application of technologies and methods of prevention, removal, and control of environmental risks to human health and ecology. This research can be categorized by

key areas including: alternative energy sources, alternative reactor design, alternative solvent and catalyst strategies, and green metal finishing. As a result of this

research, several significant scientific and technical advances in green chemistry

and engineering have been developed and implemented. In addition, the researchers

have developed software tools to enable inherently benign design and measure environmental and human health benefits of scientific and technological advances (Appendix 2).

Alternative Energy Sources. This research involves the use of new energy sources,

such as microwaves and ultrasonic waves, as a means to enhance reaction conditions. The primary benefits of this approach include the reduction of reaction times

from hours to minutes, a significant reduction of by-product or undesirable product

formation, an overall increase in conversion of feedstocks, and the elimination of

harmful solvents.

Alternative Reactor Design. This research focuses on the use of new reactor designs to increase reaction efficiency and decrease energy consumption. These designs

include a corona ozone generating reactor, a titanium dioxide (TiO2) ultraviolet (UV)

reactor, and a spinning tube-in-tube reactor. The first two designs are considered

advanced oxidation technologies that are best suited for use in oxidation-type reactions. They provide benefits such as increased conversion to desired products and

minimal solvent or catalyst usage. The third reactor design is used for process intensification, a step that minimizes the time required to complete a given reaction.

This in turn significantly reduces or completely eliminates by-product formation and

increases overall conversion of the feedstock.

Alternative Solvents and Catalysts. This research uses novel solvents and catalysts to increase reaction efficiency while minimizing the use of more traditional and

harmful solvents. Strategies include using supercritical CO2 as a reaction medium;

using room-temperature ionic liquids as a reaction media; using benign hydrogen

peroxide (H2O2) to replace traditional catalysts (oxidants) such as magnesium permanganate (KMnO4) and chromium trioxide/sulfuric acid (CrO3/H2SO4); and using

nonvolatile, alternative, polyethylene glycol (PEG) to replace traditional solvents.

Green Metal Finishing. EPA is working cooperatively with industry leaders in the

metal finishing sector to provide green solutions to their most critical issues. The

program has investigated the use of less toxic process alternatives for various metal

finishing systems that are both energy efficient and cost effective, and in the end,

more sustainable. The program has identified greener chemical replacements to several metal finishing processes, including hexavalent chromium. Presently, the program is evaluating green chemistry alternatives to chlorinated solvents and alkaline

cleaners for degreasing operations in the metal finishing industry.

Additional Research. Additional intramural research focuses on industrial multimedia and systems analysis. The industrial multimedia research includes mine

waste technology, metal finishing pollution prevention, metal forming, fuel cell applications, lead paint abatement, and base catalyzed dechlorination for contaminated soil remediation. The objective of the sustainable environments research is to

construct a strategy for sustainable environmental management using economics approaches, water resource and land use planning, physical and ecological theory, and

technological methods and knowledge implemented through computer-based tools,

field data, and human experience to reduce risks to human health and the ecology.

The main research efforts under systems analysis focus on life cycle assessments,

cost engineering and cost benefit, chemical simulation and measurement, and pollution prevention at federal facilities.

Small Business Innovation Research (SBIR)

The EPA is one of 11 federal agencies that participate in the SBIR Program established by the Small Business Innovation Development Act of 1982. The SBIR program (http://www.epa.gov/ncer/sbir) supports research in cutting-edge environmental technologies. EPA issues annual requests for applications for Phase I and

Phase II research proposals from science- and technology-based firms. Through this

phased approach to SBIR funding, EPA can determine whether the research idea—

often on high-risk advanced concepts—is technically feasible, whether the firm can

conduct high-quality research, and whether sufficient progress has been made to

justify a larger Phase II effort.

Historically, EPA has solicited projects on pollution prevention through SBIR. In

2004, however, EPA is focusing a significant portion of the program on pollution

32

prevention and hazardous waste minimization. Working across EPA program and

regional offices, we are soliciting highly relevant proposals to address pressing environmental challenges. These solicitations specifically request green chemistry and

engineering innovations for alternatives to high-priority chemicals and environmental challenges ranging from inherently benign flame-retardants to lead and mercury alternatives to green building design. These newly solicited projects will become part of a legacy of pollution prevention science and technology successful developed under SBIR (Appendix 3).

Environmental Technology Verification

In October 1995, EPA established the Environmental Technology Verification

(ETV) Program (http://www.epa.gov/etv). The goal of ETV is to provide credible

performance data for commercial-ready environmental technologies in order to speed

their implementation for the benefit of vendors, purchasers, permitters, and the

public. Because the level of potential environmental risk reduction for a technology

is directly related to its level of performance and effectiveness, EPA verifies the performance of innovative, private-sector environmental technologies. It is important to

note that private-sector technology developers produce almost all of the new technologies purchased in the United States and around the world. ETV offers purchasers and permitters of environmental technology an independent, objective, and

high-quality source of performance information for informed decision-making.

Processes. EPA’s ETV Program develops testing protocols and verifies the performance of innovative technologies that have the potential to improve how we protect

human health and the environment. The ETV Program operates as a public/private

partnership through agreements between EPA and private testing and evaluation

organizations. These ETV verification organizations work with EPA technology experts to create efficient and fully quality-assured testing procedures that verify the

performance of innovative technologies in air, water, soil, ecosystems, pollution prevention, waste, and monitoring. All quality assurance plans and protocols are developed with participation of technical experts, stakeholders, and vendors and are

available prior to testing, peer reviewed by other experts, and updated after testing,

as appropriate.

Results. Since ETV’s inception in 1995, more than 200 environmental technologies

have been verified and more than 70 protocols for technology testing have been developed. A 2001 survey of participating vendors indicated that 73 percent of the vendors were using ETV information in product marketing and 92 percent of those surveyed responded that they would recommend ETV to other vendors. To date, more

than 25 vendors have returned to ETV for additional product verification.

Environmental Technology Opportunities Portal (ETOP)

The Environmental Technology Opportunities Portal (ETOP) (www.epa.gov/etop)

is a web network designed to promote programs that foster the development of new,

cost-effective environmental technologies and relay existing EPA environmental

technology information (such as best available technologies for air, water and waste

treatment and control).

ETOP highlights funding opportunities, information, and links to EPA and other

programs that assist in development and commercialization and others that foster

the use and acceptance of innovative technologies through collaborative recognition

and incentive, and advocacy and information programs. Links are also provided to

other agencies and groups outside EPA that offer environmental technology information.

ETOP was established as a result of a Congressional mandate through the FY

2003 House Appropriations Conference Report 108–10, page 1438. Congress directed

EPA to develop a ‘‘one-stop-shop’’ office to coordinate similar programs that foster

private and public sector development of new, cost-effective, environmental technologies. As part of the requirement to establish the ‘‘one-stop-shop’’ office, EPA established ETOP as an Internet portal page. ETOP was designed to clearly outline

and highlight all of EPA programs as well as others that foster the development

of environmental technologies, giving users direct access to funding and other incentive programs.

ETOP, while not specifically focused on science and technology for sustainability,

provides a means to search on advances and opportunities at EPA in the areas of

green chemistry and green engineering. ETOP provides a much needed mechanism

to raise awareness and increase communication between the public and private sectors in developing and commercializing new technologies that benefit human health

and the environment.

33

Environmental Technology Council (ETC)

EPA is presently establishing the Environmental Technology Council with members from all Agency technology programs, offices and regions. The ETC will enhance the communication and coordination of all EPA technology activities, especially for priority environmental problems. This will improve results of core regulatory, enforcement, and voluntary programs and will facilitate innovative technology solutions to environmental challenges, particularly challenges with multimedia or place-based elements. The challenges addressed will be clearly related to

the Agency’s strategic plans, advance the Agency’s mission of protecting human

health and the environment, and contribute to moving the Agency to sustainability—the next level of environmental protection.

Results

A focus on science and technology for sustainability will enable EPA and the Nation to more cost-effectively attain the ultimate environmental results of clean air,

pure water, and protected land. Pollution prevention, achieved through the research,

development, and market-adoption of green chemistry and engineering tools and

technologies, is the foundation of such an approach. Green chemistry and engineering, along with environmentally benign manufacturing and industrial ecology, enable United States industries to design environmental benefits into their processes,

products, and systems so that pollution and environmental hazards are avoided.

These fields also enable United States industry to more effectively use benign materials and resources that are have the potential to benefit national security as well

as the environment. Finally, these fields enable United States industry to remain

economically competitive in the global marketplace by reducing risks,

vulnerabilities, and the potential for accidents.

Future Plans. To better address outcomes and the recommendations of the Administration’s Program Assessment Rating Tool (PART) analysis, EPA is making a strategic shift in its goals for Pollution Prevention and New Technologies (P2NT). The

shift reflects the growing recognition that the goals of pollution prevention are the

first steps in moving to the next level of environmental and human health protection. EPA is now focused on improving practices and approaches through P2NT. We

are also developing a new research program, Science and Technology for Pollution

Prevention and Sustainability (STPPS) that will be both intramural and extramural.

Intramural Program. Three overarching issues have been established to guide the

direction and measure the progress of the new intramural STPPS program: identifying and defining sustainable systems; identifying metrics to measure progress towards sustainability; and developing methods, technologies, and approaches that

can contribute to sustainability-based policies. This represents a shift to place-based

environmental challenges that can be diffuse and have multi-media elements.

EPA’s green chemistry and engineering research is currently focused on pollution

prevention activities. These scientific and technical advances will now be quantified

in terms of sustainability metrics and focused on the highest priority environmental

challenges for the Agency and industry. For example, research will be conducted on

designing tradable credits programs for storm-water runoff control and developing

sustainability criteria for critical ecosystem restoration. By refocusing the modeling

and simulation strength of P2NT to a long-term goal of computational environmental protection, research outcomes will create simulated ‘‘ecological-economic-social’’ systems. Environmental decision-support tools and methods will deliver results

on applying, calibrating, and validating current life-cycle models and applying them

to sustainable technologies, policies, products and processes. This will lead to an intramural research program that is not only working toward EPA’s mission and sustainability, but to one that can be quantified in terms of clear benefits to economic,

environmental, and social systems.

Extramural Research. EPA’s extramural research program is also refocusing its

efforts towards sustainability with quantifiable results in terms of the Agency’s mission. Primary research will support research to use materials and energy more effectively while shifting to more inherently benign materials and energy sources. The

most significant way to move to inherently benign material and energy flows is to

advance green chemistry and engineering and to demonstrate these advancements

in terms of economic and environmental improvements. It is important to recognize

multiple benefits of an extramural STPPS research program. Such a program develops underlying scientific and engineering expertise; stimulates broader adoption of

principles and practices in an academic community such as in chemical sciences and

engineering; and helps to educate the next generation of scientists and engineers.

EPA recognizes the importance of demonstrating quantifiable, meaningful outcomes from our intramural and extramural research programs. The work to date

34

has resulted in significant benefits to human health and the environment and future directions will build upon this legacy. By integrating these results into new research activities, EPA will be in a position to establish that economic and environmental goals can be achieved simultaneously and sustainably.

Collaborative Networks

EPA consistently uses collaborative networks to advance its mission of protecting

human health and the environment. EPA’s focus on science and technology sustainability also depends on working within EPA, across the government, and throughout

the private sector to bring the most relevant science to all stakeholders to improve

the economy and the environment for social benefit. These networks include EPA’s

program offices and regions, working through the National Science and Technology

Council’s Committee on Environment and Natural Resources (CENR), and collaborating with other Agencies including the Department of Energy (DOE), National

Science Foundation (NSF), and the National Institute of Standards and Technology

(NIST). EPA also reaches out to state, local, and tribal governments as well as the

private sector and non-governmental organizations (NGOs) on issues of sustainability.

EPA’s Program Offices and Regions

EPA’s research and development activities are intimately related to activities in

the program offices and regions. While these relationships exist throughout the

Agency and across the Agency’s mission, the following examples will focus on collaborations of EPA’s Office of Research and Development with the EPA’s Office of

Solid Waste and Emergency Response and Office of Water as well as the regional

offices that are advancing science and technology for sustainability.

Resource Conservation Challenge, Office of Solid Waste. The Resource Conservation Challenge (RCC) (www.epa.gov/rcc) is a major national effort to find flexible,

yet more protective ways, to conserve our valuable resources through waste reduction and energy recovery activities. The RCC extends across EPA programs and

media to include waste, water, air, toxics, pollution prevention, pesticides, and compliance, as well as activities in the regions, states, and tribes. The RCC identifies

areas of program focus, or ‘‘challenges’’ that are ready for voluntary partnerships.

Each of these challenges works to resolve national environmental problems by finding environmentally acceptable solutions that are long-term, preventative, comprehensive, and sustainable. One of the key areas of the RCC is ‘‘targeted chemicals.’’ EPA has targeted 30 chemicals that are potential environmental hazards and

challenged American industries to cutback on the use of these agents. As part of

the RCC, EPA has pledged to support projects that help eliminate chemicals from

the waste stream. The Agency’s primary focus will be to secure commitments from

the highest volume generators, sectors, and their related industry associations to reduce these chemicals in products, emissions, and waste. Clearly, green chemistry

and engineering represents a vital area of research in meeting the RCC’s targeted

chemical challenge in a long-term, sustainable manner.

Smart Growth, Office of Water; Office of Policy, Economics, and Innovation; and

Regional Offices. Smart growth (http://www.epa.gov/livability/) is development

that serves the economy, the community, and the environment. It changes the terms

of the development debate from the traditional growth/no growth question to ‘‘how

and where should new development be accommodated.’’ Smart growth answers these

questions by simultaneously achieving healthy communities that provide families

with a clean environment, balancing development and environmental protection, encouraging economic development and jobs, and promoting strong neighborhoods and

transportation choices. Much research has been conducted to determine if a more

balanced pattern of growth could benefit the environment. Preliminary results from

these studies indicate that smart growth developments can minimize air and water

pollution, facilitate brownfields cleanup and reuse, and preserve open space. Research must also be conducted to address how development patterns are influenced

by market forces and by local, state, and federal policies and initiatives. Smart

growth aims to minimize development’s impact on the environment through sound

site decisions and finding a sustainable balance of economic, social and environmental systems.

Interagency Collaboration

Critical to EPA advancing its mission and the goal of sustainability is close coordination and interaction with other government agencies. While EPA has many bilateral agreements with other agencies, such as the partnership with NSF for the TSE

program and the Department of Energy through a formal Memorandum of Understanding, EPA also coordinates with other agencies through the Committee on Environment and Natural Resources (CENR) under the National Science and Technology

35

Council. The CENR addresses science policy matters and research efforts that cut

across agency boundaries and provide a formal mechanism for interagency coordination relevant to domestic and international environmental and natural resources

issues. The CENR recently discussed the addition of an Interagency Working Group

on sustainability, clearly a crosscutting issue that EPA welcomes. The CENR has

been an effective mechanism for working with other agencies and will serve as an

excellent model for the new Interagency Working Group on Green Chemistry established under this bill. The CENR has played a role in significantly advancing collaboration with other agencies, specifically on issues related to sustainability, including advancing the mutual goals of economic growth and environmental protection.

State and Local Governments

Strong partnerships between EPA and the states achieve better environmental results. EPA has always worked with states to plan, set priorities, and encourage innovation to solve environmental problems. Most recently, EPA has begun to work

with states to determine the most effective and appropriate ways for EPA to bring

sound science to state-level decision-makers for environmental protection. At the

same time, EPA is working with the Environmental Council of States (ECOS) to assess the sustainable development programs underway in the states and determine

how states address their scientific needs in the context of meeting environmental

goals. This project entails compiling a compendium of state sustainability activities,

research needs, and existing means by which states access sound science. The compendium will include information about flagship sustainability projects in the states

as well as an inventory of legislative, regulatory, and non-regulatory programs and

tools. This represents one way in which EPA is working with states for improved

environmental and human health protection as well as advancing the goal of sustainability.

Tribes

The American Indian Environmental Office (AIEO) coordinates the Agency-wide

effort to strengthen public health and environmental protection in Indian Country,

with a special emphasis on building tribal capacity to administer their own environmental programs. AIEO oversees development and implementation of the Agency’s

Indian Policy and strives to ensure that all EPA headquarters and regional offices

implement their parts of the Agency’s Indian Program in a manner consistent with

Administration policy. One aspect of this relationship is the National EPA–Tribal

Science Council, commonly referred to as the Tribal Science Council (TSC). The TSC

was created in partnership with tribal representatives to help integrate Agency and

tribal interests, specifically with respect to environmental science issues. The TSC

provides a forum for tribes and EPA to identify priority environmental science

issues and collaboratively design effective solutions to environmental concerns.

Through this partnership, EPA and Indian Country are moving towards improved

sustainable, comprehensive, long-term approaches to environmental and human

health protection.

Beyond Government

EPA has extensive collaborations and partnerships beyond the government with

non-governmental organizations (NGOs) and industry. Because these activities are

so numerous, they cannot be included here. While many of the EPA’s programs focused on sustainability—including the Collaborative Network for Sustainability and

the P3 Award—encourage partnerships across a range of stakeholders, there are

several existing examples that demonstrate collaborations specific to advancing

science and technology for sustainability. The examples shown in Appendix 4 represent current ongoing activities in terms of green chemistry, green engineering,

pollution prevention and sustainability with the American Chemical Society and

other activities with the private sector through the National Environmental Performance Track.

CONCLUSION

By conducting research, developing green alternatives, implementing solutions,

and measuring results, EPA will achieve its mission more quickly and more costeffectively. Green chemistry and engineering are at the core of science and technology, and represent a critical component for EPA’s move to the next level of environmental protection. Through science and technology innovations, demonstrated results, and collaborative networks, EPA continues to bring strong science to Federal,

State, local, and tribal governments as well as the private sector for catalyzing action in protecting human health and safeguarding the environment. While we look

36

forward to working with the Committee to meet the goals of this legislation, the Administration believes that it is unnecessary to enact this legislation at this time.

37

Appendix 1

Examples of Results from the EPA/NSF Technology for a

Sustainable Environment (TSE) Grants Program

TSE Grant Example 1: In the first few years of the TSE program, research focused

on environmentally benign solvents. Organic solvents are often toxic substances

with widespread use as intermediates and final products. The early TSE research

focused on identifying environmentally benign alternatives to toxic solvents such as

liquid or supercritical CO2, water, and ionic liquids. CO2 became the primary focus

of TSE research when EPA and NSF received numerous, high-quality proposals that

addressed the key scientific questions related to the use of CO2 as an alternative

solvent. In 2003, EPA funded a ‘‘State of the Science’’ report on the use of CO2 as a solvent that outlined the scientific progress and growing commercial interest in

CO2. The report noted that the ‘‘use of CO2 as a solvent is fast becoming ’mature’,

an achievement due in large part to sustained funding in the area from EPA and

NSF.’’

TSE-funded research has resulted in the development of CO2-based processes as

alternatives to organic or halogenated solvents for cleaning, treating, and coating

surfaces. This work resulted from a 1997 grant awarded to Dr. Joseph DeSimone

at the University of North Carolina-Chapel Hill. His research led to the development of specialty detergent systems that easily dissolve in CO2. A small business

was then created and funded by EPA under its Small Business Innovation Research

(SBIR) program to advance this technology as an alternative to traditional dry

cleaning. Implementing this technology in the dry-cleaning sector has resulted in

significant reductions of perchloroethylene (perc) emissions (a suspected carcinogen)

and the associated burdens of environmental regulations. This technology is now

being used in five states and over 100 dry cleaning establishments.

These same technological advances used to develop CO2 as an alternative solvent

led Dr. DeSimone to develop a process to manufacture polytetrafluoroethylene (Teflon) using CO2. This process replaced previous processes that used chlorinated

chemicals or millions of gallons of water that needed to be treated before they entered the public water system.

DuPont, the manufacturer of Teflon, adopted this innovative process and an- nounced that it would invest $275 million to build and operate a world-class manufacturing facility in Fayetteville, North Carolina, using this new technology.

The potential for CO2 as an environmentally preferable solvent is now being realized in several additional areas, including separation processes in the food industry,

coatings in the automotive and furniture industries, polymer production and processing, and cleaning processes for the garment care (dry cleaning) and microelectronics industries. The cost of ownership associated with the continued use of organic solvents is no longer a minor issue and CO2 presents a unique, cost-effective,

benign alternative to utilizing a potential environmental pollutant as a feedstock.

For more information, see (http://cfpub.epa.gov/ncer¥abstracts/index.cfm/

fuseaction/display.abstractDetail/abstract/905/report/0).

