U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

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

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

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

74–851 2012

PRIORITIZING CHEMICALS FOR SAFETY 

DETERMINATION 

HEARING 

BEFORE THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON COMMERCE, TRADE, 

AND CONSUMER PROTECTION 

OF THE

COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND 

COMMERCE 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

ONE HUNDRED ELEVENTH CONGRESS 

FIRST SESSION 

NOVEMBER 17, 2009 

Serial No. 111–80 

( 

Printed for the use of the Committee on Energy and Commerce 

energycommerce.house.gov 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND COMMERCE 

HENRY A. WAXMAN, California, Chairman 

JOHN D. DINGELL, Michigan 

Chairman Emeritus 

EDWARD J. MARKEY, Massachusetts 

RICK BOUCHER, Virginia 

FRANK PALLONE, JR., New Jersey 

BART GORDON, Tennessee 

BOBBY L. RUSH, Illinois 

ANNA G. ESHOO, California 

BART STUPAK, Michigan 

ELIOT L. ENGEL, New York 

GENE GREEN, Texas 

DIANA DEGETTE, Colorado 

Vice Chairman 

LOIS CAPPS, California 

MICHAEL F. DOYLE, Pennsylvania 

JANE HARMAN, California 

TOM ALLEN, Maine 

JANICE D. SCHAKOWSKY, Illinois 

CHARLES A. GONZALEZ, Texas 

JAY INSLEE, Washington 

TAMMY BALDWIN, Wisconsin 

MIKE ROSS, Arkansas 

ANTHONY D. WEINER, New York 

JIM MATHESON, Utah 

G.K. BUTTERFIELD, North Carolina 

CHARLIE MELANCON, Louisiana 

JOHN BARROW, Georgia 

BARON P. HILL, Indiana 

DORIS O. MATSUI, California 

DONNA M. CHRISTENSEN, Virgin Islands 

KATHY CASTOR, Florida 

JOHN P. SARBANES, Maryland 

CHRISTOPHER S. MURPHY, Connecticut 

ZACHARY T. SPACE, Ohio 

JERRY MCNERNEY, California 

BETTY SUTTON, Ohio 

BRUCE L. BRALEY, Iowa 

PETER WELCH, Vermont 

JOE BARTON, Texas 

Ranking Member 

RALPH M. HALL, Texas 

FRED UPTON, Michigan 

CLIFF STEARNS, Florida 

NATHAN DEAL, Georgia 

ED WHITFIELD, Kentucky 

JOHN SHIMKUS, Illinois 

JOHN B. SHADEGG, Arizona 

ROY BLUNT, Missouri 

STEVE BUYER, Indiana 

GEORGE RADANOVICH, California 

JOSEPH R. PITTS, Pennsylvania 

MARY BONO MACK, California 

GREG WALDEN, Oregon 

LEE TERRY, Nebraska 

MIKE ROGERS, Michigan 

SUE WILKINS MYRICK, North Carolina 

JOHN SULLIVAN, Oklahoma 

TIM MURPHY, Pennsylvania 

MICHAEL C. BURGESS, Texas 

MARSHA BLACKBURN, Tennessee 

PHIL GINGREY, Georgia 

STEVE SCALISE, Louisiana 

(II) 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
(III) 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON COMMERCE, TRADE, AND CONSUMER PROTECTION

BOBBY L. RUSH, Illinois 

Chairman 

JANICE D. SCHAKOWSKY, Illinois 

Vice Chair 

JOHN P. SARBANES, Maryland 

BETTY SUTTON, Ohio 

FRANK PALLONE, JR., New Jersey 

BART GORDON, Tennessee 

BART STUPAK, Michigan 

GENE GREEN, Texas 

CHARLES A. GONZALEZ, Texas 

ANTHONY D. WEINER, New York 

JIM MATHESON, Utah 

G.K. BUTTERFIELD, North Carolina 

JOHN BARROW, Georgia 

DORIS O. MATSUI, California 

KATHY CASTOR, Florida 

ZACHARY T. SPACE, Ohio 

BRUCE L. BRALEY, Iowa 

DIANA DEGETTE, Colorado 

JOHN D. DINGELL, Michigan (ex officio) 

CLIFF STEARNS, Florida 

Ranking Member 

RALPH M. HALL, Texas 

ED WHITFIELD, Kentucky 

GEORGE RADANOVICH, California 

JOSEPH R. PITTS, Pennsylvania 

MARY BONO MACK, California 

LEE TERRY, Nebraska 

MIKE ROGERS, Michigan 

SUE WILKINS MYRICK, North Carolina 

MICHAEL C. BURGESS, Texas 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARING

smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
(V) 

C O N T E N T S 

Page 

Hon. Bobby L. Rush, a Representative in Congress from the State of Illinois, 

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

Hon. George Radanovich, a Representative in Congress from the State of 

California, opening statement ............................................................................. 2 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 5 

Hon. Gene Green, a Representative in Congress from the State of Texas, 

opening statement ................................................................................................ 8 

Hon. Joseph R. Pitts, a Representative in Congress from the Commonwealth 

of Pennsylvania, opening statement ................................................................... 12 

Hon. Diana DeGette, a Representative in Congress from the State of Colorado, opening statement ...................................................................................... 13 

Hon. Phil Gingrey, a Representative in Congress from the State of Georgia, 

opening statement ................................................................................................ 14 

Hon. John D. Dingell, a Representative in Congress from the State of Michigan, opening statement ....................................................................................... 14 

Hon. Christopher S. Murphy, a Representative in Congress from the State 

of Connecticut, opening statement ..................................................................... 16 

Hon. Zachary T. Space, a Representative in Congress from the State of 

Ohio, opening statement ...................................................................................... 16 

Hon. Janice D. Schakowsky, a Representative in Congress from the State 

of Illinois, opening statement .............................................................................. 17 

Hon. Betty Sutton, a Representative in Congress from the State of Ohio, 

opening statement ................................................................................................ 18 