TSE Grant Example 2: A critical component of waste minimization in fine chemicals manufacture is the substitution of classical organic syntheses using stoichiometric amounts of inorganic reagents with cleaner, catalytic alternatives. New and

improved catalysts will enable important chemical reactions to be conducted under

milder conditions, with less energy expenditure, in a shorter time, using less reactive and more environmentally friendly chemicals and solvents. For these reasons,

catalysis is another area of research focus under TSE.

A TSE grant awarded by EPA in 1996 to Dr. Terrence Collins at Carnegie Mellon

University, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, led to the development of oxidant activators

based on iron. These activators promise extensive environmental benefits including

a significant reduction in chlorinated pollutants. In addition, these alternative catalysts provide superior technical performance and significant cost and energy savings

across a wide range of oxidation technologies.

Uses for these oxidant activators range from pulp and paper bleaching to fuel

desulfurization to water disinfection, and most recently, biological or chemical decontamination for homeland security. In the case of pulp and paper bleaching, these

activators proceed rapidly and efficiently at ambient temperatures with competitive

performance while completely eliminating chlorinated pollutants.

More than 85 percent of recalcitrant sulfur compounds in refined automotive fuels

can be easily removed using these powerful, environmentally friendly catalysts. Further development of this technology has the potential to provide an attractive alterVerDate 11-MAY-2000 12:56 Aug 23, 2004 Jkt 092512 PO 00000 Frm 00041 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 C:\WORKD\FULL04\031704\92512 SCIENCE1 PsN: SCIENCE1
38

native to existing methods that remove sulfur contaminants from fuels. Sulfur is associated with human health impacts, contributes to acid rain, and causes engines

to burn less efficiently. This innovative technology demonstrates immediate environmental benefits by simultaneously reducing sulfur emissions from fuel combustion

and improving fuel efficiency.

Given the widespread applicability of this technology and its demonstrated environmental and economic benefits, Dr. Collins is currently negotiating with several

companies to manufacture these oxidants on a metric-ton scale for widespread use.

For more information, see (https://www.fastlane.nsf.gov/servlet/

showaward?award=9612990).

TSE Grant Example 3: Another area of research concentration in the TSE program has been the use of renewable, bio-based feedstocks for chemical production.

Use of renewable resources reduces the reliance on petroleum and has significant

long-range strategic benefits for the U.S. Bio-based feedstocks also do not have environmental impacts associated with petroleum refining and processing. A ‘‘State of

the Science’’ report on the development of this process and the contribution of TSE

research is currently in progress.

A TSE grant awarded by EPA in 1998 to Dr. John Dorgan at Colorado School of

Mines in Golden, Colorado, contributed to the development of the first family of

polymers derived entirely from annually renewable resources that can compete with

traditional fibers and plastic packaging materials on a cost and performance basis.

These polymers are based on polylactic acid (PLA), a fully biodegradable and completely recyclable material, which is produced by fermenting and distilling corn

sugar. PLA production also uses internal recycle streams to eliminate waste, resulting in over 95 percent yields and preventing pollution at the source.

This technology is the basis for the world’s first global-scale manufacturing facility

capable of making commercial-grade plastic resins from annually renewable resources such as ordinary field corn. Cargill-Dow opened this facility in November

2001 after a $750 million investment. The plan now produces more than 300 million

pounds of PLA annually and employs close to 100 people. From the corn plant to

the retail counter, PLA has a lifecycle that reduces fossil fuel consumption by up

to 50 percent. In addition, the process to make PLA generates 15 to 60 percent less

greenhouse gases (GHG) than the material it replaces. Research also shows that

technology advancements in PLA could allow up to 80 to 100 percent reduction in

GHGs. This unique technology offers a new material alternative that competes on

performance and price, while also reducing impact on the environment.

For more information, see (http://cfpub.epa.gov/ncer¥abstracts/index.cfm/

fuseaction/display.abstractDetail/abstract/967/report/0).

39

Appendix 2

Intramural Research, Development, and Implementation at

EPA

As a result of EPA intramural research, several significant scientific and technical

advances in green chemistry and engineering have been developed and implemented

including:

• A novel process reactor, called a ‘‘Spinning Tube-in-Tube’’ or STT Reactor, has

been used by EPA research staff to enhance the effectiveness of new catalysts.

The STT Reactor, developed by Kreido Laboratories, consists of a small cylinder spinning within a hollow tube at speeds beyond 5500 rpm. This creates

a well-stirred medium for chemical reactions such that mass transfer limitations can be either minimized or eliminated. The SST Reactor embodies the

idea of process intensification through its potential for high throughput while

maintaining a small physical footprint. Utilizing a CRADA with Kreido, EPA

obtained an operating STT reactor for in-house experimentation. Employing

the newly created EPA-designed catalysts, and using identical reaction conditions, researchers have been able to decrease the reaction time for partial selective oxidation of cyclohexane from four hours in a traditional batch reactor

to below 25 minutes in the STT reactor. Currently, additional experiments

with the STT Reactor are being negotiated under CRADAs to allow EPA researchers to develop other green chemistry applications for chemical production where significant toxic releases occur.

• Over the years, EPA’s Green Metal Finishing program has evolved through

close interactions with the regulatory programs in the offices of Water and

Air Quality and Planning and Standards (OAQPS) in the Office of Air and

Radiation. One project evaluated the use of fume suppressants for emissions

control in hard chrome plating operations, an industry dominated by small

businesses. Using this work, OAQPS revised their newly promulgated maximum achievable control technology (MACT) emission standards to include

the results of the EPA demonstration of fume suppressants. The adoption of

this technology resulted in multi-million dollar cost savings to industry, as

well as major improvements in both EPA and Occupational Safety and Health

Administration compliance. EPA was also involved with the metal finishing

industry under the Common Sense Initiative (CSI) program involving industry, stakeholder groups, and the Agency’s program offices including Office of

Water, OAQPS and Office of Solid Waste. Ultimately, the CSI’s Metal Finishing Committee developed a research agenda that was jointly implemented

by EPA’s laboratory and industry groups. EPA and the American

Electroplaters and Surface Finishers Society jointly sponsor an annual conference to insure that the results of this research are transferred between the

research office, program offices, and industry.

• Researchers in EPA developed a novel process reactor called a Corona Reactor. This reactor can be effectively and efficiently used in industrial oxidation

processes, such as in the oxidation of alcohols and hydrocarbons for the production of value-added products. It can also be applied in advanced air and

water cleaning processes. The Corona Reactor (patent pending) uses an oxidation protocol that has the advantage of the high oxidizing power of ozone

formed within the reactor, as well as the photo-oxidation capability of UV

light generated during ozone formation. This research has been conducted in

collaboration with Washington University at St. Louis and a small business

supported by EPA’s SBIR program, Ceramatec, of Salt Lake City, Utah. The

cleaning of indoor and airline cabin air are two potential applications of this.

Other applications include the cleaning and partial and deep oxidation of

waste gas streams from kraft pulp and paper mills. This ongoing study is

being done in collaboration with Miami University and the Mead Westvaco

Pulp and Paper Company of Chillicothe, Ohio.

As a result of EPA intramural research, several significant tools in science and

technology for sustainability have been developed and implemented including:

• Program for Assisting the Replacement of Industrial Solvents (PARIS II):

EPA is working to find cost-effective alternatives for industrial solvents that

raise concerns for worker health and toxins in the environment. PARIS II is

a software tool created to address this need by identifying pure chemicals or

design mixtures that can serve as alternatives to more hazardous substances

40

currently in use. The ‘‘greener’’ solvents formulated by PARIS II have improved environmental properties and can perform as well as the solvents they

were designed to replace.

• Tool for the Reduction and Assessment of Chemicals and other environmental

Impacts (TRACI): The most effective way to achieve long-term environmental

results is to use a consistent set of metrics and a coherent decision-making

framework. The EPA developed TRACI, a software package that characterizes

the potential effects of specific chemicals or processes on ozone depletion and

global warming, human health and the ecosystem. TRACI’s modular design

allows the most sophisticated impact assessment methodologies to be compiled. TRACI can be used in life cycle assessments, to improve design, set corporate environmental goals, plan a path to meet those goals, and then measure environmental progress.

• Waste Reduction Algorithm (WAR): In traditional chemical process design, attention is focused primarily on minimizing cost while the environmental impact of a process is often overlooked. This could, in many instances, lead to

the production of large quantities of waste materials. It is possible to reduce

the generation of these wastes and their environmental impact by modifying

the design of the process. EPA recently developed a method to reduce wastes

that is based on a potential environmental impact (PEI) balance for chemical

processes. The PEI is a relative measure of the potential for a chemical to

have an adverse affect on human health and the environment. The result of

the PEI balance is an impact (pollution) index that provides a measure of the

impact of the waste generated by a process. The goal of this methodology is

to minimize the PEI for a process instead of minimizing the amount of waste

(pollutants) generated by a process. The impact estimation algorithm is sophisticated and flexible enough to allow users to emphasize or de-emphasize

different hazards as needed for particular applications. The result is a robust

process design that integrally incorporates environmental impact reduction.

The first version of the WAR Algorithm has been integrated into the commercial simulator ChemCAD IV under a Cooperative Research and Development

Agreement (CRADA) between the EPA and Chemstations, Inc. A number of

other CRADAs are being negotiated that involve further development of the

WAR algorithm.

41

Appendix 3

Success Stories in Pollution Prevention from EPA’s Small

Business Innovation Research Program

SBIR Example 1: EnerTech Environmental, Atlanta, Georgia, has successfully developed an innovative process that chemically converts municipal sewage sludge,

municipal solid waste, and other organic wastes into a high-energy, liquid fuel that

is cleaner to combust than most fuels. This process eliminates the need to burn or

bury organic wastes and begins to address the environmental burdens associated

with combustion and landfills. Instead it produces E-fuel, a valuable and cleaner

supplement or substitute for conventional fuels such as coal or oil.

For more information, see (http://cfpub.epa.gov/ncer¥abstracts/index.cfm/

fuseaction/display.abstractDetail/abstract/1517/report/0).

SBIR Example 2: Creare Incorporated, Hanover, New Hampshire, has designed a

novel cutting tool-cooling system (CUTS) that eliminates the need for cutting fluids

by indirectly cooling the cutting tool. Many companies use these costly and often environmentally problematic cutting fluids during machining operations. CUTS meets

or exceeds current machining performance, including tool life and final product

quality, when compared to traditional cooling systems that use cutting fluids. This

technology uses a prevention-oriented approach that alleviates the human and environmental health and safety issues associated with cutting fluids.

For more information, see (http://cfpub.epa.gov/ncer¥abstracts/index.cfm/

fuseaction/display.abstractDetail/abstract/6098/report/0).

SBIR Example 3: Lynntech, Incorporated, College Station, Texas, is working to

commercialize a fundamentally new, inorganic conversion coating that is chromium

free and will protect aluminum from corrosion. Potentially toxic chromium conversion coatings are used extensively to protect aluminum parts for the aerospace,

automobile, construction, and consumer products industries. Lynntech’s newly developed protective coatings meet rigorous corrosion protection standards and also eliminate chromium exposure in the workplace and the environment.

For more information, see (http://cfpub.epa.gov/ncer¥abstracts/index.cfm/

fuseaction/display.abstractDetail/abstract/1375/report/0).

42

Appendix 4

Examples of Collaborative Networks with the Private Sector

Related to Green Chemistry, Green Engineering, Pollution

Prevention, and Sustainability

American Chemical Society (ACS): EPA and the ACS have partnered for the

past eight years to host an annual Green Chemistry and Engineering Conference

on issues that include global awareness, innovation, homeland security, and sustainability. A key objective of these conferences is to extend and strengthen the community of scientists, engineers, government officials, and the public in support of green

chemistry. Conferences and symposia provide important opportunities for peer review, network building, increased awareness, and general development of a Green

Chemistry community.

National Environmental Performance Track: This voluntary partnership program recognizes and rewards private and public facilities that demonstrate strong

environmental performance beyond current requirements. The program is based on

the premise that government should complement existing programs with new tools

and strategies that not only protect people and the environment, but also capture

opportunities for reducing costs and spurring technological innovation. Performance

Track encourages participation of small, medium, and large facilities and its members are located throughout the United States and Puerto Rico.

All major industries are represented in Performance Track, with manufacturers

of chemical, electronic and electrical, and medical equipment composing nearly 40

percent of the 344 members. Performance Track also provides recognition, regulatory flexibility, and other incentives that promote high levels of environmental

performance and provide a learning network where best practices can be shared.

The program encourages continuous environmental improvement through the use of

environmental management systems. Public outreach, community involvement, and

performance measurement are also important components of the program. Performance Track works within the business environment to encourage industry to reduce

environmental emissions below regulated levels through approaches that are costeffective.

For more information, see http://www.epa.gov/performancetrack.

43

BIOGRAPHY FOR PAUL GILMAN

In April 2002, Dr. Gilman was sworn-in to serve as the Assistant Administrator

for the Office of Research and Development which is the scientific and technological

arm of the Environmental Protection Agency. In May 2002, he was appointed the

Agency Science Advisor. In this capacity, he will be responsible for working across

the Agency to ensure that the highest quality science is better integrated into the

Agency’s programs, policies and decisions.

Before his confirmation, he was Director, Policy Planning for Celera Genomics in

Rockville, Maryland. Celera Genomics, a bio information and drug discovery company, is known for having decoded the human genome. In his position Dr. Gilman

was responsible for strategic planning for corporate development and communications.

Prior to joining Celera, Dr. Gilman was the Executive Director of the life sciences

and agriculture divisions of the National Research Council of the National Academies of Sciences and Engineering. The National Research Council is the operating

arm of the National Academies which were chartered to provide independent advice

to the government in matters of science and engineering. Dr. Gilman’s divisions focused on risks to health and the environment, protection and management of biotic

resources, and practical applications of biology including biotechnology and agriculture.

Before joining the National Research Council. Gilman was the Associate Director

of the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for Natural Resources. Energy, and

Science. There he coordinated budget formulation, regulatory, and legislative activities between agencies such as the Environmental Protection Agency, National

Science Foundation, Agriculture, and Energy with the Executive Office of the President.

Dr. Gilman served as Executive Assistant to the Secretary of Energy for technical

matters before joining the OMB. His responsibilities included participating in policy

deliberations and tracking implementation of a variety of programs including the

Department’s environmental remediation and basic science research.

Gilman has 13 years of experience working on the staff of the United States Senate. He began that time as a Congressional Science Fellow sponsored by the American Association for the Advancement of Science in the office of Senator Pete V.

Domenici. Later, as the Staff Director of the Subcommittee on Energy Research and

Development, he was involved in the passage of the Nuclear Waste Policy Act of

1982 and oversight of energy technology and environmental research. Later he

served as the chief-of-staff for Senator Domenici.

Dr. Gilman matriculated at Kenyon College in Ohio and received his A.B., M.A.,

and Ph.D. degrees in ecology and evolutionary biology from Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, Maryland.

Chairman BOEHLERT. Thank you very much.

Dr. Cue.

STATEMENT OF DR. BERKELEY W. CUE, JR., VICE PRESIDENT

OF PHARMACEUTICAL SCIENCES, PFIZER GLOBAL RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT

Dr. CUE. I need to have my first slide, please.

[Slide.]

Good morning, Chairman Boehlert and Members of the House

Science Committee. Thank you for the invitation to be here today

to describe Pfizer’s green chemistry program. I will summarize the

written testimony I have already submitted.

First, I will describe Pfizer’s green chemistry activities and, in

doing so, indicate how we believe these investments are paying off.

I will also discuss what we believe are the environmental and

human health benefits of pursuing green chemistry. I will address

some important impediments to pursuing green chemistry solutions, and finally, I will share with you my views on the Green

Chemistry Research and Development Act of 2004.

First, let me begin by telling you about Pfizer. Pfizer was founded in 1849 in Brooklyn, New York. Today, we are the world’s leadVerDate 11-MAY-2000 12:56 Aug 23, 2004 Jkt 092512 PO 00000 Frm 00047 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6601 C:\WORKD\FULL04\031704\92512 SCIENCE1 PsN: SCIENCE1
44

ing health care company, with more than 130,000 employees worldwide and over $45 billion in annual sales. We have over 200 potential drugs in our R&D pipeline, and we spent over $7 billion in

2003 to discover, develop, register, and commercialize them.

[Slide.]

Pfizer is committed to a business model that is sustainable. Our

environmental health and safety policy is based on the International Chamber of Commerce Charter on Sustainable Development. Sustainable development means meeting the economic, environmental, and social needs of the present without compromising

the ability of future generations to meet their own needs.

[Slide.]

In 2002, Pfizer was the first U.S. pharmaceutical company to

sign the U.N. Global Compact, committing us to nine principles on

human rights, labor, and environmental performance.

[Slide.]

So what is green chemistry? I think several of you have already

defined it the way I do. There are 12 principles that guide green

chemistry, which is shown in this slide.

[Slide.]

Many chemists believe that the environmental gain usually

comes at an economic cost. However, for every green chemistry

principle, there is both an environmental and an economic benefit.

Without a doubt, green chemistry has been a win-win proposition

for Pfizer.

[Slide.]

Roger Sheldon, in 1994, reported that for every kilogram of drug

produced in our industry, between 25 and 100 kilograms of waste

are also produced. For those processes, we have redesigned—using

green chemistry principles, we have been able to reduce this number to between five and ten kilos of waste, a five to ten-fold improvement. At typical commercial volumes, this equates to hundreds of thousands of kilograms of waste prevented each year for

each product. This is a double economic benefit. We are not purchasing unnecessary raw materials or incurring the costs associated with treating and disposing this waste. Moreover, reducing

the environmental profile of our processes removes potential health

hazards from our environment.

[Slide.]

In 2002, Pfizer was awarded a U.S. EPA Presidential Green

Chemistry Challenge Award for our improvements in the manufacturing process of sertraline with the following results: our manufacturing yield doubled, the benign solvent ethanol was now used for

three of our conversions, almost 600 metric tons per year of solid

waste and 250 metric tons per year of aqueous waste were eliminated. And as you can see in the lower left-hand corner of the slide,

the number and volume of organic solvents were dramatically reduced.

[Slide.]

We achieved similar results for our manufacturing process improvements for sildenafil citrate, the active ingredient in Viagra,

and received a Crystal Faraday Award in the United Kingdom last

year.

45

Going forward, all Pfizer major drug product manufacturing processes are being evaluated for green chemistry improvements. Like

any R&D activity, not all efforts will be successful, but when we

are, the economic and environmental savings should be dramatic.

[Slide.]

Now let me address a couple of impediments. Today, there are

very few students graduating with chemistry majors who are

trained in, or even exposed to, green chemistry. So we are now educating our scientists about these principles. And to encourage this,

teams with the best ideas are awarded an annual trophy, management recognition, and a cash prize to be donated to a college or a

university of their choice to encourage green chemistry education.

[Slide.]

We are also reaching out to academic institutions near our R&D

sites by hosting annual symposia where students are exposed to

green chemistry with real-life case studies. They leave with a better understanding of how green chemistry is practiced in our industry.

One question that has repeatedly surfaced in green chemistry

discussions is whether consumers will pay extra for environmentally benign products. The general consensus is they will not.

As to the questions for this specific legislation, our experience

teaches that an integrated approach to green chemistry at Pfizer

that coordinates all of our efforts is a more effective way to a green

chemistry strategy.

By analogy, this proposed legislation establishes a green chemistry R&D program to promote and coordinate federal green chemistry research, development, demonstration, education, technology

transfer, and commercial application activities. These are all critical components of Pfizer’s successful green chemistry program.

The availability of merit-reviewed, competitive grants to support

academic programs and promote education and training of undergraduate and graduate students in green chemistry should help to

address the issue of lack of adequate green chemistry programs.

And the charge of the Federal Government to create incentives for

the use of green chemistry products and processes will help to address the issue of preferred treatment to—of companies who practice green chemistry.

[Slide.]

In closing, I would like to thank the Committee for your attention. I believe green chemistry has the potential to produce the

greatest change in the way synthetic chemistry is practiced in at

least the last quarter century. It is already redefining how chemistry is thought about and practiced at every stage of R&D and

commercial manufacture at Pfizer.

Thank you, again, for the opportunity to appear before this committee and to discuss Pfizer’s green chemistry initiatives and the

proposed legislation.

[The prepared statement of Dr. Cue follows:]

46

PREPARED STATEMENT OF BERKELEY W. CUE, JR.