Hon. G.K. Butterfield, a Representative in Congress from the State of North 

Carolina, prepared statement ............................................................................. 20 

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

California, prepared statement ........................................................................... 82 

Hon. Joe Barton, a Representative in Congress from the State of Texas, 

prepared statement .............................................................................................. 84 

WITNESSES

Steve Owens, Assistant Administrator, Office of Prevention, Pesticides and 

Toxic Substances, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency ............................... 22 

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

Answers to submitted questions ...................................................................... 99 

Eric Sampson, Director, Division of Laboratory Sciences, National Center 

for Environmental Health, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention ........ 31 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 33 

Answers to submitted questions ...................................................................... 112 

Daryl Ditz, Senior Policy Advisor, Center for International Environmental 

Law ........................................................................................................................ 42 

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

Answers to submitted questions ...................................................................... 115 

Bill Greggs, Consultant, Consumer Specialty Products Association, Grocery 

Manufacturers Association and Soap and Detergent Association .................... 50 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 52 

Answers to submitted questions ...................................................................... 122 

Beth Bosley, Consultant, Society of Chemical Manufacturers and Affiliates ..... 58 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 60 

Answers to submitted questions ...................................................................... 131 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
Page

VI 

SUBMITTED MATERIAL

Letter of November 16, 2009, from the American Chemistry Council to the 

Subcommittee, submitted by Mr. Green ............................................................ 9 

Statement of the Humane Society of the United States, the Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine, and the People for the Ethical Treatment 

of Animals, submitted by Mr. Rush .................................................................... 87 

Statement of the National Petrochemical and Refiners Association, submitted 

by Mr. Rush .......................................................................................................... 94 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
(1) 

PRIORITIZING CHEMICALS FOR SAFETY 

DETERMINATION 

TUESDAY, NOVEMBER 17, 2009 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON COMMERCE, TRADE, 

AND CONSUMER PROTECTION, 

COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND COMMERCE, 

Washington, DC. 

The subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 11:07 a.m., in Room 

2123 of the Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Bobby L. Rush 

[Chairman of the Subcommittee] presiding. 

Members present: Representatives Rush, Schakowsky, Sarbanes, 

Sutton, Green, Matheson, Butterfield, Barrow, Castor, Space, 

DeGette, Dingell, Markey, Radanovich, Pitts, Murphy, Gingrey and 

Scalise. 

Staff present: Michelle Ash, Chief Counsel; Rebecca Brown, Fellow; Timothy Robinson, Counsel; Angelle Kwemo, Counsel; Aaron 

Ampaw, CBC Fellow; Will Cusey, Special Assistant; Lindsay Vidal, 

Press Assistant; Matt Eisenberg, Special Assistant; Theresa 

Cederoth, Intern; Shannon Weinberg, Minority Counsel; Will 

Carty, Minority Professional Staff; Brian McCullough, Minority 

Senior Professional Staff; Sam Costello, Minority Legislative Assistant; and Jerry Couri, Minority Senior Professional Staff. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. BOBBY L. RUSH, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF ILLINOIS 

Mr. RUSH. The subcommittee will come to order. 

This is the Subcommittee on Commerce, Trade, and Consumer 

Protection, and the purpose of today’s hearing is to hear from various witnesses on the subject of prioritizing chemicals for safety determination, and the Chair wants to acknowledge and welcome everybody, all the participants and the audience, to this very important and timely hearing. 

The Chair now recognizes himself for 5 minutes for the purposes 

of an opening statement. 

The troubling alert that the GAO issued in January 2009 regarding the Environmental Protection Agency should still echo through 

the 111th Congress. Upon adding EPA oversight of toxic chemicals 

and mixtures to its high-risk series, the GAO stated, and I quote, 

‘‘EPA’s inadequate progress in assessing toxic chemicals significantly limits the agency’s ability to fulfill its mission of protecting 

human health and the environment.’’ Given the long-term and adverse impacts that a poor effort to reform the TSCA would have on 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
2 

our economy, public health and environment, we cannot pretend to 

have not heard the alarm. 

There is growing evidence that some of these toxic agents are 

linked to serious and chronic health problems as well as to environmental pollution and contamination of our food sources, our air 

quality and our waterways. 

I stated at our last TSCA subcommittee hearing in February of 

this year that I intended to conduct and conclude a deliberative 

process that reverses past Congressional inaction of reauthorizing 

TSCA and conducting meaningful oversight of the statute’s effectiveness. By coming together this morning to review the EPA’s 

prioritization practices, we are approaching another significant 

milestone in the above-stated process. 

When TSCA was enacted in 1976, Congress failed to employ adequate authority upon the EPA to restrict or ban the use of unsafe 

toxics. Before engaging its enforcement authority under Title I, 

Sections 6 and 9, of TSCA, the EPA would have to meet what now 

appears to have been an insurmountable burden of proof for meeting the unreasonable risk to public safety standard. 

Indeed, the courts have construed the EPA’s power under TSCA 

so narrowly that it has not acted effectively to ban not a one, not 

a single chemical since 1991, nor has the EPA issued testing rules 

for more than 5 percent of those chemicals that appear on the 

EPA’s current Priority Testing List, many of which currently lack 

sufficient safety testing information. 

Even though the EPA has been reluctant to invoke its enforcement authority under TSCA, around 22,000 new chemical substances have been added since 1979 to the EPA’s inventory of individual chemicals, which currently totals more than 84,000 chemicals. As a result, the safety of the vast majority of chemical substances which have been placed into the stream of commerce has 

never been adequately reviewed under TSCA. 

One of our tasks today is to consider options for ranking chemicals from the most unsafe to human health and the environment 

to the least unsafe to human and to the environment. In listening 

to and questioning the witnesses, we should also discuss which parties should bear the obligation of providing sufficient data about 

the properties of chemicals and testing those chemicals, how these 

chemicals and the products containing them are used, and when 

the data that is on hand is inadequate and should trigger further 

testing and assessment. 

Let me extend my deepest thanks to the witnesses who are 

present here. They have come unselfishly give their time, expertise 

and candid viewpoints on this central theme of prioritization as it 

relates to the comprehensive reform of TSCA, and I look forward 

to hearing your testimony. 

And with that, I yield back the balance of my time. 

The Chair now recognizes the ranking member, Mr. Radanovich, 

for the purposes of an opening statement for 5 minutes. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. GEORGE RADANOVICH, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA 

Mr. RADANOVICH. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
3 

I want to welcome everybody to the committee. I appreciate you 

being here with your input and do appreciate the chairman and 

this deliberative process with a subject that hopefully recognizes 

the complexity of the law, the persons impacted by it and the overall impact any reform might have on our Nation’s manufacturing 

sector. Based on my experiences with enormous negative ramifications from enactment of some well-meaning provisions in the toy 

bill and my continuing concerns about the benefits of some of the 

environmental legislation coming out of my home State of California, I remain quite concerned about the direction any effort on 

TSCA might take in the name of reform. I am especially concerned 

that a course of diverse interests might be seen to be calling for 

TSCA reform when in reality these stakeholders might be only 

looking for modest or cosmetic changes. We all know that TSCA is 

a very complex statute and that making radical changes to this law 

could have drastic effects on Americans’ standard of living. Further, we also know that TSCA does not operate in a legal vacuum 

when it comes to regulating chemicals. There are other federal 

chemical laws that deal with specific segments of the American 

economy, be it pharmaceuticals, pesticides, household consumer 

products and workplace safety. Because these and other authorities, Section 6 of TSCA suggests that its authority should only be 

used to fill other gaps in the law rather than have it gratuitously 

pile on duplicative regulations for its own sake. 

I think our discussion this morning is a helpful one. While EPA’s 

Web site claims 83,000 chemicals that have been in commerce at 

some point, there is also broad agreement that the number currently in commerce in the United States is significantly less than 

the 83,000 figure. In light of the fiscal and resource realities facing 

the country and the agency, prioritization of the highest-risk 

chemicals first not only makes sense but I think it is essential. In 

prioritizing chemicals, though, I think that we should be enormously careful not to create overly expansive lists that will be used 

to arbitrarily scare the public without full information about actual 

occurrences, true exposures, possible mitigation strategies and how 

these chemicals fit into the overall risk management or reduction 

strategy. 

While I think prioritization is important, I also want to voice my 

interest in trying to understand the second half of the hearing title, 

which calls for safety determination. The Majority’s hearing memo 

calls the existing standard under TSCA Section 6 a safety standard, as does EPA’s written testimony. If that is what to consider 

it, then it is helpful in putting testimony in context since we would 

be asking questions about the existing regulatory standard in 

TSCA. If the Majority considers the safety standard to be something else, we should know that too. Without full knowledge of 

what EPA might be prioritizing to or for, our questions will be 

mostly conjecture in search of a mythical legal standard which may 

or may not exist. 

I want to welcome our witnesses and say how much I appreciate 

your being here to give us your perspective. I especially want to 

welcome Mr. Owens from the EPA. I have several questions for 

him about the size and scope of this issue and want to make sure 

that the EPA is neither over- nor underestimating the issues at 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
4 

hand as they relate to prioritization. Further, I notice that the current EPA is scraping the programs of the previous Administration, 

which is something the Bush Administration did not do concerning 

the high productive volume challenge program and I hope solid reasons and a deliberative process, not simple politics, were at the 

core of these plans. As President Obama has said before, we have 

to use good ideas regardless of who the author is. 

Mr. Chairman, I want to express my support for protecting people from unhealthy exposures to chemicals based on their intended 

use and based on and with sound objective scientific research. At 

the same time, we need to be cognizant that a poorly written bill 

will drive these chemical makers overseas quickly, leaving our high 

standards for worker safety and environment protection in the 

rearview mirror and compromising any serious effect to police quality control. With 10.2 percent national unemployment, 11.9 percent 

unemployment in the domestic manufacturing sector and the U.S. 

Bureau of Labor Statistics projecting a 16 percent decrease in 

wages and employment in the United States chemical manufacturing sector, we can’t be cavalier about what this bill means and 

what it can do simply because it sounds like a good idea. 

Thank you again, Mr. Chairman, and I look forward to working 

on this matter with you. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Radanovich follows:] 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
5 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 10 74851A.001
6 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 11 74851A.002
7 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 12 74851A.003
8 

Mr. RUSH. The Chair thanks the gentleman. 

The Chair now recognizes the gentleman from Texas for 2 minutes, Mr. Green, for the purposes of opening statement. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. GENE GREEN, A 

REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF TEXAS 

Mr. GREEN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for holding today’s hearing to take another look at updating chemical regulations under 

the Toxic Substance Control Act. I want to welcome today’s witnesses as we look at more defined issue in TSCA reform than our 

previous hearing. I look forward to hearing their thoughts on how 

to best move forward with prioritizing existing chemicals for review 

and assessment. 

I would like to ask unanimous consent to enter into the record 

this letter, Mr. Chairman, from our former colleague and now 

president and CEO of the American Chemistry Council, Cal Dooley. 

Can I have unanimous consent to place this into the record, Mr. 

Chairman? 

[The information follows:] 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
9 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 14 74851A.004
10 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 15 74851A.005
11 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 16 74851A.006
12 

Mr. RUSH. So ordered. 

Mr. GREEN. There is broad consensus expressed in the letter, 

from testimony today and given in testimony during our previous 

hearing in February that TSCA needs to be updated to give the 

EPA necessary authority to oversee and regulate chemicals that 

are hazardous to human health and the environment. As we are 

looking specifically at the prioritization process of chemicals currently in commerce today, I look forward to hearing what EPA 

plans to do under their existing authority to be in the prioritization 

process. I know EPA Administrator Jackson has made this a priority and I hope to hear how current steps taken under the Chemical Action Plan could be carried over to feed any subsequent 

prioritization process when there is Congressional action. 