Good morning Chairman Boehlert and Members of the House Science Committee.

I want to take this opportunity to thank you for the invitation to be here today to

describe Pfizer’s efforts around green chemistry and to help you understand why we

believe green chemistry is a critical ingredient in our company’s approach to corporate citizenship and in developing more efficient research processes.

Over the next few minutes I will do my best to address three topics. First, I will

describe Pfizer’s green chemistry activities and, in doing so, indicate how we believe

these investments are paying off. Also, I will state as clearly as I can what we believe are the environmental and human health benefits of pursuing green chemistry.

I will address some important impediments to pursuing green chemistry solutions

and provide some context to help the Members of this committee understand which

areas could possibly benefit from more federal involvement in green chemistry.

Finally, I will share with you my views on the Green Chemistry Research and Development Act of 2004.

47

First, let me begin by telling you about Pfizer. Pfizer was founded in 1849 in

Brooklyn New York. The majority of the penicillin that went ashore with the Allied

forces on D-day was made by Pfizer using a novel deep vat fermentation process.

Today, we are the world’s leading health care company, with more than 130,000 employees worldwide, over $45 billion in annual sales reported for 2003, more drugs

rated number one in their therapeutic class in sales volume than any other company, we have over 200 potential products in our R&D pipeline and we spent over

$7 Billion in 2003 to discover, develop, register, and commercialize these products.

In addition to prescription human health care we have a large consumer health, or

over-the-counter drug business and are ranked first in animal health care as well.

I work in Pfizer Global R&D in the Groton, Connecticut Laboratories. There I lead

the departments that are responsible for the design and optimization of the manufacturing processes for our active drug (API) and dosage forms such as tablets, capsules, and injectable formulations. I also lead the company’s green chemistry efforts,

working with colleagues around the world.

48

When a company achieves this sustained level of success we are expected to provide leadership. Pfizer is committed to a business model that is sustainable. Our

environmental, health and safety or EH&S policy is based on the International

Chamber of Commerce Charter on Sustainable Development. The Brundtland Commission’s report in ‘‘Our Common Future’’ in 1987 states that sustainable development meets the economic, environmental and social needs of the present without

compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs.

In 2002 Pfizer was the first pharmaceutical company to sign the U.N. Global

Compact, committing us to nine principles on human rights, labor and environmental performance.

Our purpose statement is to dedicate ourselves to humanity’s quest for healthier,

happier lives through innovation and our mission is to become the world’s most valued company to patients, customers, colleagues, investors, business partners and

the communities where we live and work. Green Chemistry helps make all of this

achievable.

49

So what is Green Chemistry? The best articulation I’ve found is the one proposed

by Paul Anastas from the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy

(OSTP) and John Warner, Director of the Center for Green Chemistry at the University of Massachusetts-Boston and a Pfizer consultant for green chemistry. ‘‘Green

Chemistry is the utilization of a set of principles that reduces or eliminates the use

or generation of hazardous substances in the design, manufacture and application

of chemical products.’’

50

The Twelve Principles of Green Chemistry

1. Prevention: It is better to prevent waste than to treat or clean up waste

after it has formed.

2. Atom economy: Synthetic methods should be designed to maximize the incorporation of all materials used in the process into the final product.

3. Less Hazardous Chemical Synthesis: Wherever practicable, synthetic

methodologies should be designed to use and generate substances that possess little or no toxicity to human health and the environment.

4. Design Safer Chemicals: Chemical products should be designed to preserve efficacy of function while reducing toxicity.

5. Safety Solvents and Auxiliaries: The use of auxiliary substances (e.g.,

solvents, separation agents, etc.) should be made unnecessary wherever possible and, innocuous when used.

6. Design for Energy Efficiency: Energy requirements should be recognized

for their environmental and economic impacts and should be minimized.

Synthetic methods should be conducted at ambient temperature and pressure.

7. Use Renewable Feedstocks: A raw material of feedstock should be renewable rather than depleting wherever technically and economically practicable.

8. Reduce Derivatives: Unnecessary derivatization (blocking group, protection/deprotection, temporary modification of physical/chemical processes)

should be avoided wherever possible.

9. Catalysis: Catalytic reagents (as selective as possible) are superior to stoichiometric reagents.

10. Design for Degradation: Chemical products should be designed so that at

the end of their function they do not persist in the environment and break

down into innocuous degradation products. For the Pharmaceutical Industry this principle is especially challenging since we are required to demonstrate our drug to be stable in the dosage form for the shelf life of the

product.

51

11. Real-Time Analysis for Pollution Prevention: Analytical methodologies

need to be further developed to allow for real-time, in-process monitoring

and control prior to the formation of hazardous substances.

12. Inherently Safer Chemistry for Accident Prevention: Substances and

the form of a substance used in a chemical process should be chosen so as

to minimize the potential for chemical accidents, including releases, explosions, and fires.

Now I will address some of the benefits we have achieved by practicing green

chemistry. The general perception among chemists who are not savvy about green

chemistry is that the environmental gain usually comes at an economic cost. In this

slide we demonstrate that for every principle there is both an environmental and

an economic benefit. Thus, green chemistry supports our corporate citizenship to

both environmental and economic performance. Without a doubt, it has been a winwin proposition for Pfizer.

Pfizer has been practicing the principles of process development and optimization

for a long time. When we became aware of green chemistry in the late 1990’s it

seemed to us that this approach offered several benefits. We found a strong level

of alignment between our traditional approach to chemical synthesis and process optimization with many of the principles, as well as a new way of thinking about

chemical at all scales—from milligram quantities in the laboratory to tens of thousands of kilograms produced commercially.

An analysis of the performance of the pharmaceutical industry in terms of process

efficiency published by Roger Sheldon in 1994 determined that for every kilogram

of drug produces between 25 and 100 kilograms of waste are produced. For those

processes where we have applied green chemistry principles we have been able to

reduce this number to between 5–10 kilos of waste per kilo of product. A 5- to 10-

fold improvement! At commercial product volumes this equates to hundreds of thousands of kilos of waste prevented each year for each product where we have succeeded in finding a greener chemistry alternative. There is a double economic benefit here-we are not purchasing raw materials that are lost to unwanted byproducts

and we do not incur the expense costs associated with treating and disposing of this

waste.

There may be some who believe zero waste is achievable. My view is that in preparation of complex organic molecules the production of by products is unavoidable.

The goal of our chemists is to make this number as small as is technically feasible.

52

In 2002 Pfizer was awarded a U.S. EPA Presidential Green Chemistry Challenge

Award for our improvements in the manufacturing process of sertraline hydrochloride, the active ingredient in our anti depression product Zoloft. Please note in

the lower left corner of the slide, the substantial reduction in overall solvent usage

as well as the complete elimination of the use of methylene chloride, a highly hazardous substance.

Green Chemistry objectives were emphasized in the redesign of the sertraline

process, resulting in quality chemical transformations with dramatic environmental

and worker safety improvements. Manufacturing yield has essentially doubled. The

benign solvent ethanol, obtainable from biomass, is now used for three synthetic

conversions. The hazardous dehydrating reagent titanium tetrachloride was eliminated. A more selective catalyst now drives more complete conversion of the starting

materials to racemic sertraline. In-situ resolution of the diastereomeric salts,

through highly selective crystallization, is now used to produce pure S,S-sertraline.

Overall, two intermediate isolations and a salt conversion step were eliminated.

The environmental and safety improvements are dramatic. Use of approximately

140 metric tons/year of titanium tetrachloride and the generation of 440 metric tons/

year of problematic solid titanium dioxide wastes were eliminated. Approximately

150 metric tons/year of 35 percent HCl were eliminated. Neutralization of the highly

acidic step 2, requiring approximately 100 metric tons/year of 50 percent NaOH,

was eliminated. Consequently, high-salt waste streams are no longer produced. Dehydration additives and aqueous washes were eliminated, and the number and volume of solvents used were dramatically reduced. The efficiency of raw material,

water, and energy use were dramatically improved.

The EPA is to be commended for sponsoring this award, not because we received

it in 2002, but because it is contributing to raising the visibility of green chemistry

and contributing to a cleaner, safer environment.

53

This slide demonstrates that, following green chemistry principles, similar dramatic improvements have been achieved for the manufacture of sildenafil citrate,

the active ingredient in Viagra, our drug for treating erectile dysfunction. This improvement was recognized with a 2003 Crystal Faraday Award, presented by the

Institute of Chemical Engineering in the United Kingdom. The efficiency factor for

this process is below 10, down from a typical 25 or greater for pharmaceutical manufacturing processes developed in the absence of green chemistry considerations.

This year we have submitted three applications for U.S. EPA Presidential Green

Chemistry Challenge Awards for improvements in the manufacturing processes to

celecoxib, the active ingredient in our anti arthritis agent Celebrex, for quinapril hydrochloride, the API in Accupril for treating high blood pressure and for sildenafil

citrate, which I already described. Going forward all, major drug product manufacturing processes are being evaluated for green chemistry improvement potential.

Like any R&D activity, not all efforts will be successful, but when we are the economic and environmental savings can be dramatic.

There are other benefits as well. Our leadership in green chemistry has improved

our ability to attract and retain the best synthetic chemists in the marketplace. Today’s graduating students are more environmentally conscious. They asked tough

questions and we have good answers. Our green chemistry program allows us to

communicate with external stakeholders about our commitment to corporate citizenship and sustainability. Last year we maintained our position in the pharmaceutical

sector Dow Jones Sustainability Index, which enhances our shareholder value, in

part because of our leadership in green chemistry.

54

Let me now address the question of impediments-focusing on three that are important to our industry.

1. Academic training: Today, there are very few students graduating with chemistry majors who are trained in or even exposed to green chemistry. In the slide

shown now we are investing a huge amount of energy to educate our scientists

about the green chemistry principles and how they apply to our daily R&D efforts. We would be in a much better place if the chemists who joined our company were practicing green chemistry on the first day of work. In addition to active education we sponsor R&D site based awards to encourage green chemistry.

In addition to a trophy and public recognition the recipients are awarded a cash

prize, with the stipulation that they donate it to a college or university of their

choice to encourage green chemistry education. The legislation you are considering today should help support more focus on green chemistry education at the

college and university levels. There are a few schools that do this very well today:

U. Mass.-Boston, Carnegie Mellon, University of Alabama, Washington State

University, to mention some of them. More are needed.

55

To address this issue Pfizer has begun a program of reaching out to universities

near our R&D sites to host symposia where students are exposed to green chemistry

in real life case studies. They leave with a better understanding of how chemistry

is practiced in the pharmaceutical industry and how green chemistry contributes to

R&D success.

Another potential barrier to companies in our industry pursuing green chemistry

solutions is the need to pay strict attention to the purity profile of the drugs we

produce. By definition, an active pharmaceutical ingredient (API) is the active chemical and its normal process related substances (PRS’s). This profile is established as

part of the R&D process and is ‘‘qualified’’ as part of our preclinical animal safety

studies and human clinical development experience. This profile is described in our

regulatory submissions (New Drug Application in the U.S.) and establishes the

ranges for our product quality specifications. Changes in the manufacturing processes can create new process-related substances, easily detectable using modern analytical tools. Presence of these new PRS’s at higher than allowed levels could necessitate redoing significant portions of development work, a time-consuming expensive

and risky proposition. Every company has instances where processes which produce

higher yields of cleaner product with a much better environmental profile, but were

not pursued further because of this barrier. Obviously, using green chemistry earlier

will lessen, but not remove this risk. In this case the goal of the FDA and the EPA

may not always be mutually compatible. It is very important that we retain the

flexibility to make business decisions that weigh and balance business risks with

potential benefits.

One issue that has repeatedly surfaced in green chemistry discussions is whether

consumers will pay for environmentally benign products. The consensus is that they

will not.

Executive Order 13101 was signed in September 1998. In section 102, it states,

‘‘consistent with policies established by the Office of Federal Procurement Policy

(OFPP) agencies will comply with executive branch policies for the acquisition and

use of environmentally preferable products and services and implement cost-effective procurement preference programs favoring the purchase of these products and

services.

We believe that companies that produce products derived from manufacturing

processes consistent with green chemistry principles should qualify for consideration

under this Executive Order.

56

As to the question of this specific legislation our experience teaches that an integrated approach to green chemistry at Pfizer that coordinates the efforts of R&D,

Manufacturing and EH&S is a more effective way to create an effective green chemistry strategy. Prior to this we had a series of unconnected tactics, with no guarantee that we were gaining maximum benefit or that we were not seeing unnecessary duplication of effort.

The proposed legislation establishes a Green Chemistry R&D Program to promote

and coordinate federal green chemistry research, development, demonstration, education, technology transfer and commercial application activities. These are all critical components of Pfizer’s successful green chemistry initiative. The availability of

merit-reviewed competitive grants to support academic programs and to promote

education and training of undergraduate and graduate students in green chemistry

should help address the issue of lack of adequate green chemistry programs in academic institutions. The charge to the Federal Government to create incentives for

use of green chemistry products and processes should help to address the issue I

raised with respect to Executive Order 13101. Of specific interest to the Pharmaceutical industry would be the working relationship between this inter-agency group

and reviewing chemists at the Food and Drug Administration. We believe that the

levels of appropriation are appropriate for the initiation and sustaining of this program over the 2005–2007 timeframe.

In closing I would like to thank the Committee for your attention. Green chemistry has the potential to produce the greatest change in the way synthetic chemistry is practiced in the last quarter century. It is already redefining how chemistry

is thought about and practiced at every stage of R&D and commercial manufacture

at Pfizer.

My crystal ball is no better at discerning the future than anyone’s, but my prediction is that at some time in the future a Nobel Prize in Chemistry will be awarded to a green chemist. Our CEO, Dr. Hank McKinnell is fond of telling Pfizer employees, ‘‘the patient is waiting.’’ In this context, it is clear that our environment

is waiting too.

Thank you again for the opportunity to appear before you today and discuss

Pfizer’s Green Chemistry initiatives and the proposed legislation.

57

BIOGRAPHY FOR BERKELEY W. CUE, JR.

At Pfizer Dr. Cue is responsible for the departments (Analytical R&D, BioProcess

R&D, Chemical R&D, Pharmaceutical R&D, Regulatory CMC and Pharmaceutical

Sciences Business Operations) that comprise Pharmaceutical Sciences. He was a

member of the Worldwide Pharmaceutical Sciences Executive Team, and the Groton

Laboratories Leadership Team. He also leads Pfizer’s Green Chemistry Initiative

and has spoken extensively on this topic since 2000. Dr. Cue started in Pfizer in

1975 in the Animal Health Organic Chemistry Department. He transferred to the

Process R&D Department of Developmental Research in 1979. Became head of the

PR&D Department in 1988 assumed responsibility for Analytical and BioProcess

R&D as well in 1993 and US Developmental Research in 1998. Chaired the CVMD

EDMT (1998–1999) and co-chaired the division’s Performance Management Task

Force (1992–1993). He received a BA from the University of Massachusetts-Boston

(1969), his Ph.D. (Organic Chemistry) from the University of Alabama (1974), and

completed Postdoctoral Research at the Ohio State University (1974), National Cancer Institute Research Fellow, University of Minnesota (1975). In 2000 he was appointed to the Science Advisory Board at the University of Massachusetts-Boston.

In 2003 he was elected to the Green Chemistry Institute Board of Directors. Dr. Cue

will retire from Pfizer in 2004 after almost 29 years. He intends to remain active

in Green Chemistry through his affiliations with the Green Chemistry Institute and

the University of Massachusetts-Boston.

58

Chairman BOEHLERT. Thank you, Dr. Cue. Pfizer has a good

story to tell in its responsible approach to this subject, and I appreciate your telling it exceptionally well.

For the purpose of introduction, I recognize the author of the bill

and a leading voice in the Congress, Dr. Gingrey.

Mr. GINGREY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I am very pleased to—actually to reintroduce Mr. Steve Bradfield

from Shaw Industries in Georgia. And Steve, I understand your son

is with you today, is that correct? Can he raise his hand? His name

is——

Mr. BRADFIELD. Drew.

Mr. GINGREY.—Drew. We welcome you, too, Drew.

Steve has been with Shaw Industries since 1991 and currently

serves as Vice-President of Environment Development. And I am

proud to have Shaw Industries in my home state, Whitfield CounVerDate 11-MAY-2000 12:56 Aug 23, 2004 Jkt 092512 PO 00000 Frm 00062 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6601 C:\WORKD\FULL04\031704\92512 SCIENCE1 PsN: SCIENCE1
59

ty, Dalton, Georgia. It is not quite in my 11th Congressional District, but I am still working on that. Shaw won a 2003 Presidential

Green Chemistry Challenge Award for the development of

EcoWorxΤΜ, carpet tile that is made from low-toxicity feedstocks

and is recyclable. Steve conceived and led that effort and continues

to push Shaw’s model cradle-to-cradle environmental statement

throughout Shaw Industries. And I look forward to hearing from

his expertise and experience on green chemistry.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Chairman BOEHLERT. Thank you, Dr. Gingrey. That is a great introduction. And I am glad, Mr. Bradfield, that you brought Drew

with you, because that is the very corner in our society that we are

really anxious to get excited about this. So I am glad to hear him

listening with wrapped attention to our witnesses.

Mr. Bradfield.

STATEMENT OF MR. STEVEN BRADFIELD, VICE PRESIDENT OF

ENVIRONMENTAL DEVELOPMENT, SHAW INDUSTRIES, INC.

Mr. BRADFIELD. I would like to think, Mr. Chairman, that he is

just enthralled by this, but I think the prospect of getting out of

school for a couple of days was what swung him my way.

Congressman Gingrey, Mr. Chairman, and Committee Members,

it is an honor to be invited to share my comments with you today

on the Green Chemistry Research and Development Act of 2004. I

am here more on the capacity of representing the industry today,

quite frankly. I would like to make comments on the behalf of the

Carpet and Rug Institute, and the many carpet members who are

making such important strides, as well as Shaw, in this area. I

have been asked to speak and communicate the outstanding efforts

and collective comments of the industry in the area of green chemistry and sustainability.

Good carpets begin with good chemistry. Over the years, our industry has consistently made changes to promote human and environmental health and safety. We did this before green chemistry

and sustainability became watchwords for a very simple reason: it

increased the desirability of carpet in the eyes of our customers

and provided—and improved our profitability. Customer demand

and profitability are the most enduring drivers of green chemistry

and sustainability, without a doubt.

Green chemistry has long been valued by the industry. Since

1992, the CRI has administered a voluntary indoor air quality program, known as Green Label Certification. It is a cooperative effort

between the carpet industry and its suppliers to eliminate and reduce chemicals of concern to levels that are far below the volatile

organic compound emission rates of other interior building finishes.

No other building material industry has committed this level of resources or achieved as much progress in indoor air quality improvement.

With this experience in mind, we urge the Interagency Working

Group to work closely with industry to set ambitious and realistic

goals for ongoing green chemistry programs. It is often easy to lose

sight of the value vested in the ‘‘willing,’’ those who take up the

challenge to develop materials that extend the reach of green

chemistry, while the ‘‘unwilling’’ remain anonymous and untouched

60

by the effort to create a sustainable environment for our children.

We are not suggesting penalties for the faint of heart. We believe

that rewarding those that commercialize green chemistry developments with research and development grants, tax incentives, and

preferential federal purchasing programs will drive the desired advances in green chemistry, in addition to the bill before you.

To those of us in the manufacturing sector, green chemistry implies developments that are robust, that are additive to the value

we bring to our markets, and are highly implementable. We believe

green chemistry should be defined to include materials and process

development. It should include pollution prevention that moves us

to the paradigm of becoming ‘‘less bad’’ in the near term, but

should look forward to the longer term development of ‘‘closed-loop’’

systems that can help us eliminate the very concept of waste.

The carpet industry believes that green chemistry will proceed

along two major pathways: nature’s organic path, and man’s synthetic/technical path. Both are valid and offer a variety of promising discoveries and inventions. Bio-chemicals and biopolymers

offer exciting possibilities for agriculture and industry. Meanwhile,

our continued reliance on oil-based materials assures that the resulting waste will be available as recyclable feedstock for synthetic

closed-loop processes.

Our industry has many commercialized examples of green chemistry at work. On the fiber side, Mohawk Industries and Beaulieu

of America are taking post-consumer polyester drink bottles, which

we have before you today, processing them into flake, and then remelting and extruding the material into polyester carpet fiber,

ready for spinning, dying, and tufting into residential carpet. Honeywell has developed a technology to recover the caprolactum monomer building block of nylon 6 from post-consumer carpet. Invista

collects post-consumer carpet and sends the dyed nylon into recycled uses, such as extrusion molded under hood car parts and

geotextiles. Dow Cargill has developed a bio-based fiber, called

polylactic acid, from corn. It is now being evaluated for residential

carpet.