As we move forward on developing and legislating changes to 

TSCA to establish a process of prioritizing existing chemicals, we 

must look to the hazards to human health and the environmental 

exposure and use of chemicals as well as the impact on sensitive 

populations, and children specifically. Our chemicals warrant assessment and reevaluation if additional information is discovered, 

but to begin with, the chemicals that pose the biggest risk should 

be regulated or banned. If progress is not made in this area, we 

are going to continue to see attempts to do this piecemeal by Members of Congress, introduce bans to ban specific chemicals. We need 

an efficient way to protect human health by giving EPA the authority to prioritize and regulate hazardous chemicals. 

Again, I want to thank the witnesses for being here today and 

educate our members on this issue and discuss the consequences 

of action by Congress as well as the potential impacts as we move 

forward the policy does not take into consideration the significance 

chemicals play in commerce and our everyday lives, and again, I 

thank you, Mr. Chairman. This is an important issue and we need 

to look at all aspects of legislating this area and the effect it will 

have, and I yield back my time. 

Mr. RUSH. The gentleman from Pennsylvania, Mr. Pitts, is recognized. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. JOSEPH R. PITTS, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE COMMONWEALTH 

OF PENNSYLVANIA 

Mr. PITTS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you for holding this 

important hearing on chemical prioritization and standard setting. 

As we know, the Toxic Substance Chemicals Act signed by President Ford in 1976 is responsible for identifying and regulating toxic 

substances in United States commerce. TSCA currently regulates 

potential risk based on three policies. First, chemical manufacturers are responsible for testing chemicals to determine their potential effects on health and the environment. Second, the EPA should 

regulate chemicals that present an unreasonable risk to health or 

the environment, and third, EPA’s implementation of the law 

should not create unnecessary economic barriers to technological 

innovation. 

In the event that this committee moves to amend this law, it is 

prudent to keep in mind that a majority of stakeholders believe 

that overhauling TSCA will involve prioritizing tens of thousands 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
13 

of chemicals. Most industry supports a method that requires the 

EPA to update its inventory to include only those chemicals in commerce and focus on the highest-priority chemicals. In addition, it 

is prudent that we start with existing data rather than requesting 

new data sets and disregarding the existing data. In addition, if reform moves forward, the issue of safety determination must be 

carefully evaluated. Currently, Section 6 defines a risk-based approach that requires the EPA to find that an unreasonable risk of 

injury must exist and that the EPA must use the least burdensome 

alternative to restrict the chemicals used in such cases. We must 

carefully evaluate the risk including hazards and exposures and intended uses and let these factors inform and guide any regulatory 

action. We do not want to jeopardize innovation. 

I appreciate the witnesses being here today. I look forward to listening to their testimony and I thank you and yield back. 

Mr. RUSH. The Chair now recognizes the gentleman from Georgia, Mr. Barrow, for 2 minutes. 

Mr. BARROW. I thank the chairman. I waive. 

Mr. RUSH. The Chair recognizes the gentlelady from Colorado, 

Ms. DeGette, for 2 minutes. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. DIANA DEGETTE, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF COLORADO 

Ms. DEGETTE. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I want to 

thank you for holding this hearing, and I also want to greet our 

witnesses, especially my friend, Assistant Administrator Owens, for 

being here today. 

I ran into our former colleague, Secretary Solis, yesterday. She 

was in my district of Denver with the First Lady and I was thinking about her years of courageous advocacy on the part of TSCA 

reform when she was a member of this subcommittee, and so we 

are pleased to carry on her tradition here today. 

There is general agreement that TSCA needs to be updated to 

keep pace with modern technology and to increase the EPA’s resources and authority. TSCA is over 30 years old now and it is the 

only major environmental law that has not been reauthorized. In 

those 30 years, the EPA has inventoried roughly 82,000 chemicals 

used in commerce in the United States. How to prioritize those 

chemicals that are most harmful to the public is a daunting challenge, particularly given the lack of solid information that the EPA 

faces for many of those chemicals. Today I am interested in hearing 

about how the EPA can expand its knowledge to focus its attention 

on the most harmful chemicals of those 82,000 and I am also interested in hearing how we can make use of the knowledge base that 

we currently have to take swift action to protect the public from 

high-priority chemicals like lead, mercury and PCBs. While 

prioritization is an important part of assuring that the EPA directs 

its resources most effectively, it should not be used as an excuse 

for excessive delay when frankly we have had an ineffective toxic 

statute for over 30 years. 

Mr. Chairman, I look forward to working with you and the rest 

of the committee to strengthen TSCA, and I yield back the balance 

of my time. 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
14 

Mr. RUSH. The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Georgia, Dr. 

Gingrey, for 2 minutes. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. PHIL GINGREY, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF GEORGIA 

Dr. GINGREY. Mr. Chairman, I want to thank you for calling this 

hearing on the prioritization of chemical study under the Toxic 

Substance Control Act. Even though it has been a number of 

months since we last held a hearing on TSCA, I am happy that we 

have once again delved into the complex issue. 

TSCA directs the Environmental Protection Agency to regulate 

all phases of the manufacturing of chemicals and to identify unreasonable risk of injury from new or existing chemicals. In regulating 

these chemicals, TSCA directs the EPA to use the least burdensome option to reduce the risk of harm while balancing the benefits 

provided by the chemical. As a risk-based law, TSCA relies on the 

presence of sound science by both chemical producers and the EPA 

in order to properly implement the law. 

Mr. Chairman, while there are many laudable elements of TSCA, 

that does not mean this law is anywhere close to perfect. Since its 

enactment, chemical manufacturing processes have advanced as 

has technology. Accordingly, TSCA needs to best reflect the science 

that is currently being utilized. As we heard during our first hearing on this matter back in February, TSCA reform is needed because we need to ensure the safety of chemicals used in all products. However, while there is that consensus, the way to accomplish that reform is subject to debate and, yes, disagreement. Ultimately, I believe that we should use this hearing to learn what the 

appropriate safety standards should be on the prioritization of 

chemical regulations through TSCA. Like a number of my colleagues, I fear that if we use this hearing as a vehicle to fundamentally overhaul TSCA, we will jeopardize the long-term viability of 

the chemical industry which will have lingering ramifications for 

other industries and subsequently this stressed economy of ours. 