We believe that industry has a valid role in helping to define a

practical research and development agenda. We respectfully suggest that the Interagency Working Group undertake a survey of

current environmental programs within the Federal Government to

bring them up to date with the broad range of sustainability characteristics that will be impacted by green chemistry developments.

These impacts are being defined and clarified through the use of

life cycle analysis. Reliance on single environmental metrics, like

recycled content, may actually result in a disincentive to green

chemistry development in many circumstances. First generation

polymers usually can not contain significant recycled content until

a value recovery system returns them to second-generation manufacturing.

New materials and processes are beginning to take root in our

industry. Many carpet companies are recognizing that traditional

thermoset materials can be replaced by thermoplastics, facilitating

the recovery, re-melting, and re-extrusion of tried and true materials, like vinyl. Collins & Aikman and Interface have developed

systems for returning vinyl carpet tile backing to their backing

61

processes. And as has been mentioned, Shaw was recognized for

the 2003 Presidential Green Chemistry Award for developing a

thermoplastic polyolefin carpet backing. The CRI Annual Sustainability Report includes many other industry developments and

practices that reduce the environmental footprint of carpet through

green chemistry.

The Carpet America Recovery Effort, which is a nonprofit effort,

including the carpet industry, the Federal EPA, state governments,

and NGOs with the goal of diverting 40 percent of landfill waste

by 2012, a very ambitious goal. Imagine a future when no carpet

goes to a landfill but is separated into its constituent parts at the

end of its useful life to be sustainably recycled over and over again.

This is happening today with some carpet types, but not enough as

yet is being diverted to significantly reduce the 4.5 billion pounds

of carpet that reaches our landfills today. Green chemistry can help

develop beneficial uses for these materials.

Perhaps the most compelling reason to support green chemistry

and the growth of sustainable materials and processes in carpet is

jobs. Annual carpet production and consumption in the U.S. of $12

billion is equal to the rest of the world carpet production and consumption combined. Carpet jobs will stay in the U.S. if we can develop ways to keep post-consumer carpet material in sustainable

closed-loop recycling systems that reduce the need for virgin raw

materials and lower the energy embodied in successive generations

of carpet. Why would any U.S. company choose to manufacture

overseas if their valuable raw materials are being collected and recycled at lower cost, with no sacrifice of performance from American homes and businesses in close proximity to the means of production?

The economic benefits of green chemistry are quantifiable in each

of the examples given herein. As an industry, green chemistry has

helped to reduce the water required for dying a square yard of carpet from 14.9 gallons in 1995 to 8.9 gallons in 2002. The energy

requirement for thermal fuels used to make a square yard of carpet

have fallen from 14.5 million BTUs in ’95 to 10.3 million BTUs in

2002. Today, the carpet industry has the same level of CO2 emissions it reported in 1990, yet it produces 47 percent more carpet.

Shaw’s experience with green chemistry is representative of the

developments that are ongoing in the industry. By way of illustration, Shaw’s polyolefin carpet tile backing has fueled an average

growth rate in Shaw carpet tile of almost 15 percent per year over

the last four years. This growth provides 440 jobs in our

Cartersville, Georgia carpet tile facility and generates over $100

million annually in revenue. It has reduced packaging costs by 70

percent, shipping costs by 20 percent, and resulted in over

$100,000 in annual post-industrial scrap recovery. The recovery of

the post-consumer carpet tile will result in even more savings in

the second generation.

I brought some materials that have contributed to the success of

this program, and with your indulgence, I am running a little later

than most, but I would encourage you to take a look at these as

you can. What I have for you here is basically recycled content

nylon and metalacene catalyzed polyolefin. And gentlemen, these

things will be very difficult to see from afar, but if you would like

62

for someone to bring them up for you, I would be glad to do that.

In addition——

Chairman BOEHLERT. Perhaps your associate, Mr. Bradfield,

Drew Bradfield, could bring them up, and we could pass them

around?

Mr. BRADFIELD. Drew would be more than happy to. We seem to

have somebody who is coming up now. I can’t get him to do anything at home, either, by the way.

Fully oxidized fly ash is one of the components that replaces virgin limestone, which is mined from the Earth. Post-consumer polyethylene from plastic bag waste, the post—and the post-consumer

carpet tile processed into two raw material streams, the nylon

stream to be depolymerized by nylon and returned to nylon production, and a polyolefin backing stream to be returned to backing extrusion. The point here is that what you have in your hands moving around is the entire carpet tile. None of these materials need

ever reach a landfill if consumers will take advantage of the value

recovery system at the other end of the toll-free number imprinted

on the back of every carpet tile we ship.

Other manufacturers share similar economic stories that are just

as compelling. I have brought some other materials here. This is

post-consumer polyester bottle flake.

Chairman BOEHLERT. Appropriately green.

Mr. BRADFIELD. Appropriately green today, so I don’t get

pinched. This clear version of this material, which would be from

the bottle that we have here in front of us, can be used, as I said,

to make polyester fiber for carpet. This green material has been

problematic over the years, because there has not been a use. However, we have been able to spin this into fiber and make it into a

carpet padding, which can be attached to the back of a carpet in

today’s market.

In conclusion, the carpet industry supports the adoption of the

Green Chemistry Research and Development Act of 2004 with the

suggestions that Congress encourage a cooperative effort among

government, academia, and business, that Congress seek additional

incentives to reward companies, large and small, that commercialize green chemistry developments, that obstacles to the green

chemistry process be removed from current federal environmental

programs, and that adoption of green chemistry in the broader context of sustainable product development should become a primary

instrument of pollution prevention policy. These goals are worthy

of our collective investment of time, treasure, and talent. Distinguished Committee Members, I brought my 17-year-old son, Drew,

with me here today from Dalton to let him know that it is his future, and his world, that will benefit from our efforts. I hope someday he may sit where you are, or where I am, with your sons and

daughters to push green chemistry to greater levels of success than

we can imagine here today.

Thank you.

[The prepared statement of Mr. Bradfield follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF STEVE BRADFIELD

Mr. Chairman and Committee Members, it is an honor to be invited to share my

comments with you today on the Green Chemistry Research and Development Act

of 2004. I represent the fiber, carpet, and rug manufacturer members of the Carpet

63

& Rug Institute, headquartered in Dalton, GA, as Chairman of Sustainability

Issues. I have asked to speak in this capacity to communicate the outstanding efforts, and collective comments, of our industry members is the area of green chemistry and sustainability.

The carpet industry is one of the last bastions of US textile manufacturing. Our

industry has maintained its long-standing relationships with the communities

where we’ve lived and worked for four generations, and we intend to keep doing so.

We’ve largely accomplished this through the development of material and process

technologies that have resulted in continuous improvements in the value of soft floor

covering. Technology development is the lifeblood of our industry.

Good carpets begin with good chemistry. Over the years our industry has consistently made changes that promote human and environmental health and safety. We

did this before green chemistry and sustainability became watchwords for a very

simple reason—it increased the desirability if carpet in the eyes of our customers

and improved profitability. Customer demand and profitability are the most enduring drivers of green chemistry and sustainability.

While it can be argued that many environmental improvements date from 1985

with the advent of Toxic Release Index reporting, far more improvements have been

driven by market forces. The permanence and efficiency of positive change driven

by a free market cannot be underestimated. No regulations could have moved our

industry so far and so fast in the direction of sustainable development.

Green chemistry has long been valued by our industry. Since 1991 the CRI has

administered a voluntary indoor air quality program know as Green Label Certification. It is a cooperative effort between the carpet industry and its suppliers to

eliminate and reduce chemicals of concern to levels that are far below the volatile

organic compound emission rates of other interior building finishes. No other building material industry has committed this level of resources or achieved as much

progress in indoor air quality improvement.

We’ve raised the bar in the Green label Program three times since 1991 and will

soon raise it yet again to meet our pledge of continuous improvement and leadership

on this green chemistry issue. But as with any voluntary program, these improvements are never fast enough or far enough to satisfy all stakeholders. We strongly

urge the Interagency Working Group to work closely with industry to set ambitious

and realistic goals for ongoing green chemistry programs.

It is often easy to lose sight of the value vested in the ‘‘willing,’’ those who take

up the challenge to develop materials that extend the reach of green chemistry,

while the ‘‘unwilling’’ remain anonymous and untouched by the effort to create a

sustainable environment for our children. We are not suggesting penalties for the

faint of heart. We believe that rewarding those that commercialize green chemistry

developments with research and development grants, tax incentives, and preferential

federal purchasing programs will drive the desired advances in green chemistry.

We also encourage this committee to acknowledge the broad range of activities encompassed by green chemistry. To those of us in the manufacturing sector green

chemistry implies developments that are robust, additive to the value we bring to our

markets, and highly implementable. We believe green chemistry should be defined

to include materials and process development. It should include pollution prevention

in the classic sense of moving us toward the paradigm of becoming ‘‘less bad’’ in the

near-term, but should also look forward to the longer-term development of ‘‘closedloop’’ systems that move us into the ‘‘environmentally good’’ paradigms that allow

us to mimic Mother Nature. Green Chemistry can help us to eliminate the very concept of waste.

The carpet industry believes that green chemistry will proceed along two major

pathways—nature’s organic path, and man’s synthetic/technical path. Both are valid

and offer a variety of promising discoveries and inventions. Bio-chemicals and biopolymers offer exciting possibilities for agriculture and industry. Meanwhile, our

continued reliance on oil-based materials assures that the resulting waste will be

available as recyclable feedstock for synthetic closed-loop processes.

Our industry has many commercialized examples of green chemistry at work. On

the fiber side Mohawk Industries and Beaulieu of America are taking post-consumer

polyester drink bottles, processing them into flake, and remelting and extruding the

material into polyester carpet fiber ready for spinning, dyeing, and tufting into residential carpet. Honeywell has developed a technology to recover the caprolactam

monomer building block of nylon 6 from post-consumer carpet. Invista collects post

consumer carpet and sends the dyed nylon into recycled uses such as extrusion

molded under hood auto parts and geotextiles. Cargill Dow has developed a biobased fiber called polylactic acid from corn that is now being evaluated in residential carpet

64

While universities, laboratories, and other basic research paths are a precursor

to many of the applications of green chemistry that will find their way into our facilities, basic research alone will not change the way we manufacture and consume

products. How will the research and development dollars granted by the agencies

specified in the House Bill find their way into real solutions to real problems that

face all Americans? How will priorities be established? We believe industry should

have a voice in defining the research and development agenda.

We respectfully suggest that the Interagency Working Group undertake a survey

of current environmental programs within the Federal Government to bring them

up to date with the broad range of sustainability characteristics that will be impacted by green chemistry developments. These impacts are being defined and clarified through the use of life cycle analysis. Reliance on single environmental metrics

like recycled content may provide a disincentive to green chemistry development in

many circumstances. First generation polymers usually cannot contain significant recycled content until a value recovery system returns them to second-generation manufacturing.

New materials and processes are beginning to take root in our industry. Many carpet companies are recognizing that traditional thermoset materials can be replaced

by thermoplastic materials—facilitating the recovery, remelting, and re-extrusion of

tried-and-true materials like vinyl. Collins & Aikman and Interface have developed

systems for returning vinyl carpet tile backing to their backing processes. Shaw was

recognized with the 2003 Presidential Green Chemistry Award for developing a

thermoplastic polyolefin carpet tile backing. The CRI Annual Sustainability Report

includes many other industry developments and practices that reduce the environmental footprint of carpet through green chemistry (see www.carpet-rug.com).

The Carpet America Recovery Effort (CARE) is a nonprofit effort including the

carpet industry, the Federal EPA, State governments, and NGO’s with the goal of

diverting 40 percent of carpet landfill waste by 2012 (see www.carpet-recovery.com).

Imagine a future when no carpet goes to a landfill, but is separated into its constituent parts at the end of its useful life to be sustainably recycled over and over

again. This is happening today with some carpet types, but not enough as yet to

significantly divert the 4.5 billion pounds of carpet that went to our nation’s landfills in 2003. Green chemistry can help to develop beneficial uses for the materials

used to make carpet today and assure that steady progress is made toward sustainable materials that can go directly back into carpet production in the future.

Perhaps the most compelling reason to support green chemistry and the growth

of sustainable materials and processes in carpet is jobs. Annual carpet production

and consumption in the U.S. of $12 Billion is equal to the rest of world carpet production and consumption combined. Carpet jobs will stay in the U.S. if we can develop ways to keep post-consumer carpet materials in sustainable closed-loop recycling systems that reduce the need for virgin raw materials and lower the energy

embodied in successive generations of carpet products. Why would any U.S. company choose to manufacture overseas if their valuable raw materials are being collected and recycled at lower cost, with no sacrifice of performance, from American

homes and businesses in close proximity to the means of production?

The economic benefits of green chemistry are quantifiable in each of the example

given herein. As an industry, green chemistry has helped to reduce the water required for dyeing a square yard of carpet from 14.9 gallons in 1995 to 8.9 gallons

in 2002. The energy required from thermal fuels to make a square yard of carpet

has fallen from 14.5 million BTU’s in 1995 to 10.3 million BTU’s in 2002. Today

the carpet industry has the same level of CO2 emissions it reported in 1990 yet it

produces 40 percent more carpet.

Shaw’s experience with green chemistry is representative of the developments that

are ongoing in the industry. By way of illustration, Shaw’s polyolefin carpet tile

backing has fueled an average annual growth rate in carpet tile of almost 15 percent per year over the last four years. This growth provides 440 jobs in our

Cartersville, Georgia carpet tile facility and generates over $100 million in revenue.

It has reduced packaging costs by 70 percent, shipping costs by 20 percent, and resulted in over $100,000 in annual post-industrial scrap recovery. The recovery of the

post-consumer carpet tile will result in even more second-generation savings. Other

manufacturers can share economic success stories that are just as compelling.

In 1950 the carpet industry shipped 97 million square yards of carpet. In 2001

we shipped 1.879 billion square yards. Between 1965 and 2001 carpet increased in

price by 90.4 percent while the same time period saw an automobile increase 180.4

percent and a combined total of all commodities increased 315.4 percent. Over 80

percent of the U.S. carpet market is supplied by mills located within a 65-mile radius of Dalton, Georgia. Carpet is important to the economy of Georgia and the

United States. Green chemistry is an important tool to facilitate its continued growth.

65

In conclusion, we support the adoption of the Green Chemistry Research and Development Act of 2004 with the suggestions that Congress encourage a cooperative

effort among government, academia, and business; that Congress seek additional incentives to reward those companies that commercialize green chemistry developments; that obstacles to the green chemistry discovery process be removed from current federal environmental programs; and that adoption of green chemistry in the

broader context of sustainable product development should become a primary instrument of pollution prevention policy in the United States with the additional

goals of job creation and economic improvement.

BIOGRAPHY FOR STEVEN BRADFIELD

Steve Bradfield began his career in the commercial carpet industry twenty years

ago gaining experience in sales, marketing, and technical and environmental development. He has been with Shaw Industries since 1991 in both international and

U.S. positions and is currently VP of Environmental Development.

Steve leads Shaw in its journeyman development of customer-oriented cradle-tocradle solutions to environmental concerns. He is active with the USGBC, the CARE

Executive Committee, TFM Green Advisory Board, and the CRI Market Issues and

Sustainability Committees. Steve conceived and led the effort to develop the 2003

EPA Presidential Green Chemistry Challenge Award winning EcoWorx polyolefin

carpet tile backing at Shaw and continues to push Shaw’s model cradle-to-cradle environmental statement throughout Shaw Industries. He has written many articles

on sustainability for periodicals, including the peer-reviewed Environmental Science

& Technology journal, and recently completed an interview with Michael Toms aired

on National Public Radio as part if the ‘‘Monticello Dialogues.’’

He is a graduate of Montana State University at Bozeman and considers himself

an adventurous seeker of change. Early experiences as an archaeological dig volunteer, a deck hand on a tugboat on the Mississippi River, a roustabout on an offshore

oil rig in the Gulf of Mexico, a cowboy on a Wyoming Ranch, and three years in

strip mining coal in Southern Montana, have given him a unique perspective on environmental responsibilities and a passion for sustainable development. Steve is

deeply committed to market-based implementation of industry-leading environmental technologies.

Steve has traveled extensively all over the world in designing and marketing carpet and considers himself fortunate to have a much broader perspective of the diversity of the people and markets outside the U.S. However, enough is enough, and

he is well pleased to now concentrate full time on opportunities for Shaw in environmental development in the U.S. He has been married to his wife, Christy, for twenty-five years, and has three teenage children that constantly challenge and delight

him. Life is good, and getting better.

66

Chairman BOEHLERT. Thank you very much, Mr. Bradfield. And

as the audience will note, we allowed you some extra time to go

on, because I thought it was very important that we get this perspective from an industry guy, because so often what we do up here

is viewed by those outside Washington, DC as anti-business, anti

this and anti that. That is all a bunch of nonsense. I mean, we are

trying to—we recognize that the business community is the engine

that drives the economy, and we want to work with you and so that

you won’t think that Mr. Bradfield is just another guy from industry, let me read a little bit here. ‘‘Early experiences as an archaeological dig volunteer, a deck hand on a tugboat on the Mississippi

River, a roustabout on an offshore oil rig in the Gulf of New Mexico, a cowboy on a Wyoming ranch, and three years of strip mining

coal in Southern Montana have given him a unique perspective on

environmental responsibilities and a passion for sustainable development.’’ My one question of you is would you let Drew follow that

same career path? And I won’t ask for an answer right now, Mr.

Bradfield.

67

Now for words of wisdom from Troy, New York, it is my pleasure

to introduce, from Renssalaer Polytechnic Institute, one of America’s great institutions, Dr. Woodhouse.

STATEMENT OF DR. EDWARD J. WOODHOUSE, ASSOCIATE

PROFESSOR OF POLITICAL SCIENCE, DEPARTMENT OF

SCIENCE & TECHNOLOGY STUDIES, RENSSELAER POLYTECHNIC INSTITUTE

Dr. WOODHOUSE. Thank you, Chairman Boehlert and Members

of the Committee. I appreciate the opportunity to think with you

this morning about what I see as an historic undertaking. It is very

seldom that one finds the kind of vision and long-term hope that

I see embodied in this bill, and I congratulate you for it. That is

not to say I don’t have a few recommendations to improve it.

I am a political scientist, not a chemist. I have, over the past

generation, made inquiries into what goes right and what goes

wrong with a wide variety of technological endeavors: civilian nuclear power, pesticides, premanufacture notification for new chemicals, ozone depleting chemicals, presently nanotechnology and robotics, and a variety of other topics. My graduate students and I

have been studying the green chemistry community for about seven

years, trying to understand what the social barriers are to the implementation of the—of their findings and what slows down the

movement of new ideas within the worlds of chemistry and chemical engineering themselves. So I want to just say a little bit about

that, not because it has direct impact on your pending legislation,

but because it may be of some use to you as you go forward in a

variety of fronts on this over the next decade and more.

The one thing that I have found in every area that I have looked

at is that we radically underestimate the technical malleability, the

capacity of engineers and other technical people to work with the

stuff of the world in creative ways. Always under-estimated. We

over-estimate the extent of which we have our social purposes lined

up for the technical people to serve. So that whereas the technical

capacities could be utilized for fantastic purposes rarely do they

come anywhere close to what would be possible, because we don’t

have the political, social, and economic institutions and processes

that will catalyze that, as well as could be achieved.

Let me give an example. This morning, many of you started with

decaffeinated coffee. How do they get the caffeine out of those

beans? Well, it turns out that it is green chemistry. The supercritical carbon dioxide, which was mentioned by Dr. Bement, is a powerful solvent under the right conditions and can literally strip the

caffeine out of the coffee bean, leaving the bean intact. The basic

understandings about supercritical carbon dioxide are now approximately a century old. Why has it taken this long to move it into

any purposes more important than decaffeinating coffee? That is a

social mystery, not a technical one, primarily.

Another example. There was a mention of the dry cleaning industry and the work being done at the University of North Carolina.

Excellent work. If you sniff your suits or sweater when it comes

back from the dry cleaners, you will notice a faint chemical odor.

That is perchloroethylene, PERC, which is used as the solvent. It

is extremely toxic. It is one of the main toxic constituents of urban

68

air pollution. A day care center near me had to be closed recently,

because it was located too near a dry cleaners. The children and

the teachers were getting ill. Each time an employee opens the dry

cleaning machinery, they get a sniff of that chemical.