Mr. Chairman, I would suggest that as we hear from our distinguished panel of witnesses today, let us keep in mind the underlying risk-based principles that guide the current implementation 

of TSCA. I certainly look forward to their testimony and I yield 

back the balance of my time. 

Mr. RUSH. The Chair now recognizes the chairman emeritus of 

the full committee, my friend from Michigan, Mr. Dingell, for 5 

minutes for the purposes of opening statement. 

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

Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Chairman, first, thank you for holding this 

hearing today, and second of all, I want to commend you for the 

fine way in which you are chairing this committee. We owe you a 

debt for that. 

Since our last hearing back in February, I have heard from various stakeholders about the need for reauthorization and revamping the Toxic Substances Control Act, TSCA. After 33 years, it has 

become quite clear that the law needs a thorough examination and 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
15 

reauthorization. We have heard this from industry, environmental 

groups and consumer advocacy organizations. Now, EPA has not 

banned a single chemical under TSCA in nearly 20 years. Despite 

our best intentions back in 1976, it would appear that TSCA is not 

working as we hoped it would when it was enacted. We need to address our attention to whether the 84,000 chemicals in EPA’s inventory growing by 700 new chemicals introduced each year tells 

us that something has to be done and it may be that the choice before this committee is going to be between coming to a judgment 

that the EPA is doing a superb job, that EPA is not doing the job 

that it should, that all these chemicals or safe or that there is not 

enough money or enough attention given or that historic bad leadership has made it impossible for the EPA to do the job. So we 

need to have a careful look at this. 

Now, the nearly universal agreement that TSCA needs reauthorization is the easy part. The difficulty, as we all know, is in how 

and what we do. Frankly, the committee does look forward to hearing from our witnesses today, and I expect that we will have some 

very valuable differing points of view on the matter to look at and 

to frame our judgments as to how matters are going and what is 

to be done. Today the EPA has only been able to require testing 

on 200 of the 84,000 chemicals in the inventory. Figuring a way to 

prioritize how these chemicals are to be addressed in a timely manner based on sound science and the broad public interest in a way 

that protects the public health promises to be challenging, but indeed, it must be done. 

Furthermore, I want to thank the witnesses here today for bringing up the important factor that often gets neglected, and that is 

funding. We need to reauthorize and to revise TSCA. We must 

work to have adequate and consistent funding for the program. 

Without this proper funding, we will not get the results that we 

want and it will lead to a constant source of frustration on the part 

of everybody including industry, which needs certainty in order to 

compete in a global marketplace, and we are finding that funding 

of programs of this kind is a continuing and ongoing problem. Certainly we have a similar situation with regard to Superfund, and 

I am sure that this committee is going to want to look at that at 

some early future time. 

Again, Mr. Chairman, thank you for the deliberate and thoughtful approach that the subcommittee is taking in this matter. It is 

important that we do this right, not only to get the desirable result 

of a more workable law that protects human health but we also 

need to ensure that we do not needlessly inflict financial burdens 

on industry and producers in a very difficult economic climate. I 

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

the balance of my time. 

Mr. RUSH. The Chair thanks the gentleman. The Chair now recognizes the gentleman from Pennsylvania, Mr. Murphy, for 2 minutes. 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
16 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. CHRISTOPHER S. MURPHY, A 

REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF CONNECTICUT 

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

on the Toxic Substances Control Act. I look forward to hearing all 

the testimony on this important issue. 

Two of my top priorities in Congress are to protect the health 

and safety of our families and to protect and grow American jobs. 

These are not mutually exclusive and I believe that with proper 

regulation we can do both. 

My district is home to chemical companies that directly employ 

8,300 people, companies like Bayer, LANXESS, NOVA, PPG and 

Eastman, just to name a few. 

As we examine this Act, it is important to realize that chemical 

manufacturers play a central role in America’s manufacturing base 

and America’s safety. We have already lost 120,000 chemical industry jobs this past decade due to volatile natural gas prices. As we 

deal with chemical regulation legislation, we should be careful not 

to drive more good jobs overseas but to find ways of preserving 

them and preserving public health. As America continues in this 

recession, these are the kind of jobs America needs now more than 

ever. 

Just about everything we come into contact with throughout our 

day can be traced to chemical companies that help improve our 

lives and make them better. However, we know that there are 

some chemicals which are harmful to people, others which make 

life better. 

As this committee looks at potential reforms to TSCA and how 

to prioritize chemicals, it is extremely important we focus on those 

chemicals and their use that are currently in commerce and their 

effect on potential health risk. We do not need to reinvent the 

wheel with each chemical as there is plenty of existing data and 

models in the EU and in Canada that we can look upon as we research new data. 

I look forward to hearing the testimony on the Toxic Substance 

Control Act, and I yield back, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. RUSH. The Chair thanks the gentleman. 

The gentleman from Ohio, Mr. Space, is recognized for 2 minutes. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. ZACHARY T. SPACE, A 

REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF OHIO 

Mr. SPACE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and Ranking Member 

Radanovich for convening today’s hearing and thank you to our 

witnesses for taking the time to be here. 

The overarching consensus seems to me that the Toxic Substances Control Act is badly in need of reform. In this day and age, 

it would be shocking if something 33 years old did not require updating as technology, industry and science progress. Specifically, 

we appear to all agree that changes to TSCA should call for the 

prioritization of certain chemicals for fast-track evaluation. Mr. 

Chairman, I applaud your efforts to continue this dialog. I truly believe that through bringing all stakeholders together we can develop a legislative product that represents an acceptable roadmap 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
17 

for progress. Such process will sure that the EPA has the authority 

it needs to protect the public, in many cases young children and 

other vulnerable populations, and the producers and downstream 

users are provided with the regulatory framework within each market so that they can properly prepare their goods. Ultimately, consumers have a right to know that the products they purchase and 

use are safe and those reassurances benefit all involved. 