There is now a substitute: supercritical carbon dioxide. David

Price, one of your colleagues, introduced legislation several years

ago, which would have given tax credits to dry cleaners for switching over to the new equipment. In the Omnibus tax legislation of

several years ago, that measure didn’t make it out of Committee.

The—one of the reasons—there were financial and other prudential

reasons, no doubt, but one of the reasons was the Committee’s staff

and Members heard from not one interest group, not one constituent by phone, letter, or personal visit. The issue is simply not

on the radar screen. And hence, what could have been a simple

move to encourage mom and pop dry cleaners, who need the economic assistance if they are to shift away from a dangerous practice, they didn’t get the help, they still don’t have the help, even

though the machinery is on the market. That is not atypical. I recognize it is outside the jurisdiction of this committee, but it is important to realize the social barriers, I think, and that is one of

them.

More generally, we have been interviewing green chemists

around the world, and they say, over and again, that it is economic

inertia and professional inertia that are the main barriers; it is not

technical understanding and scientific uncertainty, although those

play a role. Rohm and Haas, for example, has developed a biodegradable, water-soluble polymer, which would go in laundry detergent. It costs twice as much as the one now utilized. It is not

being used. I asked the relevant person, ‘‘Well, how much would it

cost the consumer?’’ They said about one penny per bottle of detergent. $4.01 instead of $4. That is a lot of money, though, to Proctor

and Gamble, probably $1 million a year, if you would figure out the

number of bottles they sell. We need some way to figure out how

to do what is sensible at that level. It is a mundane practice, not

nearly as glorious as many of the research projects discussed here

today. But that is a—that is the reality. Mattel promised to take

polyvinylchloride out of their Barbie dolls. They recently reneged

on that promise, despite the fact that Bayer Chemical provides an

alternative, which would cost only five percent more. You know

what the cost of plastic in a Barbie doll is relative to the sales

price. It is a trivial amount, and yet, it is not being utilized.

Professional inertia is almost as bad as economic inertia. If you

think about the professors that you had who were using old lecture

notes, not keeping up to date, you will have some idea of what I

mean. The curricula at a major university near here, there is a

one-credit course in green chemistry as the sole offering in the curriculum. Another department chair told me, ‘‘There is no room in

the curriculum.’’ Another said he tried to get the changes, but his

faculty said, ‘‘That is not the way it is done at Harvard and Chicago.’’ They require foreign languages at half of the American universities to get a Ph.D. in Chemistry, but no one requires a test

in toxicology. A green chemist, not me, referred to what is going

on as ‘‘stupid chemistry,’’ ‘‘just bad design,’’ ‘‘profound failure.’’

69

I will conclude by just suggesting that the task, then, is larger

than what can be done by a few million dollars for more research.

None of us knows exactly how to bring it about. What we can do

is to catalyze an inquiry and a discussion that aims for ‘‘benign by

design.’’ Let us figure out how to use those tremendous technical

potentials so that we aim to make each chemical safe enough for

living things. I believe that that is chemically possible, even though

most chemists today would say it is not.

In conclusion, I have a couple of recommendations for your consideration. First, tax credits. The industry, we don’t expect to get

ice cream for free, why should we expect to get green chemistry for

free? Contrary to what some of my colleagues on the panel have

said, I believe there is a limit to what you can do that will actually

make money. I think that some things do cost money. We need to

figure out how to make that sensible for all parties concerned.

Secondly, more precise requirements in the reports that you are

asking for under this legislation. There is too much room for interested parties to make self-serving statements. Let us get some devil’s advocates into the process who will look more closely at the

claims, who will attempt to bring the stakeholders into communication, shall we say, with each other.

Finally, I would suggest that you consider the possibility of tilting the funding more towards EPA. In my experience, the EPA Pollution Prevention Program is one of the best things that the Federal Government does.

Thank you very much.

[The prepared statement of Dr. Woodhouse follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF EDWARD J. WOODHOUSE

Chairman Boehlert, Ranking Member Gordon, and Members of the Committee, I

thank you for inviting me to testify.

I am a political scientist interested in understanding how to shape technological

decision-making more wisely. I have been studying the social aspects of green chemistry and green chemical engineering since 1998, funded in part by the National

Science Foundation. My Ph.D. student, Jeff Howard, with funding from an EPA

STAR fellowship, has been doing detailed interviews with green chemists, and I

draw selected data and insights from his study.

My purpose here today is to discuss barriers and prospects for moving from what

might be called ‘‘brown chemistry’’ toward a greener chemistry featuring chemicals

designed to be benign or close to it. I will begin with general considerations I think

Members of Congress should be taking into account, then present three simple categories of green chemistry and the legislative opportunities in each, and conclude

with some suggestions for further study.

General Considerations

I start with a prediction: The 21st century will see the beginnings of a

transnational phase out of chlorinated and other toxic synthetic chemicals. Economic considerations facing industry, slow-to-change university curricula in chemistry and chemical engineering, and citizens’ ignorance about the potential for benign chemistry may delay the projected phase out well beyond the time period technically required. Evidence against toxic chemicals is accumulating relentlessly, however, and green chemistry and engineering potentials are developing, even if more

gradually than one would wish. So the main question, it seems to me, is whether

public policy will lead or lag.

I congratulate the Committee for its farsightedness in generating the proposed

Green Chemistry Research and Development Program, and I regret to report that

I find outside this room a certain timidity and lack of vision with respect to the subject. I am sorry to say that most professors of chemistry and chemical engineering

appear to be either uninformed or uninterested, and a few are outright opponents

who believe that toxicity is the price for what they would call ‘‘progress.’’ Professional associations such as the American Chemical Society and the American InstiVerDate 11-MAY-2000 12:56 Aug 23, 2004 Jkt 092512 PO 00000 Frm 00073 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 C:\WORKD\FULL04\031704\92512 SCIENCE1 PsN: SCIENCE1
70

tute of Chemical Engineers are rhetorically supportive of chemical greening, and

even have a few modest programs; but they are not doing much at present to actually inflect the trajectories of their mainstream members. Even environmental organizations such as Sierra Club could be doing a lot more: The National Toxics Campaign and other groups have been pushing for ‘‘clean production’’ and Zero Discharge, which bear on Green Chemistry but do not put it front and center—perhaps

partly because their members resonate with whales, orangutans, and other charismatic megafauna more than with molecules.

Chemical technologies are highly malleable, however, and once it becomes widely

understood that what we have been calling ‘‘chemistry’’ actually is a small and relatively backward subset of the chemical universe, the status quo will be on the defensive. The goal of a commendable chemical industry will be nothing less than to

make everything using benign materials, and where toxicity cannot be avoided to

draw on the services of medicinal and ecological chemists to design chemicals that

rapidly decompose and are quickly excreted from living organisms. How closely that

goal can be approximated, no one presently knows; what we can say for sure is that

many technical achievements that seemed impossible have turned out not to be, in

chemistry and in many other fields of science and engineering. With biocatalysis,

nanochemistry, and other techniques not yet dreamed of but surely on the way,

those who defend the 20th century’s ‘‘brown chemical’’ way of doing things are pretty surely on the road to being discredited. Unless Congress intervenes, however, the

transition could take many generations, with untold additional damage to living

things around the world.

Everyone acknowledges that contemporary technologies for producing, using, and

disposing of chemicals create numerous hazards, some of which result in damages

that have to be mitigated or compensated at high cost. There is a sense in which

present practices of the chemical industry resemble the ‘‘unfunded mandate’’ that

the Federal Government sometimes is accused of leveling on states: Business-asusual concerning chemicals makes little provision for medical payments to those affected (except for chemical workers), and little provision for environmental and

other damages (except via insurance). As is true of health problems caused by tobacco, many such secondary and tertiary costs of chemical usage are picked up not

by the industry itself, but by state and federal medical programs, by medical insurance companies, and ultimately by taxpayers and those who are privately insured.

It may be misleading, therefore, to think of new regulations on the chemical industry as creating new costs; rather, costs would be shifted onto producers and users

of chemicals—what economists refer to as ‘‘internalizing’’ such expenses by having

them better reflected in prices. Tighter regulations would reduce or eliminate the

present unfunded mandate that the chemical industry places on other businesses,

government, and individual citizens.

It also is worth considering whether there is a commercial risk of waiting to act

that may be greater for the chemical industry overall than any one element of it

will have an interest in perceiving and acting upon. In particular, the Swedish

Chemical Inspectorate already has a list of 250 suspect chemicals that probably are

on their way out. The German chemical industry long has paid greater attention

to labor, community, and other social interests than do most U.S. firms. Some Chinese technological universities are making a greater commitment to green chemistry

than has any U.S. university to date. Altogether, those who care about the competitiveness of the U.S. chemical industry might do well to take heed: If U.S. firms lag

behind in moving toward green chemistry, given the long period for amortization of

chemical plant and equipment, they may lose market share and endanger profitability during the catch-up phase.

Another general consideration bearing on the legislation can be put in the form

of a question: Why is there no explicit research on ethical, legal, and social implications (ELSI) of the $500 billion-dollar chemical industry and its associated research

infrastructure in universities and elsewhere? There have been set-asides or other

ELSI initiatives in connection with nanotechnology, climate change research, and

other recent technological inquiries. But not for chemistry, chemical engineering,

and the chemical industry. Perhaps it could be said that there is plenty of environmental research already underway, even if not directly connected with chemicals?

Just so. However, ‘‘chemophobia,’’ as some industry insiders and chemists refer to

the public’s distrust for chemicals, grew to significant proportions in the late 20th

century partly because most people feel excluded from chemical deliberations and

choices. This may be a questionable perception, in that consumers do participate in

choosing final products. We feel excluded, and we do not trust, and we do not understand—and somewhere in that triumvirate is a nontrivial problem concerning the

relations of citizens with the chemical industry and the chemical science community.

The green chemistry deliberations bring up the possibility of tackling the relationVerDate 11-MAY-2000 12:56 Aug 23, 2004 Jkt 092512 PO 00000 Frm 00074 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 C:\WORKD\FULL04\031704\92512 SCIENCE1 PsN: SCIENCE1
71

ship between chemistry and society in a creative way by focusing on the social components explicitly.

Finally, as Committee Members are aware, the amount of funding being proposed

in the pending legislation is small compared with the magnitude of the problem—

and the magnitude of the opportunity. Of course, there already are funds being expended, as the other witnesses have pointed out; and, of course incremental funds

are a fine idea. So I do not really quarrel with the idea of adding to Green Chemistry R&D within the limits of what will be considered fiscally prudent. Still, looking

toward the longer term, it is worth noting that although no one knows the exact

number, there are some ten thousand toxic chemicals that may need to be replaced.

Taxpayers this year are spending approximately one hundred times as much on

nanoscience and nanotechnology research than will be spent under the new Green

Chemistry legislation, despite the fact that, in my opinion, Green Chemistry is a

more important problem and a more important opportunity. Some observers would

go so far as to characterize the nanotechnology juggernaut as a set of techniques

in search of a serious issue worthy of taxpayers’ concern. I would not go that far.

In the case of brown chemistry, however, we have a known problem of proportions

far larger than the expenditures now being contemplated.

I turn now to some more specific ideas concerning barriers to the greening of

chemicals, and prospects for circumventing or lowering some of those barriers.

Three Categories of Green Chemistry

Chemists divide their world into many technically interesting and important categories, such as solid state, lipid, and carbohydrate chemistry; for our purposes,

however, there are just three main commonsensical categories of interest:

1. Green chemical techniques and products that industry may voluntarily utilize because there are no added costs, and sometimes even cost savings;

2. Well understood chemical processes and products that industry probably will

not voluntarily utilize, because they are more expensive than current practices; and

3. Potential green chemistry techniques and products that are not yet known

or understood.

The goals of public policy should be:

1a. To craft chemical education to make sure that chemists and chemical engineers have the knowledge and skills to make good use of available GC techniques that are already affordable in category one;

2a. To encourage industry to utilize some of the ‘‘too-expensive’’ GC in category

two—where a changeover would help solve significant problems created by

present chemical technologies; and

3a. To invest in R&D within category three, in order to expand the repertoire

of green chemical techniques and products.

Green Chemistry Education Policy

One of the most disturbing things I’ve observed in my research is how slowly the

educational institutions are changing over to Green Chemistry. Not atypical is the

situation at one technological university not far from here, where the GC curriculum

consists of a single, one-credit course, team taught as a free-standing elective without any connection to the mainstream curriculum. When I asked a chemistry chairperson at a different university about some elementary steps his department could

take, he replied, ‘‘We do not have room in the curriculum.’’ At another university,

the chairperson tried to lead but his faculty refused to follow, saying ‘‘That’s not the

way it’s done at Harvard or Chicago.’’ One indicator of the situation, as pointed out

by a leader of the Green Chemistry movement, Chemistry Professor John Warner

of the University of Massachusetts: About half of U.S. chemistry departments still

require Ph.D. students to pass a qualifying exam in a foreign language, but not one

requires equivalent proficiency in toxicology.

Now, I acknowledge that meddling in university curricula is a dicey proposition;

not trying to improve the situation seems irresponsible, however. What might legitimately be done? One thing we know is that hardly any university departments turn

down funding. I expect that Members of this committee would be taken very seriously were some of you to approach the Ford Foundation or other major independent funding sources regarding a Green Chemistry education initiative, perhaps

jointly with the National Science Foundation, the American Chemical Council, and

other sources? Adding courses in ethics to chemistry and chemical engineering curricula might be the direction to head: One of the leading Green Chemists, Professor

72

Terry Collins at Carnegie Mellon, has added a significant ethics component to the

curriculum there, and advocates that it be added elsewhere.

A parallel tack: Most universities depend on periodic renewals of their accreditation to certify to parents and others that the organization is recognized as offering

an appropriate educational environment. At present, the accrediting organizations

such as Middle States are not paying attention to whether universities continue to

train chemists and chemical engineers in the older approaches or are training students in benign-by-design chemistry. The accrediting agencies should be paying attention, of course, and although I have not studied the matter I am confident that

there is a way to encourage them to do so.

A third glaring weakness in the training of chemists is that they do not have to

pass through professional licensing, and even chemical engineers can be exempt

from it if they work in industry. Those who do sign up for the professional licensing

exam administered by the American Institute of Chemical Engineers. I was unable

to secure cooperation of the AIChE in my attempts to study the test or the processes

behind it, so my information is less complete than I would like. But study guides

for the test have changed very little in the past decade, continue to give far more

attention to economics than to environmental issues, and evince zero appreciation

of the spirit or letter of green chemistry. This appears to be true partly because the

AIChE licensing process relies on retired engineers who volunteer their time, rather

than on forefront chemical engineering researchers. The Science Committee obviously does not control professional licensing, but chemistry-in-application involves

not high-profile researchers but rather ordinary chemical engineers. If they are to

function, in effect, as society’s delegates in the chemical plants, we need some way

to persuade and incentivize them toward greener chemicals.

In short, there are some social barriers to better GC education that are not immediately apparent, and that may not yield readily to research grants or even graduate

fellowships. It would be worth a patient inquiry into the matter by those with relevant expertise and access, perhaps as part of the report requested by the pending

legislation.

Category 2: GC Affordability and Uptake for Industry

Some of the most knowledgeable advocates for GC speak as if the transition process might be pretty much automatic: Develop the knowledge, and industry will utilize it. I am a bit skeptical of that, as I expect you are. There already is a repertoire

of GC knowledge that is ready, but is not being used; and knowledge of that sort

is certain to increase as chemical researchers push beyond present understandings

of the GC universe.

One example is a water-soluble, biodegradable polymer that the Rohm & Haas

Chemical Company developed for use as a brightening agent in laundry detergent.

Despite seven years of effort and proven results, the industry continues to use the

old non-biodegradable brightener, because the new one would cost about twice as

much per ton. When I asked how that would translate at the consumer level, the

chemical executive replied, ‘‘About one penny’’—raising the price of a bottle of detergent from $4.00 to $4.01. For Procter and Gamble, however, that might amount to

a million dollars a year if they have to absorb the price increase (which they would

not, if every company were required to use the new method).

Technology-forcing statutes of the sort used to reduce air pollution probably are

the way to tackle issues of this sort, along with tradable pollution permits, scalable

excise taxes, and tax credits; but I realize that such matters are outside the jurisdiction of the Committee on Science. I just want to let you know some of the economic

and other barriers I perceive to chemical greening, so that, over time, you can do

whatever seems feasible within your domain.

For example, recognizing the barriers to industry participation, the Committee already has taken the laudable step of including chemical engineering research in the

pending bill. Still, given the relatively higher status of chemistry, it seems to me

likely that chemists will garner the lion’s share of the funding. That’s fine, if longterm, basic research is really what we want to stimulate. I wonder, though, if more

nearer-term engineering efforts might be designed to help move category two knowledge into category one, so that the odds of it being adopted by industry would go

way up. This would involve reworking known chemical processes to be greener with

the lowest possible incremental costs. Because down time is such a no-no in the industry, for example, any ways of minimizing it translate pretty directly to the bottom line. Engineering researchers may be able to figure out how to minimize disruption of existing chemical production plants, equipment, and processes. Some of the

EPA and NSF programs already are doing this, I acknowledge, but they are mainly

directed at solvent replacement rather than more complex matters.

73

I know that many people are reluctant to ‘‘pay industry’’ for doing things ‘‘it

should do on its own,’’ however I would urge that in setting up the GC research

efforts under this bill that your committee establish relatively permissive guidelines.

Some of the people who are best positioned to move GC knowledge from category

two into category one are those with closest ties to the industry. If they chose to

participate in R&D under this bill, I for one would be thrilled rather than dismayed.

The draft of the bill I initially read seemed to be heading more in the direction I

would favor than the latest draft, which has removed the term ‘‘commercial application’’ in quite a few places. I realize that the matter is a thorny one involving jurisdictional issues, and that the boundary between industry-funded and governmentfunded endeavors has implications for many aspects of the federal budget. Nevertheless, I recommend that you consider tilting toward greater support for industrial

R&D than might normally be appropriate for federal funding of applied research.

The education (or mis-education) of chemists and chemical engineers plays a role

in this category also: Not many of our recent graduates are prepared to figure out

technically and economically feasible alternatives to the chemical status quo. Just

as importantly, they are not operating within a Green Chemistry mind set, and

hence are not likely probe very intensively to create new ways of working with

chemicals. Note that this way of thinking about chemical greening means that accountants, managers, and attorneys also get drawn into analysis of corporate choices

regarding chemical products and processes—implying that, at least in principle, one

should be thinking about the education and ongoing training of persons holding

such roles. It makes sense initially to suppose that it all comes down to formulas

and other relatively straightforward analysis; in fact, it is the culture and psychology of the relevant disciplines and businesses that is as much at issue. None

of us well understands how to go about intervening in such complex social phenomena, of course, so my point is merely that we need to be acting so as to turn

out much larger numbers of greener chemists, chemical engineers, and others as a

way of seeding the industry. In the interim, a great many opportunities for changing

chemical pathways, processes, and products may be missed by those operating

under the old governing mentality green chemicals are technically impossible or unacceptably expensive.

Category Three: Funding Forefront Green Chemistry Research

I actually have the least to say about this category, even though it probably is

the one that comes to mind most readily when one thinks about stimulating R&D

in an emerging field. Certainly it is easy to catalyze more Green Chemistry; if you

provide the funds, researchers will indeed create justifications for obtaining the

money.

Green chemistry is a bit like the Nixon ‘‘War on Cancer’’ or the current holy grail,

nanotechnology: Many existing chemistry projects can be tweaked so as to qualify

for the new funding. That’s not bad, in a way; however, if what one really wants

is to catalyze breakthroughs, I’m not sure we know right now how to design a program to achieve that. There’s usually something to be said for learning by doing,

and one can interpret in that way the three years of funding that would be authorized via the proposed legislation. I do not object to that exactly, but I have seen NSF

dispense sums greater than I considered warranted—as in the current round of

funding for nanotechnology education proposals I just reviewed last month. Hence,

I wonder if there might be a way to at least get a prioritized research agenda at

the end of the three years as part of the report to Congress required by the proposed

bill.

Further Study of Social Barriers and Prospects

The general provisions for further study in the proposed bill make good sense to

me. However, either as part of the bill itself or during its implementation, I would

like to see some fine-tuning along the following lines.