I look forward to today’s testimony. I look forward to continuing 

to work on TSCA reform with my colleagues. I yield back. Thank 

you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. RUSH. The gentlelady from Illinois, the vice chair of the subcommittee, Ms. Schakowsky, is recognized for 2 minutes. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. JANICE D. SCHAKOWSKY, A 

REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF ILLINOIS 

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for yielding and 

holding this hearing. 

I want to publicly convey my thanks to EPA Administrator Lisa 

Jackson, who actually invited all the members of our subcommittee 

to breakfast. We enjoyed the conversation very much, which did involve TSCA. I want to thank Mr. Murphy for representing his side 

of the aisle at that breakfast, so I hope you will convey that to her, 

Mr. Owens. 

The Toxic Substances Control Act has many deficiencies that endanger the public’s health. One of the most striking is that when 

it was enacted, TSCA grandfathered in without conducting any assessment all chemicals that existed in 1976. This problem was further exacerbated by the fact that the statute never provided adequate authority for EPA to reevaluate existing chemicals as new 

concerns arose or science was updated. Consequently, in the 3 decades since TSCA became law, EPA has only been able to test 200 

of the 80,000-plus chemicals produced and used in the United 

States. There is no question that this has placed every American 

but especially our Nation’s poorest and most vulnerable at risk of 

being exposed to potentially lethal levels of harmful chemicals that 

have no place being in our stores and in our homes and in our environment. 

Today’s hearing will provide important insight into how TSCA 

can be amended so that the EPA does have the authority to immediately restrict or ban the use of chemicals like asbestos that we 

already know poses substantial risk to the public safety. I think a 

lot of people are surprised that it isn’t banned already. I look forward to hearing from today’s witnesses and yield back the balance 

of my time. 

Mr. RUSH. The gentleman from Maryland, Mr. Sarbanes, for 2 

minutes. 

Mr. SARBANES. Thank you very much, Chairman Rush, for holding this hearing. 

I have to say I continue to marvel at how ineffectual the Toxic 

Substances Control Act is, almost really to the point of making a 

mockery of its name. What it does is, it gives the EPA a front-row 

seat on chemical use in this country but really just is a kind of 

toothless observer, not as any kind of enforcer in any kind of active 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
18 

way, and I think most Americans would not believe how unregulated this arena is. They really couldn’t fathom it. I confess, I 

couldn’t fathom it when we had the first hearing on the matter. So 

that is why we have got to reauthorize TSCA in a much more aggressive way going forward, and these hearings are sort of part of 

the due diligence that we are conducting as we anticipate doing 

that. 

Because we are going to have to make up for so much lost time, 

it is critical that we do have a way of prioritizing the way the safety reviews are done, and that is what the testimony today is going 

to help us understand better, so I thank you for holding the hearing and I look forward to the witnesses’ testimony. I yield back. 

Mr. RUSH. The Chair now recognizes the gentlelady from Ohio, 

Ms. Sutton, for 2 minutes. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. BETTY SUTTON, A 

REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF OHIO 

Ms. SUTTON. Thank you, Chairman Rush, and thank you for 

holding this important hearing on prioritizing chemicals for safety 

determination. 

At the hearings over the last few months, we have heard about 

the need for tremendous reform to the U.S. chemical safety laws. 

Industry and a variety of environmental, animal welfare, health 

and safety groups share the goal of modernizing the Toxic Substances Control Act and these stakeholders have agreed that 

prioritizing chemicals should be part of this effort. Currently there 

are approximately 84,000 chemicals in the EPA inventory. This volume with more chemicals being introduced every year poses a 

daunting task and prioritizing is of course an important first step 

in tackling the challenge. So as we proceed we must be pragmatic 

and make decisions based on sound science. It would be irresponsible to set the EPA, the industries or consumers up to fail. Our 

health, the environment and the public’s confidence are all at risk 

and we need to know that the chemicals we use are safe. We need 

to know that the chemicals that touch over 96 percent of manufactured goods are safe. We need to know, and until we do know, until 

we have a framework that allows the public to know, people will 

not feel safe, and frankly, they may not be safe. So an effective, 

pragmatic, science-based prioritization system is key to public confidence and ensuring that the chemical industry is producing safe 

products. 

In Ohio, the chemical industry directly employs over 46,000 people with over 2,000 in my district alone, and these are good-paying 

jobs that indirectly contribute to an additional 157,000 jobs in 

Ohio’s economy. These jobs are clearly important, and as we move 

forward, we must forward together to ensure the public’s trust, to 

protect the public and the future generations from the health and 

environmental harm and to provide industry with a clear direction 

to ensure that our workers keep working. These are multiple goals 

and multiple outcomes that we have to achieve, and I am confident 

that we can achieve. 

So I am grateful for the panel being here. I look forward to hearing your ideas about how we get there together. I yield back. 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
19 

Mr. RUSH. The gentlelady from Florida is recognized for 2 minutes, Ms. Castor. 

Ms. CASTOR. Thank you, Chairman Rush, very much, for calling 

this very important hearing. 

The oversight of these thousands and thousands of chemicals 

throughout America is vitally important to American families and 

to our public health. The Toxic Substances Control Act has had 

laudable goals but frankly it is broken. It has been very ineffectual. 

We can do a lot better. 

I would like to salute EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson for her 

leadership. She is putting protection back into Environmental Protection Agency where it belongs. She is rightfully focused on the 

chemicals of concern and the chemicals that have the highest risk 

to the public health. 

This is an area where American families and citizens everywhere 

rely on their government. The average person on the street doesn’t 

have the expertise to determine what chemicals in our environment 

have the highest risk to our public health and the safety of our 

kids. So we have got to live up to our responsibility. It is our job 

to get this done and to ensure that TSCA is working for our families and citizens. 

Thank you. I yield back. 

Mr. RUSH. The Chair recognizes now the gentleman from North 

Carolina, Mr. Butterfield, for 2 minutes. 