First, as suggested earlier in the discussion of ethical/legal/social implications, social science and policy are not ruled out by your proposed wording, but neither are

they made as central as the situation may justify. Of course there are important

scientific and engineering issues that need to be studied; but much of what stands

in the way of chemical greening is social and economic in nature.

That said, I am no fan of the ELSI set aside as part of climate change research,

because too much of the money went for relatively trivial investigations. I have to

admit, however, that a three percent or five percent set aside does draw the attention of social scientists, historians, and environmental philosophers, and we need

some way of getting more of them to attend to the brown/green chemistry problem/

potential. It is odd to have a problem and opportunity of the magnitude of Green

Chemistry with so little systematic social analysis available, and I would like to see

74

this committee catalyze enough study that when you reconvene for a renewal hearing on this legislation, a lot more social scientists knows something about the subject.

Second, the state of policy thinking on the subject is rudimentary. To my knowledge, there literally is no one who has systematically studied the matter, and no

organization equivalent to the former Office of Technology Assessment has drawn

in the relevant stakeholders for sustained discussions. Foundations are not funding

or studying the problem in the way that the Heritage Foundation, Brookings, and

American Enterprise study so many important matters of public policy. Environmental economists are applying their increasingly refined skills to many environmental issues, but not to brown/green chemistry.

Third, and closely related, the problem of brown chemistry is only about ten percent a matter of shortages in supply of technical knowledge—and about 90 percent

lack of demand for an alternative to brown chemistry. This committee’s jurisdiction

obviously pertains to the improvement of science and technical knowledge, not to

regulation of the chemical industry. However, this committee may have an indispensable role to play in catalyzing interest by other relevant committees, ones with

more regulatory authority over the subject of chemicals. It is of course a dicey matter of how to handle such intra-congressional matters, and I have no wisdom to offer

superior to the tacit knowledge you have acquired.

I would urge you not to underestimate the bully pulpit role, however. We associate it with the presidency, especially as popularized by the first Roosevelt; yet

most governance is partly a matter of persuasion, and persuasion is largely about

good reasons when monetary or other inducement has little bearing, as in intra-congressional life. How might this committee use its staff, use its connections in the

relevant industries, use its Members’ connections with other committees, and use

whatever one-on-one connections there may be with other relevant legislators, industry executives, and executive branch personnel? Such matters rarely are brought

up directly in hearings, of course, and yet they occur daily in governmental life. I

wonder if there isn’t a way to make enrollment of other committees in an overall

push for greener chemistry a higher priority?

One example of the kind of policy proposal that would galvanize industry demand

for Green Chemistry would be a revenue-neutral tax and subsidy program. Place an

excise tax on sales of some of the most suspect categories of existing chemicals, perhaps scaled by industry itself based on estimated risks, and give the funds back to

chemical companies as tax credits for innovations in benign chemicals. In effect, the

innovative companies would be paid by the laggards. Inasmuch as the largest companies in the industry tend to have the best R&D staffs, and hence are most capable

of using technological leadership for competitive advantage, a side effect of the policy probably would be to accentuate the comparative advantage of the most dynamic

companies. Among other results, this might better position them for international

competition if a transnational phase out of chlorinated hydrocarbons should eventuate.

Finally, it seems to me that the Green Chemistry case raises questions about how

public-interest science gets done in the U.S. We proceed as if it were a nonpartisan

search for truth, when we all know that ideology, careerism, narrow-mindedness,

and habitual thinking are common in science as in other human endeavors. As Michael Crichton expressed the point,

Just as we have established a tradition of double-blinded research to determine

drug efficacy, we must institute double-blinded research in other policy areas

as well. Certainly the increased use of computer models, such as GCMs (global

climate models), cries out for the separation of those who make the models from

those who verify them. The fact is that the present structure of science is entrepreneurial, with individual investigative teams vying for funding from organizations that all too often have a clear stake in the outcome of the research—or

appear to, which may be just as bad. This is not healthy for science.

Sooner or later, we must form an independent research institute. . .funded by

industry, by government, and by private philanthropy, both individuals and

trusts. The money must be pooled, so that investigators do not know who is

paying them. The institute must fund more than one team to do research in

a particular area, and the verification of results will be a foregone requirement:

teams will know their results will be checked by other groups. In many cases,

those who decide how to gather the data will not gather it, and those who gather the data will not analyze it. (Crichton 2003).

I find his expression of the idea a bit formulaic, but the core insight has merit.

We are in the state we are, trapped in Brown Chemistry, partly because chemists

75

and chemical engineers worked first of all for industry, secondly for themselves and

their organizations, and only thirdly for the public. They operated as insiders, not

with bad intent but with bad effect, and the arrangement made perfect sense, in

a way, considering who was paying. There is a sense in which 20th century chemistry and chemical engineering did not go through sufficiently rigorous ‘‘social purposes review’’ with respect to basic considerations about brown versus green design

of chemicals. If Congress and the citizenry want a different sort of chemistry, and

a different sort of public-regarding science more generally, it might make sense to

face up squarely to the fact that genuine accountability may require more sophisticated arrangements than we now have.

Conclusion

In recent interviews, Jeff Howard asked a half dozen of the world’s leading Green

Chemists about impediments to chemical greening. By a wide margin, they said that

‘‘economic inertia’’ was the most significant barrier and ‘‘professional inertia’’ came

second. Scientific uncertainty and other technical matters were rated as important

but lesser barriers. In other words, social factors are more important barriers than

purely technical ones.

Although I strongly support the legislation pending before this committee, therefore, I recommend thinking of it as one step in a long process. For the future, I recommend that the Committee consider ways to:

• Increase funding (including tax credits) well beyond what is presently feasible;

• Look into some of the mundane aspects of Chemistry and Chemical Engineering education, in order to catalyze curricular change, promote chemical ethics

education, revise university accreditation procedures to enhance social responsibility, and improve professional licensing;

• Draw social scientists and ethicists into study of Brown/Green Chemistry;

• Stimulate chemical engineering economics research to prepare the way for industry adoption of Green Chemistry techniques;

• Go outside the established funding agencies and advisory mechanisms for policy analysis bolder than what can make it through the traditional procedures;

• Use the Brown/Green Chemistry case to reconsider how to arrange much

more sophisticated public-interest science;

• Envision a long-term process via which this committee plays a leading role

in helping humanity re-vision its relations with chemicals.

76

77

78

79

80

81

82

83

84

85

86

87

88

89

90

91

92

93

94

DISCUSSION

Chairman BOEHLERT. Thank you, Dr. Woodhouse, and thank you

for those suggestions and the excellent testimony. I have got a suggestion for you. You tell a story exceptionally well. I would hope

that you would consider doing some thoughtful op-ed pieces, because part of the problem is that the public needs to be educated

in this area. And some of the examples you gave are outstanding

examples. And some op-ed pieces would, I think, get people’s attention. So thank you very much for that testimony.

The Chair will yield the Chair to the author of the legislation,

Dr. Gingrey. I have to take leave for a few moments, and he will

lead off with the questions, and then he will recognize Ms. Johnson.

Mr. GINGREY. [Presiding.] I thank the Chairman and I thank the

witnesses for their testimony.

Let me just start off the questioning, and this actually will be for

all five of the panel members. Hopefully, you will want to comment.

In what ways do you think that this bill, H.R. 3970, would accelerate adoption of green chemistry in the private sector? And please

describe the elements of the bill that you think will have the greatest effect. And we can start with Dr. Bement.

Dr. BEMENT. One program at the National Science Foundation

that, I think, has a great potential in that regard is our work in

entrepreneurship and innovation—partnerships and innovation

that link the private sectors with universities, and especially small

start-ups, because this is an area that is evolving very, very rapidly. There is a very broad, rich spectrum of research going on at

universities right now that have potential economic, as well as environmental, benefit. And what is needed right now is to compress

the lead-time of getting some of these new concepts into the marketplace. And I think that these types of partnership programs

would be most useful.

Mr. GINGREY. Dr. Gilman.

Dr. GILMAN. I actually think one of the benefits of funding research, as you have proposed, is the spillover that happens in

places of education with doctoral and undergraduates being introduced to the field of research. I think as they find their way into

industry, the folks who have an understanding and the knowledge

about the use of these approaches, green engineering and green

chemistry, make it easier for the private sector to adopt those approaches. So I think that is an indirect benefit of what you are proposing to do with the legislation.

Mr. GINGREY. Dr. Cue.

Dr. CUE. I see three potential benefits to this legislation. First

and foremost, I think it brings the Federal Government focus to

green chemistry that has been too infrequent in the past. Like

many in my generation, I went into science because our national

leaders challenged us in the early—late 1950s to respond to the

embarrassment of Sputnik. And I believe that a similar challenge

to industry and to academics will generate the same response in

green chemistry. Specifically, this is going to dramatically, I believe, improve the situation with regard to students going into

green chemistry and academia, because more money will be availVerDate 11-MAY-2000 12:56 Aug 23, 2004 Jkt 092512 PO 00000 Frm 00098 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6601 C:\WORKD\FULL04\031704\92512 SCIENCE1 PsN: SCIENCE1
95

able to have that happen; more universities will have green chemistry programs, and companies like mine will be hiring chemists,

who, from day one, know about green chemistry and can practice

green chemistry principles.

I also believe this is an opportunity to better integrate government, industry, and academic activities around green chemistry.

Mr. GINGREY. Thank you.

And Mr. Bradfield.

Mr. BRADFIELD. I would say that solid science is absolutely critical to changing some of the economic and professional inertia that

Dr. Woodhouse was speaking about before. We absolutely can not

go forward without the kind of cooperative projects between the

universities and industry that are going to provide that kind of scientific foundation. It also sends a signal to stakeholders that we

have a concern in the case, the Federal Government, and the value

of that can’t be underestimated.

Mr. GINGREY. Thank you.

And Dr. Woodhouse.

Dr. WOODHOUSE. I like the part about expanding the education

and training of undergraduate and graduate students. How to

achieve that, however, is an interesting question. And one of the

possibilities that I would recommend to you is to consider the possibility—whether or not there may be connections that Members of

this committee have with Ford Foundation and other groups of that

nature so that you could use your symbolic capital in a way that

would greatly magnify the funding that you can otherwise provide

so that university departments rarely turn down offers of funding.

And yet without very substantial offers of that kind, I fear that

chemistry and chemical engineering professors will not take the

time and effort to retool their curricula. And so I would look for

creative ways to leverage that don’t cost federal dollars.

Mr. GINGREY. And if I could ask just a real quick follow-up before

yielding to the Ranking Member, H.R. 3970 authorizes an interagency research and development program. And do you think that

greater federal investment in green chemistry R&D would actually

increase adoption of green chemistry by industry? Anyone?

Mr. BRADFIELD. I would say absolutely. One of the things that

we find today is we have to cast about—out in the marketplace, in

cooperation with university partners, for grants in order to find the

way to fund a lot of these things, which are—will underpin the ultimate green chemistry that finds its way into practical applications

in industry. These are basic research projects that would have applicability to a wide range of industries, and not necessarily to any

particular industry or industry player, such as Shaw Industries.

We believe that those are the kinds of things that should be done

as a cooperative effort between academia and government and the

industry. Anything over and beyond that, we, as individual companies, should be willing to fund and invest in on our own. But it creates a tremendous base of understanding in basic research.

Mr. GINGREY. Thank you.

Dr. WOODHOUSE. I see this as being not solely about formulas

and tactics, but about being—regarding hearts and minds, vision,

worldview. What is it that humanity ought to be aiming for? And

so in that sense, it may be that the particular research that is cataVerDate 11-MAY-2000 12:56 Aug 23, 2004 Jkt 092512 PO 00000 Frm 00099 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6601 C:\WORKD\FULL04\031704\92512 SCIENCE1 PsN: SCIENCE1
96

lyzed is less significant than the signal that is sent regarding the

importance. I believe there will be the beginnings of a trans-national phase-out of many of the most toxic chemicals in the 21st

century. We are not ready for that. We can get readier by some of

the research that this will catalyze. So I think both the tangible

and the intangible matter here a great deal.

Mr. GINGREY. Thank you very much.

And I see my time is expired, so at this point, I will yield to my

friend from Tennessee, the Ranking Member, Mr. Gordon, for his

question. Thank you.

Mr. GORDON. Thank you.

And this is a question for the panel at large. In addition to the

benefits that this bill will provide, what other federal actions could

be taken that would accelerate the adoption of green chemistry?

We will just start at the—my left and work around.

Dr. BEMENT. Yes. Thank you, Mr. Gordon. As you know, there

is plenty of incentive these days to develop as much leverage of

available research and development resources as is possible, especially with tight budgets. The opportunities in research, especially

in green chemistry, are far greater than the amount of resources.

So we have been incentivized for several years in working closely

with EPA, with the Department of Energy, and with NIST in trying to get more output, more outcome, for the amount of R&D

investment——

Mr. GORDON. Okay, but what additional federal actions could we

take? What would you recommend, additional actions beyond this

bill that would accelerate the process?

Dr. BEMENT. Quite frankly, I can’t really come up with anything

highly creative other than——

Mr. GORDON. Okay. That is all right.

Dr. BEMENT.—what is currently being done.

Mr. GORDON. That is fine. Let us just work on down the Committee and see if we do have some creativity here somewhere. Anyone else have any suggestions? Yes, sir.

Dr. CUE. Within the pharmaceutical industry, one of the challenges that we face in applying green chemistry solutions to existing manufacturing processes is if we change the manufacturing

process, we almost always change the purity profile of our product.

That could require, in many cases, redoing expensive development

studies in order to prove to the Food and Drug Administration that

our products are safe. And that is an issue that I have no solution

to addressing, but clearly, I believe, is something that we need to

address, at least in the pharmaceutical industry, as we go forward.

How do we act on these new scientific discoveries in a way that allows them to be incorporated without altering the quality of our

products?

Mr. GORDON. Yes, sir. Go ahead.

Mr. BRADFIELD. Several things could help, from an industry

point of view, and my—and in my view. Certainly tax credits are

always welcome in trying to put new investment out there, which

may or may not pay off. We take a tremendous risk when we put

a couple hundred million dollars into a program for which we may

actually get no return whatsoever. In the case of Shaw and

EcoWorxΤΜ, we got tremendous payback on that product. And the

97

public got good value. Federal purchasing, based on multiple environmental impacts versus single impacts, like recycled content,

would be extremely helpful in helping to understand exactly what

all of the impacts are of development, not simply a one-dimensional

impact.

And then, of course, one of the things that we see happening

today is many people are rushing to put standards in place for environmental programs, and yet we don’t know enough. We don’t

have enough good science yet to do anything more than offer those

as guidances. And so I think there is rush to judgment, in some

ways, to put hard and fast standards in at the federal level. It

needs to be mitigated a little bit by that caution of saying, ‘‘We

may know tomorrow more than we know today. Let us take a slow

approach here.’’

Dr. WOODHOUSE. In the nanotechnology legislation this committee was largely responsible for, you had thoughtful consideration about public participation. And it seems to me that something analogous to that could be beneficial in the green chemistry

case. It is not as obvious, since it is a different phenomenon, how

to go about it, but the environmental interest groups are not paying the attention to green chemistry that they ought to. Journalists

are not paying the attention to green chemistry that they ought to.

Mr. GORDON. But that is not federal action; I am asking——

Dr. WOODHOUSE. I am——

Mr. GORDON. Okay. You will get there.

Dr. WOODHOUSE. Yes. I hope so. The social scientists are not—

very few social scientists have been—in history of science, for example, history of 20th century chemistry, is one of the least represented fields. So one of the things I would consider catalyzing is

additional social science attention and, more generally, social attention to the phenomenon. And that is something that sometimes

funding of the sort that is targeted set aside can assist with. So the

ethical, legal, and social implications programs that go with some

federal science bills, might be worth considering.

Mr. GORDON. All right. Let me just, finally—let us assume that

we have a consumer epiphany here in this country, and they go to

the industries involved here and say, ‘‘We have just got to have,’’

you know, ‘‘green products. We just can’t live without them, and we

are going to pay you more for them, and so please get them out

on the market.’’ So that happens. But what happens so oftentimes

then is that it is still going to be more expensive. Third-world countries are going to say, you know, ‘‘You have made yours. You can

afford to do this. We can’t, so we are not going to go forward.’’ So

how do we deal with this on an international basis? Anybody have

any suggestions?

Mr. BRADFIELD. I think there are a couple of things that work

there, Mr. Gordon. The third-world problem is, and it is a thorny

one, as you well know as legislators. It has been said that between—we would need between 4 and 4.7 planets the size of the

Earth in order for everyone around the globe to enjoy the same

level of standard of living that we do here in this country. And you

can imagine what a tremendous drain that would be on the resources almost overnight. That would put us in a cataclysmic situation.

98

What we have to do is be willing to share best practices and to

transfer technology, in my opinion. We can not afford for other

countries to go through the learning curve that we did in a cradleto-grave economy. We must move in a cradle-to-cradle loop and be

willing to share those loops and get those into other economies and

get them beyond that paradigm much more quickly.

Mr. GORDON. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. GINGREY. Thank you, Mr. Gordon.

And I will now recognize the physicist from Michigan, my good

friend, Dr. Ehlers.

Mr. EHLERS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. It is—I am a physicist

only because I had a few explosions in chemistry lab. No, not really. But I have to say, when I was a student, the only green chemistry I saw was the molds growing on some leftover samples that

I neglected to get rid of.

I am very delighted with what is happening with green chemistry. And I guess—it seems to me the question here is how can

we accelerate the change. What are the factors here?

And let me focus in on just one. I was very surprised to hear

from Dr. Woodhouse the—not only that there is very little green

chemistry taught, but that there seems to be opposition on the part

of chemistry faculties to teaching green chemistry. Perhaps I

shouldn’t be surprised. That bears out an adage that I always used

to say to—or a saying that I propagated to my colleagues when I

was a teacher, and that is that professors and teachers are, in a

sense, bi-polar: they are the world’s most liberal people about other

people’s affairs and most conservative about their own affairs. And

so they are quite willing to change the world, but not willing to

change their department or their courses. The—and then I spent

my life trying to fight that tendency within myself, and didn’t always succeed, so I am not being supercritical. But a question for

each of you, other than Dr. Woodhouse, and that is what do you

see as the status of green chemistry education in the U.S. today?

Are chemistry students graduating with green chemistry skills and

knowledge or not?

And specifically for Dr. Cue and Mr. Bradfield, do your companies typically have to train scientists in green chemistry when you

hire them, or are you finding students on the market who do have

green chemistry skills?

And the final question is: does having green chemistry skills improve their marketability in the job place today?

So we will just go down the line. We will go right to left this

time. Mr. Bradfield.

Mr. BRADFIELD. What we find is we hire a tremendous number

of scientifically-based professionals: a lot of engineers, both chemical and mechanical, textile engineers, and so forth. We find that

they come to us with a certain bias toward doing it the old way.

There is definitely some retraining that has to go on in trying to

change the way they think about some of the things that we are

trying to achieve. I do believe that it is very hard to break down

those barriers, but when you get them young and get them trained

and indoctrinated into some of the things we want to do, and we

find that they respond very quickly.

99

The biggest single hurdle, and the reason for my existence within

the—our organization is simply because I am the guy that says,

‘‘We will not take no for an answer.’’ I am the guy who does not

believe that it can not be done. When there are—seems to be so

much scientific certainty, this says that it can not be done. And so

it takes change agents. It takes problem-solvers. It takes people

who believe that there is a way, if you only look hard enough. And

what we have found is many of those same chemists and engineers,

in the end, become believers once you show them that there are,

indeed, ways to move forward.

Mr. EHLERS. The irony is that I have always felt that scientists,

intrinsically, should be change agents just because that is the nature of science. And it is shocking if students don’t see themselves

that way.

Dr. Cue.

Dr. CUE. There is a saying that is very popular at Pfizer right

now, and that is that ‘‘culture eats strategy for breakfast every day

of the week.’’ And green chemistry is really a strategy so far, and

I think what it needs to be is a cultural change. So I believe it is

absolutely true that most chemists, trained in academics, don’t get

enough exposure to green chemistry, nor do they really understand

the difference between green chemistry and traditional chemistry.

There are some very good schools in the United States that train

chemists in green chemistry, and the programs on toxicology and

environmental chemistry are increasing, but the pace has to increase, and the number of these schools has to increase. And I

think industry has to be more active in going out and looking for

students from these schools, as opposed to the tried and true

schools, like Harvard, Yale, MIT in the Northeast, for example, the

University of Michigan, other schools like that.