Mr. BUTTERFIELD. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I am going to submit my statement for the record. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Butterfield follows:] 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
20 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 26 74851A.007
21 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 27 74851A.008
22 

Mr. RUSH. The Chair thanks the gentleman and now the Chair 

recognizes the gentleman from Utah, Mr. Matheson, for 2 minutes. 

Mr. MATHESON. Mr. Chair, I will waive my opening statement. 

Mr. RUSH. Thank you very much. 

Now it comes to the point where we are delighted frankly to hear 

from our witnesses, but before our witnesses are recognized, it is 

the practice of this subcommittee to swear in the witnesses. So I 

would ask that you please stand and raise your right hand. 

[Witnesses sworn.] 

Mr. RUSH. Let the record reflect that the witnesses have responded affirmatively. And now it is my privilege and honor to introduce the witnesses to you. On my left is the Hon. Steve Owens. 

Mr. Owens is the assistant administrator for the Office of Prevention Pesticides and Toxic Substances for the U.S. Environmental 

Protection Agency. Sitting next to Mr. Owens is Dr. Eric Sampson. 

Dr. Sampson is the director of the Division of Laboratory Sciences 

at the National Center for Environmental Health, the Centers for 

Disease Control and Prevention at the Department of the Health 

and Human Services. Next to Dr. Sampson is Dr. Daryl Ditz. He 

is the senior policy advisor for the Center for International Environmental Law. Next to Dr. Ditz is Mr. Bill Greggs. He is a consultant for the Consumer Specialty Products Association, for the 

Grocery Manufacturers Association and for the Soap and Detergent 

Association. And next to Mr. Greggs is Ms. Beth Bosley. She is a 

consultant also for the Society of Chemical Manufacturing and Affiliates. 

Again, the Chair welcomes you and the Chair now recognizes the 

Hon. Steve Owens for 5 minutes for the purposes of an opening 

statement. 

TESTIMONY OF STEVE OWENS, ASSISTANT ADMINISTRATOR, 

OFFICE OF PREVENTION, PESTICIDES AND TOXIC SUBSTANCES, U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY; 

ERIC SAMPSON, DIRECTOR, DIVISION OF LABORATORY 

SCIENCES, NATIONAL CENTER FOR ENVIRONMENTAL 

HEALTH, CENTERS FOR DISEASE CONTROL AND PREVENTION; DARYL DITZ, SENIOR POLICY ADVISOR, CENTER FOR 

INTERNATIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL LAW; BILL GREGGS, 

CONSULTANT, CONSUMER SPECIALTY PRODUCTS ASSOCIATION, GROCERY MANUFACTURERS ASSOCIATION AND SOAP 

AND DETERGENT ASSOCIATION; AND BETH BOSLEY, CONSULTANT, SOCIETY OF CHEMICAL MANUFACTURERS AND 

AFFILIATES 

TESTIMONY OF STEVE OWENS 

Mr. OWENS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and good morning to you 

and good morning to Vice Chair Schakowsky and Ranking Member 

Radanovich and members of the subcommittee. I thank you for the 

opportunity to address you today and I thank all of you for your 

leadership on this very important issue. 

I have been on the job as the assistant administrator for the Office of Prevention, Pesticides and Toxic Substances for roughly 4 

months now, so I am trying to get up to speed and working hard 

on this and other critical issues that are facing the EPA, but I do 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
23 

want to say at the outset, as many of you know, I was a former 

Congressional committee staffer. It is a little different being on this 

side of the microphone than it was back then in those days, but 

again, I appreciate the opportunity to be here. It is also a privilege 

to be here with Dr. Eric Sampson, my colleague from the Centers 

for Disease Control. We work very closely with CDC on biomonitoring and a host of other very important issues. 

As many of you have noted this morning, EPA has jurisdiction 

over chemicals pursuant to the 1976 Toxic Substances Control Act, 

which is called TSCA. TSCA is the only major environmental statute that has not been reauthorized since its passage and there are 

over 80,000 existing chemicals currently on the TSCA inventory, a 

few of which have actually been studied for their risk to children 

and families. Unlike the laws applicable to drugs and pesticides, 

TSCA does not have a mandatory program by which EPA must review the safety of existing chemicals, and in addition, TSCA places 

legal and procedural requirements on EPA’s ability to request the 

generation and submission of health and environmental data on existing chemicals. 

TSCA was an important step at the time it was enacted 33 years 

ago but over the years not only has TSCA fallen behind the industry it is supposed to regulate, it has also proven inadequate for providing the protection against chemical risk that the public rightfully expects. As noted by Vice Chair Schakowsky, when TSCA was 

enacted it grandfathered in without any evaluation more than 

60,000 chemicals that were in existence in 1976. And further, 

TSCA never provided adequate authority for EPA to reevaluate existing chemicals as new concerns arose or as science was updated, 

and it failed to grant EPA full authority to compel companies to 

provide toxicity data on those chemicals. As a result, in the 33 

years since TSCA was enacted, EPA has been able to require testing on only around 200 of the more than 80,000 chemicals now produced and used in the United States. 

It has also been difficult for EPA to take action to limit or ban 

chemicals that have actually been found to cause unreasonable risk 

to human health or the environment. Even if the EPA has substantial data and wants to protect the public against known risk, the 

law creates obstacles to quick and effective regulatory action. For 

example, as was noted, after years of study and nearly unanimous 

scientific opinion, EPA issued a rule phasing out most uses of asbestos in products. Yet a federal court overturned most of this action because the rule failed to comply with the complicated requirements of TSCA. In fact, since 1976, only five chemicals have been 

successfully regulated under TSCA’s authority to ban chemicals. 

The problems with TSCA are so significant that the GAO has put 

TSCA on its high-risk list of items needing attention. 