I think the other issue that we confront is that most of the research happens—begins at the lab stage, and a laboratory chemist,

by and large, just doesn’t appreciate, when they are handling very

small quantities of material, what the impact of that looks like

when we scale it up to commercial quantities. So there is kind of

a view of, ‘‘Well, it is only a lab. How much can I—it is only a few

hundred milliliters. It is only a pint of water. I am not generating

that much waste.’’ So I think we need to do a better job of educating the people in the laboratory, be it an industrial lab, be it an

academic lab, be it a government lab. That lab-scale chemistry does

count. And if it is successful, somebody is going to be using it in

the commercial scale someday.

We have found that we have had to create programs of our own

to train our scientists in green chemistry, because we are not having them show up on day one. We are starting to see now a flow

of chemists trained in green chemistry, so I predict that will

change. After all, green chemistry has only been around for a decade, and with any kind of a program, it takes about 10 years to

start to get the yield in the investment.

We are also working very hard—diligently with schools in our

area—in our R&D site areas to bring students in to let them understand what industrial chemistry looks like and how green chemistry can positively impact that, so when they go back to the universities, they can teach the faculties—tell the faculties, ‘‘Yes, inVerDate 11-MAY-2000 12:56 Aug 23, 2004 Jkt 092512 PO 00000 Frm 00103 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6601 C:\WORKD\FULL04\031704\92512 SCIENCE1 PsN: SCIENCE1
100

dustry is serious about this. They are anxious to see green chemistry practiced. And we better get about the job of teaching it in

academia.’’

Mr. EHLERS. Dr. Gilman.

Dr. GILMAN. One of the reasons we—one of the first steps we

took in trying to reshape our focus on sustainability was to introduce the P3 Award, largely for engineering schools, but that includes chemical engineering as well, was to begin to raise the level

of awareness and interest. And I am very hopeful that next month

we will be able to announce to you a collaborative effort we are

doing to provide information on those schools, those graduate

schools, that provide a focus in their curriculum on the sciences

and technology associated with sustainability. So provide for interested students and really bring to the attention of the university

administrators that there is an interest, and just rack up for folks,

on a side-by-side basis, what curricula and what universities hold

for people interested in this direction.

Mr. EHLERS. I am glad to hear that.

Dr. GINGREY. Dr. Ehlers, if we could, and I thank you, I think

a vote has been called, and I did want to have time to recognize

your colleague from Michigan and the Subcommittee Chairman of

Research, Mr. Nick Smith.

Mr. SMITH. Thank you very much.

It seems to me that too often we sort of romance about the environmental benefits of regulations and other environmentally benign practices without regard to their impact on business and the

economy. And so that is part of my question. That approach is

short-sighted, especially in today’s globally competitive environment, where even the most minor misguided regulation or requirement can put us at an enormous competitive disadvantage. And so

that balance and that knowledge, and therefore, that adequate research is so important, and I think maybe part of—how much a

role can government play? How much a role does good information

play in stimulating the kind of green chemistry advances that can

end up, like you suggested, Mr. Bradfield, in terms of making us

more competitive, rather than less competitive? And so that would

be on my—one of my questions.

And just to make a note of my second question, which is do we

need better coordination between the four agencies that we are

talking about to make sure that we are not overlapping, that we

are not reinventing the wheel, and that we are working together

in terms of the tax-dollar effort that government is playing. And I

will stop there for a couple quick answers.

Dr. Bement.

Dr. BEMENT. Yes. And thank you, Mr. Smith. First of all, in answer to your first question, it is absolutely essential that we have

a strong scientific basis for any regulations that we put out in this

area. And if I can use my split personality, I see that as a role not

only for the National Science Foundation, but also for the National

Institute for Standards and Technology. NIST is very actively involved in developing the science base, and also the standards to

support green chemistry in several dimensions.

101

With regard to your second question, of course there needs to be

close interagency cooperation, and we need to build on the cooperation that currently exists.

Mr. SMITH. Any other comments? Mr. Bradfield.

Mr. BRADFIELD. Yes. Just two quick comments. We see a tremendous need for interagency coordination; even within the same agency sometimes, you can have conflicting rules that affect industry,

one giving an incentive for green chemistry, the other, perhaps,

giving you a disincentive for creating new materials.

The other thing I would say here is as a manager at Shaw and

Vice-President, I am constantly green chemistry and sustainability.

I have to sell up. I have to sell down. I have to sell out. And in

order for—to do that, I need all of the help I can get, and if the

Federal Government would interest my most senior management

with tax credits that they know are going to push them a little bit

more in that direction, they would be more inclined to be accepting

of these projects where they are putting dollars at risk, then I can

get more done.

Mr. SMITH. Thank you.

Dr. WOODHOUSE. I would like to pick up on your point about

global competition and cut it the other way. It seems to me there

is a danger of the U.S. losing out to the E.U. and other arenas.

BASF and B.P., for example, have taken strategic choices to phase

out chlorinated hydrocarbons, because they are worried about the

long-term effect on their industry. Whether they phase them out

over a decade, a generation, or a century, they haven’t said, so we

don’t really know what is going on there.

But conversely, some of the U.S. companies are actually moving

into markets that the Europeans are vacating. That is worrisome

to me. I hate to see the U.S. lag rather than lead. And I—just from

a purely commercial point of view, given the long lead time that

is involved with major chemical facilities, if U.S. companies are not

taking an aggressive stance towards green chemistry, and if the

world continues to move, as I predict it will, towards the phase-out

of the toxic chemicals, we are going to be caught behind. So that

is the——

Mr. SMITH. So the bottom line—I mean, for lack of a better word,

you—there is a golden mean on both ways——

Dr. WOODHOUSE. Absolutely.

Mr. SMITH.—that we need to work at, and hopefully it is going

to be the green chemistry that is going to add for—add to our ability to be competitive in the most environmentally positive way.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. GINGREY. We—thank you, Mr. Smith.

We are rapidly running out of time, and I wanted to ask a quick

question before we wrap up the hearing. And I am going to direct

this mainly to Dr. Bement and Dr. Gilman. And actually, this is

a two-part question. Do you think that the Nation might benefit

from a more strategically focused, green chemistry R&D program?

And are there adequate mechanisms by which agencies currently

interact to determine strategies and priorities in green chemistry?

Just quickly, Dr. Bement and Dr. Gilman.

Dr. BEMENT. I think that the program that we have is balanced

in that it balances individual investigator grants with center

102

grants. And the important thing about the center grants is that

they also integrate public outreach, K through 12 outreach, and

also curriculum development. So the program addresses a lot of the

issues that have been raised during this hearing.

I think those programs have a natural growth potential right

now. There is a lot of growing interest in these areas. All of these

programs are growing, and they are distributed around the country, but obviously, it is something that needs to be nourished, nurtured, and continued to be encouraged.

Mr. GINGREY. And Dr. Gilman.

Dr. GILMAN. Our current extramural programs are well coordinated, I think, between the National Science Foundation and the

EPA. To give it a more strategic focus, you probably need to bring

to bear more agencies, and you probably need to bring to bear intramural work as well. EPA has both an intramural and an extramural research program. We have quite an extensive intramural

program in pollution prevention and green chemistry. The effort is

ongoing. As I said, we have a history of collaboration between agencies, especially on the extramural side. There are some efforts in

the Office of Science & Technology Policy (OSTP) right now to try

and make that a broader collaboration between agencies, Department of Energy, Department of Transportation, and the like. So we

could do better at our coordination. We are trying to do better. And

the levels of interaction are quite good, especially on the extramural side right now.

Mr. GINGREY. Thank you, Dr. Gilman.

And with that, we will wrap up this hearing. I want to thank all

of the participants, each member of the panel, Dr. Bement, Dr. Gilman, Dr. Cue, Mr. Bradfield, Dr. Woodhouse, for your testimony.

Unfortunately, we have to rush to make a quick vote, as my colleagues have already left, but I do thank you for your testimony,

and of course, I really appreciate the unanimous support of H.R.

3970.

And with that, we will declare this hearing closed.

Thank you all very much.

[Whereupon, at 11:30 a.m., the Committee was adjourned.]

(103)

Appendix:

ADDITIONAL MATERIAL FOR THE RECORD

104

105

106

107

108

109

110

111

STATEMENT BY ARDEN BEMENT ON THE NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF STANDARDS AND

TECHNOLOGY’S GREEN CHEMISTRY ACTIVITIES

NIST’s Measurements and Standards Are Key Enablers for

Green Chemistry

NIST provides the measurements and standards that are essential for—development of green products and processes; industries to accurately assess their compliance with regulations; government agencies to ensure that environmental regulations are tenable and supportable by science based measurements.

NIST works directly with industry, government agencies and consensus standards

organizations to facilitate the development of scientific measurement methods and

standards that enable manufacturers test new products unequivocally for regulatory

requirements. NIST is involved in advancing new technology development—in areas

of energy such as fuel cells, in methods to minimize chemical waste and computational tools for assessing chemical efficiency of processes and life-cycle of products.

Examples of Impact of NIST’s Research in Green Chemistry:

• Green Solvents Processing: NIST is making key property measurements

and creating a web-accessible database on the properties of ‘‘green’’ solvents.

Properties include measures of chemical stability, solubility, etc. for potential

replacement candidates for environmentally hazardous chlorinated solvents;

edible oils as alternative solvents for agricultural product preprocessing and

stabilization; and studying ionic liquids as a class of solvents with good potential for ‘‘green processing.’’

• Lead-Free Solder for Semiconductors: The microelectronics industry estimates that the transition to lead-free solders in semiconductors is at least an

order of magnitude more difficult than the elimination of chloroflurocarbons

(CFCs). NIST research on materials and standards allowed for much faster

implementation of processes leading to new lead-free products. Since the U.S.

is transitioning to the relatively expensive but non-toxic lead-free solder, it

is in the U.S.’s interest to promote lead-free solder standards internationally.

• Fuel Cells Development: NIST is developing a test protocol for residential

fuel-cell systems, covering issues of efficiency, performance, and compatibility

with the power grid for interconnection. The NIST Center for Neutron Research, the Nation’s premier experimental neutron facility, utilizes neutron

beams to image electrochemical processes inside fuel cells attracting the attention of major hydrogen fuel cell manufacturers.

• Green Buildings Design: NIST developed the BEES (Building for Environmental and Economic Sustainability) software, designed to explicitly help the

construction industry select ‘‘green’’ building products that are cost-effective

over their life-cycle. BEES measures environmental/health performance

across all stages in the life of a product.

• Alternative Refrigerants: NIST enabled the transition from ozone-depleting

CFCs to alternate refrigerants by providing a database of refrigeration properties of potential candidates. The database has been applied to problems of

mixed refrigerant gases, and the mixtures of substances found in natural gas.

It can potentially be extended for mixtures more typically found in fuel cell

systems, and in hydrogen pipeline systems, especially converted natural gas

pipelines. An economic assessment of this database (to provide U.S. industry

with materials properties data, which enabled refrigerant and equipment

manufacturers to comply with international agreements to phase out use of

ozone-depleting chloroflurocarbons) indicated a benefit-cost ratio of 97 to 1.*

• Standard Reference Materials for Sulphur in Fossil Fuel: NIST produces a variety of well characterized materials known as Standard Reference

Materials (SRM). The Sulphur SRMs are used to accurately determine the

amount of unwanted Sulphur in fossil fuels. This is an area where large economic benefits can be expected from highly accurate measurements. An economic analysis of this program (to provide standard reference materials for

measurement methods and validation, quality control, and instrument calibration needed by U.S. fossil fuel industries to reduce sulfur dioxide emissions) indicated a benefit-cost ratio of 113 to 1.*

• Regulated Materials Data Exchange Standards: NIST is coordinating the

revision of the Interconnecting and Packaging Electronic Circuits (IPC) ProdVerDate 11-MAY-2000 12:56 Aug 23, 2004 Jkt 092512 PO 00000 Frm 00115 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6621 C:\WORKD\FULL04\031704\92512 SCIENCE1 PsN: SCIENCE1
112

uct Data eXchange (PDX) standards to include required materials declaration

information. These standards are used for thousands of transactions monthly,

and the revision under development will carry information such as the percent content of regulated materials, such as lead, mercury, cadmium, and

hexavalent chromium.

* http://www.nist.gov/director/planning/strategicplanning.htm

113

Additional Testimony in Support of

H.R. 3970, GREEN CHEMISTRY RESEARCH AND

DEVELOPMENT ACT OF 2004

DR. J. MICHAEL FITZPATRICK

PRESIDENT AND CHIEF OPERATING OFFICER

ROHM AND HAAS COMPANY

Chairman Boehlert, Ranking Member Gordon, and Members of the Committee—

thank you for inviting me to provide comments about the proposed Green Chemistry

Research and Development Act of 2004. This legislation is a tremendous step forward in encouraging and advancing the continued discovery of green and sustainable technologies. Although a conflict prevented me from testifying in person at the

hearing on March 17, my company feels strongly about this subject, and I plan to

visit as many Committee Members as I can before the markup period closes to further discuss the benefits of this legislation.

I am the President and Chief Operating Officer of Rohm and Haas Company, one

of the world’s largest manufacturers of specialty chemicals. For nearly 100 years,

our company has been in the business of discovering, developing, and manufacturing

innovative materials that find their way into a wide range of major markets. Yet,

most consumers have never heard of us because nearly everything we invent is used

by other industries to make their products better, faster, stronger, and in many

cases, more environmentally friendly. With perhaps the exception of Plexiglas,

which Rohm and Haas invented in the 1930s, and the Morton Salt brand, which

we acquired in 1999, our products have gone largely unnoticed by the general public. Still, Rohm and Haas technology touches our lives in one way or another every

day.

We are the world’s largest manufacturer of acrylic monomer, and we pioneered

the use of waterborne acrylic polymers in all kinds of coatings, from house and roadmarking paints to water-based varnishes and paper coatings. We’re a leader in developing environmentally friendly powder coatings that can replace alternatives

based on solvent technology, and we offer a line of advanced, water-based automotive coatings designed especially for interior and exterior plastic parts in automobiles—a technology that gives car designers the ability to use more high performance plastics in their designs, thus lowering vehicle weight and increasing fuel efficiency. Recently, we introduced a new line of waterborne acrylic emulsion polymers

that can replace formaldehyde in household insulation.

Our process chemicals can be found in a wide range of applications, from unique

ion exchange resins that purify everything from water to new classes of pharmaceuticals, to biocides that control the growth of harmful bacteria in personal care

products.

Our research and development in electronic materials is world class, with a broad

set of products used by top semiconductor manufacturers worldwide. Our photoresist

chemicals are used to replicate minute circuitry patterns on silicon wafers, and our

planarization technology polishes these wafers to a mirror finish, a critical step in

smaller and more powerful semiconductors. Our ‘‘embedded’’ circuit board technology places resistors and capacitors within a circuit board instead of on top of it,

enabling smaller and smaller cell phones, PDAs, and other portable electronic devices.

Many of Rohm and Haas’s water-based adhesives continue to find use in hundreds

of applications, from caulks and sealants, to construction adhesives and laminates.

Our new cold seal technology is used in food packaging, where traditional heat sealing would be undesirable.

Our company employs more than 17,000 people and recorded over $6.4 billion in

sales last year. We operate more than 100 research and manufacturing facilities in

25 countries. Our headquarters is located on historic Independence Mall in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, just a few blocks away from our original offices established in

1909 by founders Otto Ro ̈hm and Otto Haas. And while we have changed, adapted,

and of course grown since those early years, we retain a strong and unambiguous

thread to the values that our founders imparted on the organization: concern for our

employees, the neighbors where we operate, and our customers. We strive to ensure

Rohm and Haas operations and products meet the needs of the present global community without compromising the needs of future generations. At Rohm and Haas,

we work hard to integrate economic growth, environmental protection, and social responsibility as important considerations in our business decisions.

114

I joined Rohm and Haas in 1975 as a senior scientist following my two years as

a National Institutes of Health postdoctoral fellow at Harvard University. My first

five years were spent in the laboratory, developing new agricultural products at our

company’s main research campus in Spring House, Pennsylvania, about 20 miles

outside of Philadelphia. Although my career took a turn toward marketing and business following that initial assignment, I have always had a passion for the creativity, the excitement and the spirit of innovation. To take an idea, research it, and

develop it into a product from basic chemical building blocks—a product with unique

and sometimes amazing properties—and to see that product improve life, or enhance the broader society in some way, is the joy of every industrial chemist.

I returned to my technology roots in 1993 as Director of Research for Rohm and

Haas. Although I never made it back into the lab, I nonetheless retain a strong relationship to the technology and research side of our industry. I understand the daily

challenges facing researchers: the demands for greater research efficiency, the requirements that an innovation meet multiple safety, efficacy, risk, and environmental expectations, and that it’s marketable at a fair price with sustainable returns.

It is because of my unique career history and my passion for this subject that I

feel especially honored to comment on the benefits of the Green Chemistry Research

and Development Act of 2004. In fact, I have been an active and vocal advocate for

green and sustainable chemistry for nearly 20 years. I am a board member of the

Green Chemistry Institute, and have authored and presented numerous papers and

presentations on green and sustainable chemistry in a variety of publications and

venues around the world. I am proud to work for a company that has been recognized for its research and development of environmentally friendly, game changing

technologies, some of which have completely altered the landscape in certain markets.

Since the early 1990s, Rohm and Haas has been recognized for its ‘‘green’’ technology by the World Environment Center, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), and the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE), to name a few. We were the

first company to be honored with two Presidential Green Chemistry Challenge

Awards, the first for a novel pesticide that mimics a hormone in a particularly destructive caterpillar, causing it to stop feeding, and eventually starving to death.

Best of all, the pesticide has no ill effects on other beneficial insects. We were recognized again for our family of Sea-Nine antifouling biocides, which replaced other

products containing tri-butyl tin. Sea-Nine safely keeps barnacles and other sea

creatures from attaching themselves to ship hulls. A smooth hull means less drag,

which translates into huge fuel savings over thousands of nautical miles.

Rohm and Haas was practicing green chemistry before anyone thought to label

such an endeavor when, in the 1950s, we were the first company to introduce waterbased acrylic polymers used as binders in house paint. Alkyds and other solventbased paints—with their high VOC emissions and difficulty to apply and clean-up—

were the predominant paint technology at the time. Despite a slow beginning and

initial resistance, our researchers remained committed to bringing not only an environmentally friendly alternative to the paint industry, but an alternative that actually performed significantly better than the solvent and oil-based technologies. Our

perseverance paid off and helped spark the birth of modern acrylic latex paints.

Today, 85 percent of paints, stains, and primers purchased by home owners (the DoIt-Yourself market) use waterborne technology.

Although this technology recently celebrated its 50th anniversary, we continue to

build and improve upon our acrylic platform. We expect to soon begin work on new

low VOC coatings using sustainable chemistries, exciting research I’ll describe in

more detail shortly.

During the past 15 years, Rohm and Haas Company has joined, has been a signatory to, or has reaffirmed its support of numerous voluntary programs, including:

EPA’s 33/50 emissions reduction program, the International Chamber of Commerce

charter on Sustainable Development, the Pew Center on Global Climate Change

Business Environmental Leadership Council, the Executive Council of the World

Business Council for Sustainable Development, the U.S. Department of Energy’s Industries of the Future Allied Partner program, and the U.S. Council on Sustainable

Development. We have held various symposiums for our employees, including a twoday ‘‘Innovating for Sustainability’’ conference for company researchers. This event

presented some of the latest green innovations from a broad spectrum of experts,

including Wolfgang Holderich and Malcolm Willis, widely recognized as the authors

of green chemistry.

Our company’s commitment to green and sustainable chemistry begins with its

leadership. In 2002, our Board of Directors renamed the Corporate Responsibility

and Environment, Health, and Safety Committee to the Committee on Sustainable

115

Development, and adopted a new charter for its work. This move has helped us further integrate the principles of green chemistry throughout our company.

Collaboration is Key

During the last several years, environmental, social, and economic forces have

transformed green and sustainable chemistry from merely a secondary consideration

into a core objective of nearly every responsible company in nearly every industry.

Today, before a new chemical compound is synthesized or a new product is designed,

chemists and engineers step back to look holistically at the short- and long-range

impact of their innovations. They question the type of raw materials used. They assess whether safer alternatives are available. They investigate novel manufacturing

methods, and look for ways to reduce or eliminate dangerous byproducts. They consider inherent risks of the new product—risks to workers, communities, and end

users—and how they can be mitigated or completely avoided.

Although you will find these activities underway daily in Rohm and Haas labs

and production plants around the world—and in the labs and plants of other responsible companies—it is by no means easy. Significant resources are required to develop, analyze, and test alternative raw materials or brand new chemistries. This

can lead to the study of thousands of different compounds and formulations. When

a promising material is identified, a fresh round of analysis begins to ensure it

meets strict environmental, risk, economic, and performance expectations. To do this

successfully, I believe industrial research initiatives must turn to broad collaboration with multiple external partners.

Innovations that incorporate green chemistry will emerge and develop far more

quickly when industry works together with government, academia, and even nongovernmental organizations (NGOs, such as environmental or consumer groups) to

address common goals. In recent years, we have seen many tremendous examples

of two or more of these groups joining forces to develop commercially successful

green step-out innovations. The collaboration has paid off handsomely for my industry, for the industries we serve, and certainly for society as a whole. Let me offer

a few examples.

The automotive industry may be one of the most visible stories today that illustrates my point. Within the last three to five years, we have witnessed dramatic

changes in new sources of fuels and alternative propulsion methods—many still

under development, but some commercialized and in use today. As governments

around the world raise fuel economy standards in an attempt to curb greenhouse

gasses, some of the largest automobile companies are rolling out cars that can

achieve two or three times the fuel efficiency versus cars operating with traditional

internal combustion engines. Today, so-called hybrid vehicles appear to be catching

on with automakers and consumers alike. While these ultra efficient automobiles

have gained momentum—to a certain degree from pressure from NGOs and governments—industry has clearly benefited from multiple government funding sources

that have encouraged step-out scientific research on cleaner burning, more efficient

modes of transportation.

Today, Toyota and Honda are selling tens of thousands of these hybrids, which

use a large battery recharged by a smaller-than-normal gas engine and by collecting

energy when the brakes are applied. The electric motor assists the vehicle during

heavy acceleration or at very slow speeds, depending on the technology. By mid-decade, Japanese automakers plan to sell hundreds of thousands of hybrid cars. American car manufacturers are a step or two behind their Japanese counterparts, but

are also working on this technology.

Many believe this represents the beginning of large scale changes in the automotive industry, the first significant change since a gasoline-powered Oldsmobile

gained popularity in 1903, making steam-powered vehicles obsolete. And for the

chemical industry, this change represents both opportunities and challenges. Fundamental shifts in automotive technologies spell changes for our product offerings.

New advanced control and electronic systems, lighter and stronger materials, and

new paint and coating technologies that adhere to and protect composite parts, are

just a few of the opportunities where advanced green chemistry can play a role. At

Rohm and Haas, in collaboration with our JV partner, Nippon Paint, we continue

to develop advanced, environmentally friendly waterborne coatings that protect

plastic auto parts. These coatings are critically important as plastic parts become

thinner and lighter.

We are aggressively working on a new generation of automotive coatings that use

our dry powder technology, virtually eliminating all volatile organic compounds.

This illustrates how opportunities can be uncovered at the interface of seemingly

unrelated entities: in this example, we have ever increasing laws calling for more

efficient automobiles, we have manufacturers meeting their efficiency goals by using

116

lighter, stronger plastic in cars, and we have our water-based coating technology

that eliminates harmful solvents and provides superior protection to plastic parts.

Another challenge for the automotive industry is to ensure that chemistries meet

recyclability guidelines, since many regulations today, particularly throughout Europe, require automobile components to be recycled or reusable. In a wonderful example of collaboration, The Dow Chemical Company and Mitsui Chemicals met this

challenge head-on when they agreed to jointly develop a new block copolymer featuring properties of two resins that will make stronger car bumpers. Not only will

these high-strength bumpers require less resin to manufacture, but if this new product takes the place of traditional metal parts, it will help reduce a car’s overall

weight, which of course translates into better fuel economy. Best yet, this new resin

can be recycled as an adhesive to hold other plastic parts together.

As I am sure Members of this committee are well aware, hybrid vehicles are just

the first step in a giant leap toward even more impressive green and sustainable

technology. Fuel cells that use hydrogen and oxygen to create electric power have

received widespread attention in the media, and for good reason. Generating only

heat and water as its byproduct, this technology is seen by governments around

world (including our own), by NGOs, and by many others as a potential numberone breakthrough in transportation power. Companies, universities, and private laboratories are working on fuel cell technology, and through grants and incentive programs, governments are collaborating with industry to see this technology come to

fruition. I understand that General Motors has 600 researchers working on fuel cell

technology in the U.S. and Germany, and has worked with Germany’s top safety institute, TU ̈ V, to ensure their system meets strict European standards. This is another example where industry and government or quasi-government agencies, working together, are bringing sustainable technology from the lab bench to the consumer. Closer to the chemical industry, one doesn’t have to look very far to find examples

of where we can work closely with the government on green and sustainable technologies. The DOE launched a program to help fund companies conducting biomass

research and development for the production of sustainable products. At Rohm and

Haas, we were pleased when the DOE enacted its Allied Partner program, which

offers not only funding opportunities for new technologies, but also access to DOE

research and data.

Success stories are not limited to collaboration between government and industry.

There are tremendous examples of industry, government, and academic groups pooling their collective know-how to deliver stellar technology with a promising future.

A consortium of Deere & Company, Diversa, duPont, Michigan State University,

and the National Renewable Energy Laboratory received nearly $20 million from

the DOE to develop a ‘‘bio refinery’’ that produces ethanol and other chemicals derived from corn.

There are many more example of broad collaboration outside the United States.

Italy’s National inter-university consortium of chemistry for the environment in

Venice launched an annual recognition program for contributions to clean chemical

processes. In Melbourne, the Royal Australian Chemical Institute has held its Green

Chemistry Challenge Award since 1999. And in the United Kingdom, the Royal Society of Chemistry in London launched the Green Chemistry Network.

Headquartered at the University of York, the 600-member network helps chemical

companies and scientists share best practices, promotes the sharing of green technologies, and offers data supporting the cost benefits of green science.

In another notable example of green chemistry collaboration in England, chemistry professors looking for the right connections with industry can turn to the Crystal Faraday Partnership, a virtual green chemistry center. Jointly developed by the

Royal Society of Chemistry, the Chemical Industries Association in London, and the

Institution of Chemical Engineers, this group is a collaborative conduit, linking the

creative spirit and technical expertise of pure researchers with the financial support

and manufacturing resources of a corporation. In one example I often cite, the Nottingham University chemistry department developed a series of unique supercritical

fluid reactions, and through the Crystal Faraday Partnership, collaborated with fine

chemicals firm Thomas Swan to use these reactions in a variety of processes. The

new technology replaces conventional solvents with inert supercritical fluids in key

processes, leading to reduced or eliminated wastes and undesirable byproducts.

Would Thomas Swan use this new technology today if the collaborative community established by the Royal Society of Chemistry did not exist? Perhaps. But there

is no denying that the Crystal Faraday Partnership and similar organizations that

support and encourage cooperation—often across disparate groups—is a crucial tool

and proven commodity that helps speed the pace of green innovation at companies

around the world.

117

Before moving on, let me touch on another group—the non governmental organizations, or NGOs—that has collaborated with industry to develop green chemistry.

Admittedly, the image of these two very different entities holding hands and

working toward a common goal is not one to which we’re accustomed. Suffice it so

say that industry and many environmental and consumer groups have not in the

past seen eye to eye. Nevertheless, that is beginning to change—slowly, cautiously—

but progress can be seen if you look hard enough.

Nineteen eighty-seven was the year some say we first saw a glimpse of cooperation between industry and environmental groups, at least as it relates to sustainability. That’s the year the United Nations published its report, ‘‘Our Common Future,’’ in which the most frequently quoted definition of sustainable development is

still cited today. It reads:

‘‘Development that meets the needs of the present without compromising the

ability of future generations to meet their own needs.’’

This statement marked the recognition by environmental groups that economic

growth and development were necessary to meet the needs of the world’s expanding

population. It also signaled the philosophical acceptance by industry that growth

must be accomplished in a way that meets the needs of today’s society AND preserves natural resources and the environment for future generations.

Examples of close working relationships between companies and environmental

groups are hard to come by, to be certain. But when these groups join forces, the

results can be impressive. For example, in the late 1990s, the World Wildlife Fund

and Unilever joined forces to start the Marine Stewardship Council. Now an independent non-profit organization, this council offered one of the first ‘‘eco-labels’’ to

identify fish certified to come from an environmentally sustainable catch. This was

a perfect match for Unilever, considering that its Bestfoods division manufactures

fish sticks and other frozen seafood products.

There are literally hundreds of opportunities for chemical companies to accelerate

our pace toward Green and Sustainable Chemistry through powerful collaboration

and partnerships. Is it easy? No. . .it takes work, extra effort, and relationship

building. And let’s be honest—companies that develop new and successful technologies may be inclined to use it as competitive advantage rather than share it

with competitors. That’s a risk/benefit balance that responsible companies must

weigh at some point. One thing is certain, however: The speed in which today’s market demands new chemistries, better processes, and greener products is accelerating. Bringing green chemistry out of the labs and into the marketplace faster

will require the kind of collaboration I have just described. And it will require funding and support.

‘‘The Green Chemistry Research and Development Act of 2004’’ Will Help

Accelerate Pace of Green and Sustainable Innovation

Many of the examples I described included one form or another of government or

quasi-government agency support, either through funding, access to National Labs’

data, or assistance in knowledge transfer. The role of collaborative support in green

and sustainable chemistry research cannot be understated.

As I am sure Committee Members are well aware, the $460 billion chemical industry, a key element to our nation’s economy that accounts for 10 cents out of

every dollar in U.S. exports, is coping with an unprecedented energy crisis. Volatile,

runaway natural gas prices have steadily eroded our ability to compete in an industry that continues to see an influx of very competent, competitive chemical manufactures from Europe, Asia, and the Middle East. Current natural gas prices have

turned U.S. chemical manufactures into the world’s high cost producer. This in turn

has had a profound impact on our profitability, and subsequently, our capacity to

raise (or even maintain) expensive R&D budgets.

Although chemical companies invest more in research and development than any

other business sector, there are disturbing signs that this trend is slipping. In a recent survey conducted by Chemical and Engineering News, a respected industry

publication, only seven out of 17 companies surveyed expected to increase their

R&D spending in 2004. Six plan no increases, while four plan cutbacks in their

R&D budget. According to the survey, 2004 R&D as a percent of sales—a widely

used barometer to indicate a company’s relative commitment to research, will fall

to an estimated decade low of 3.2 percent. This is considerably below the decade

high of five percent in 1994 and two tenths of a percent less compared to last year’s

average.

The upshot? External funding for green chemistry—no matter the size and the

source—cannot come at a better time for an industry that is grappling with historiVerDate 11-MAY-2000 12:56 Aug 23, 2004 Jkt 092512 PO 00000 Frm 00121 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6621 C:\WORKD\FULL04\031704\92512 SCIENCE1 PsN: SCIENCE1
118

cally high energy and raw material prices, squeezed margins, and fierce competition

from companies outside of our boarders.

At Rohm and Haas, we recognized the need to bolster our collaborative skills and

external funding capabilities about two years ago. We conducted a day-long workshop with our top research leaders to teach them about the skill, and the art, of

finding external collaborative partners. Emerging from that seminar was the creation of our Technology Partnerships group, which assists our scientists with matching their projects with potential external funding opportunities. This effort has

yielded promising results.

One example is the work I mentioned earlier about new low VOC coatings using

sustainable chemistries. Last year, Rohm and Haas submitted a proposal for a DOE

cooperative grant to research and develop new polymer technologies that can remove as much as 30 percent of raw materials from the polymer particles in an acrylic emulsion, a key ingredient in paint. Working together with Archer Daniels Midland (ADM), the University of Minnesota, and the DOE, Rohm and Haas plans to

match its novel binders with new, renewable plant-based coalescing agents from

ADM to deliver breakthrough coatings that offer outstanding performance, environmental friendliness, and cost efficiency. When fully deployed, this new technology

is expected to save up to 86 trillion BTUs per year. We hope to hear good news

about our proposal soon from the DOE!

This is precisely the type of collaboration that can accelerate critical green chemistry research, and illustrates why the Green Chemistry Research and Development

Act of 2004 is such an important bill. In addition to funding support, which more

and more chemical companies, including my own, are seeking to supplement tightening R&D budgets, this Act encourages technology transfer between key stakeholders. Collaboration between industry, government, academia, and even NGOs, is

a promising trend in research that has proven its worth, and is poised to increase

in the coming years. This bill will encourage and accelerate that movement.

While the bill’s research funding component may be, understandably, the most

visible and sought after benefit, other activities included in the proposed legislation

are equally important. The Federal Government’s encouragement of green chemistry

research—using incentives and other levers—and its power to promote the adoption

and commercial application of green chemistry innovations, can exert great influence on the direction of these endeavors. This is especially important, since recent

history has shown us that consumers are not going to pay more simply because a

product is labeled ‘‘green,’’ or was developed using green chemistry processes.

Although ‘‘green’’ by itself typically is not a compelling selling point, more consumers today are taking a second look when green products demonstrate real (or

sometimes perceived) value. Chances of successfully marketing these products increase dramatically when we can demonstrate increased performance, long-term energy savings, or other tangible benefits for the consumer.

For example, U.S. commercial and residential housing are responsible for more

than 36 percent of our country’s energy consumption, and yet, the success of green

marketing in that industry has varied widely. On the commercial side, marketing

super efficient office buildings has been met with limited success beyond baseline

standards set by the EPA’s Energy Star program. The return on premium costs associated with high efficiency commercial construction cannot be realized unless

property developers and owners hold their buildings long enough to reap utility savings. And since turnover in commercial property ownership is commonplace, green

marketing in this segment is not particularly successful.

On the other hand, the story is much more positive in residential housing, where

encouragement from NGOs and the prospects of lower energy bills (the ‘‘real value’’

I mentioned earlier) have resurrected interest in ‘‘green’’ homes. Spurred by consumers’ interest in smaller monthly utility bills, U.S. builders are marketing environmental friendly features that were unheard of in homes five or 10 years ago. Porous driveways that allow rainwater to settle back into the ground and tankless hot

water heaters, common throughout many parts of Europe and Japan but fairly new

in the U.S., can save up to 50 percent in energy bills. Energy efficient ‘‘low E’’ double pane windows, heating systems approaching 90 percent or better efficiency, and

appliances that use 50 percent less energy versus those in the 1970s are now widely

available. Hard wood flooring continues to loose market share to carpeting and laminates from recycled materials, a shift that has reduced our reliance on diminishing

lumber supplies.

Although some of these examples are not related to green chemistry per se, they

do illustrate that green products can attract consumers’ attention as long as the

products offer value with a clear payoff. Encouragement from this proposed legislation to adopt and use products that are developed from green chemistry is a positive

step in marketing the virtues of green technology.

119

The bill’s provision to ‘‘promote the education and training of undergraduate and

graduate students in green chemistry science and engineering,’’ is another welcome

component. As chemical companies ramp-up their green and sustainable chemistry

research, the need for new technical talent who can hit the ground running with

the right chemistry skills and proper mindset attuned to green technology is a winning combination. There are many companies, including my own, who have established special labs that focus on next generation sustainable technologies. At Rohm

and Haas, our Green Chemistry Laboratory uses the 12 Principles of Green Chemistry as a framework to focus on green opportunities without taking our eyes off of

market realities. As these types of labs increase in number and size, chemists and

engineering graduates with unique green chemistry skills will be in high demand.

Finally, I do not want to short change provisions of the bill that call for the collection and dissemination of information on green chemistry research, and the development of outreach venues that support knowledge transfer. It is difficult to quantify,

but I can tell you from first hand experience that the tools supporting best practice

sharing—conferences, symposiums, electronic forums and databases, written materials—are critically important to the advancement of green and sustainable chemistry. Bringing great minds together, no matter the method, is a force multiplier for

diverse thought and new solutions to old problems.

On behalf of Rohm and Haas Company, I strongly support the Green Chemistry

Research and Development Act of 2004. This legislation provides funding that is crucial, more so today than in recent times, to accelerate green research and development endeavors. Provisions that develop future chemistry and engineering talent,

and foster collaboration and the transfer of best practices, are important catalysts

that will advance new technologies based on sound, responsible science and the

principles of green and sustainable chemistry.

120

STATEMENT IN SUPPORT OF H.R. 3970 BY DR. J. MICHAEL FITZPATRICK, PRESIDENT

AND CHIEF OPERATING OFFICER, ROHM AND HAAS COMPANY

On behalf of the Rohm and Haas Company, I want to offer our support for the

proposed Green Chemistry Research and Development Act of 2004.

Within the last decade, environmental, social, and economic forces have transformed green and sustainable chemistry from merely a secondary consideration into

a core objective of nearly every responsible company in nearly every industry.

Today, before a new chemical compound is synthesized or a new product is designed,

chemists and engineers step back to look holistically at the short- and long-range

impact of their innovations. They question the type of raw materials used, and

whether safer alternatives are available. They investigate novel manufacturing

methods, and look for ways to reduce or eliminate dangerous byproducts. They consider inherent risks of the new product—risks to workers, communities, and end

users—and how they can be minimized or completely avoided.

Although you will find these activities underway daily in Rohm and Haas labs

and production plants around the world—and in the labs and plants of other responsible companies—it is by no means easy. Significant resources are required to develop and test alternatives or brand new chemistries, and to ensure they meet strict

environmental, risk, economic, and performance expectations. To do this successfully, we believe broad collaboration is not only prudent, but necessary.

Innovations that incorporate green chemistry will emerge and develop far more

quickly when government, industry, academia, and even non-governmental organizations (environmental or consumer groups) work together to address common goals.

In the last few years, we have seen many tremendous examples of two or more of

these groups joining forces to develop commercially successful ‘‘green’’ step-out innovations. But much more can be done.

With U.S. chemical companies facing record breaking energy and raw material

prices, one cannot understate the importance of differentiated technology based on

the principles of green chemistry. Rohm and Haas Company believes the proposed

Green Chemistry Research and Development Act of 2004, and its associated funding,

will provide strong support and encouragement for additional collaboration, knowledge transfer, and crucial research on a new class of green and sustainable technologies.

About Rohm and Haas Company

About Rohm and Haas: Rohm and Haas is a worldwide producer of specialty

chemicals with more than 100 plants and research facilities in 26 countries. Rohm

and Haas technology is found in paint and coatings, adhesives and sealants, construction materials, personal computers and electronic components, household cleaning products and thousands of everyday products. Additional information about

Rohm and Haas can be found at www.rohmhaas.com.

121

122

123

124

STATEMENT BY THE AMERICAN CHEMISTRY COUNCIL

AMERICAN CHEMISTRY COUNCIL SUPPORTS COORDINATED FEDERAL GREEN CHEMISTRY R&D PROGRAM

The American Chemistry Council (ACC) supports the establishment of an interagency research and development program to coordinate federal green chemistry

R&D, such as efforts outlined in the Green Chemistry Research and Development Act

of 2004. A coordinated approach would increase efficiency and help identify appropriate goals for a federal green chemistry R&D program.

Green chemistry looks at the life cycle of chemical products—benefits, sustainability, potential risks and other attributes—to help develop products that bring

value to society while reducing environmental impact.

Chemical makers fully recognize the benefits of R&D. In fact, the business of

chemistry spends more on R&D than any other private sector. Chemical makers

share a common interest with the Federal Government in conducting research that

leads to the development of alternatives or new chemistries, while meeting strict environmental, risk, economic and performance expectations.

While R&D often is an inviting target for budget reductions in the private and

public sectors, the Federal Government should focus on making R&D programs

more productive. Despite the difficult economic conditions in the industry and efforts by many companies to reduce spending, chemical makers have become more

efficient users of R&D dollars by reducing bureaucracy, thereby retaining researchers at the bench who generate the new concepts and ideas that ultimately enrich

the future for all Americans and the world.

http://www.accnewsmedia.com

The American Chemistry Council (ACC) represents the leading companies engaged in the business of chemistry. ACC members apply the science of chemistry

to make innovative products and services that make people’s lives better, healthier

and safer. ACC is committed to improved environmental, health and safety performance through Responsible Care, common sense advocacy designed to address major

public policy issues, and health and environmental research and product testing.

The business of chemistry is a $460 billion enterprise and a key element of the Nation’s economy. It is the Nation’s largest exporter, accounting for ten cents out of

every dollar in U.S. exports. Chemistry companies invest more in research and development than any other business sector. Safety and security have always been primary concerns of ACC members, and they have intensified their efforts, working

closely with government agencies to improve security and to defend against any

threat to the Nation’s critical infrastructure.