Today, advances in toxicology and analytical chemistry are revealing new pathways of exposure. There are subtle and troubling 

effects of many chemicals on hormone systems, human reproduction, intellectual development and cognition, particularly in young 

children. It is clear that TSCA must be updated and strengthened 

for EPA to properly do our job of protecting public health and the 

environment. 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
24 

As noted, Administrator Lisa Jackson recently announced a set 

of principles on behalf of the Obama Administration to help inform 

the drafting of a new law to fix TSCA. These principles are: First, 

chemicals should be reviewed against safety standards that are 

based on sound science and reflect risk-based criteria protective of 

human health and the environment. Second, the responsibility for 

providing adequate health and safety information should rest on 

industry and EPA should have the necessary tools to quickly and 

efficiently require testing or obtain other information from manufacturers relevant to determining the safety of chemicals. Third, 

EPA should have clear authority to take risk management actions 

when chemicals do not meet the safety standards with the flexibility to take into account a range of considerations including children’s health, economic costs, social benefits and equity concerns. 

Fourth, EPA should have clear authority to set priorities for conducting safety reviews. Fifth, we must encourage innovation in 

green chemistry and support strategies that will lead to safer and 

more substantially sustainable chemicals and processes. And finally, implementation of the law should be adequately and consistently funded in order to meet the goal of assuring the safety of 

chemicals and to maintain public confidence that EPA is meeting 

that goal. Manufacturers of chemicals should support the cost of 

agency implementation including the review of information provided by manufacturers. 

We know that legislative reform may take time. Consequently, 

Administrator Jackson has directed my office in the interim to utilize our current authority under TSCA to the fullest extent possible 

to protect the American people from dangerous chemicals. We are 

currently evaluating an initial set of chemicals based on available 

hazard, exposure and use information for potential action. The factors we are using to determine this initial set include the use of 

the chemicals in consumer products, their persistence in human 

blood, the persist bioaccumulative and toxic characteristics of the 

chemicals, or otherwise known as the PBT characteristics, the toxicity of the chemicals and the volume of production of the chemicals 

in commerce. We will produce what we are calling actions plans 

that will outline the risks that these chemicals may present and establish that we may take to address those concerns. And following 

the initial list of chemicals that we address and the initial set of 

action plans that we produce, we will engage with stakeholders on 

prioritizing additional chemicals for evaluation and we aim to complete a group of action plans every 4 months going forward. EPA 

intends to engage stakeholders, federal partners and the public in 

the discussion of prioritizing chemicals for future risk management 

actions. 

Mr. Chairman, the time has come to bring TSCA into the 21st 

century, and Administrator Jackson and I very much look forward 

to working with Congress and you and members of the subcommittee on this very important issue. I appreciate again the opportunity to be here. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Owens follows:] 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
25 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 32 here 74851A.009
26 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 33 here 74851A.010
27 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 34 here 74851A.011
28 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 35 here 74851A.012
29 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 36 here 74851A.013
30 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 37 here 74851A.014
31 

Mr. RUSH. Thank you very much. 

The Chair now recognizes Dr. Sampson for 5 minutes. 

TESTIMONY OF ERIC SAMPSON 

Mr. SAMPSON. Good morning, Mr. Chairman and members of the 

subcommittee. My name is Eric Sampson. Thank you for this opportunity to testify concerning our experiences with biomonitoring 

and setting public health-related priorities for chemical exposures. 

It has been my pleasure to serve as the director of the Division of 

Laboratory Sciences at CDC for 25 years during which time our 

biomonitoring program has grown from a very small activity into 

a mature scientific discipline. 

Biomonitoring as we define is the science of directly measuring 

chemicals and samples from people, typically blood and urine samples. We are aware that biomonitoring data personalizes exposure 

to chemicals and can lead to a high level of interest and concern. 

As such, we go to great care to ensure that we are providing the 

highest quality measurements that can be performed. 

One thing we do in setting priorities to take a snapshot of chemical exposures in the U.S. population and to identify subgroups 

with higher levels of exposure. To accomplish that, we perform biomonitoring measurements in samples from participants in the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey, which is a nationally representative sample of the U.S. population. Survey participants receive a physical examination, complete a detailed questionnaire that collects more than 1,000 pieces of information, and 

donate blood and urine samples. 

Our biomonitoring data from this survey are made publicly available by the National Center for Health Statistics. In addition, our 

staff and other scientists publish the findings in peer-reviewed 

journals and periodically we publish a National Report on Human 

Exposure to Environmental Chemicals. Our Fourth Report is due 

out by the end of this year. 

A second way we try to establish priorities is to partner with 

States, other federal agencies, academic institutions and international organizations on 50 to 70 studies each year to examine 

vulnerable populations or populations likely to have higher exposure to chemicals. In that regard, I would like to highlight a recent 

partnership with NIH’s National Children’s Study, which will follow 100,000 children from before birth to age 21. Our laboratory is 

collaborating on a pilot study of the first 520 women in which we 

will be measuring chemicals in pregnant women’s blood and urine 

and then after delivery the newborn’s cord blood and mother’s 

breast milk. 

Finally, we help States set their own priorities by transferring 

our biomonitoring technology to their State laboratories. In fiscal 

year 2009 with new Congressional funds, CDC awarded a total of 

$5 million to California, New York and Washington for State-based 

biomonitoring programs. 

At CDC, we use biomonitoring to establish reference ranges in 

the U.S. population and to identify groups of people with higher 

levels of exposure. In addition, by tracking exposures in the U.S. 

population, we can detect trends in people over time and assess 

whether a chemical is present in a large number of people or is disVerDate Mar 15 2010 01:55 Aug 31, 2012 Jkt 074851 PO 00000 Frm 00037 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\A851.XXX A851

smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
32 

proportionately present in vulnerable subgroups such as children. 

This information is used by scientists and policymakers as one consideration in setting priorities for health impacts of chemicals. 

In conclusion, biomonitoring offers a strong scientific basis for 

helping to prioritize chemicals for public health. We are fully committed to working with other federal agencies and partners in expanding the uses and benefits of biomonitoring. 

Thank you, Chairman Rush, and members of the subcommittee. 

I look forward to answering any questions. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Sampson follows:] 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
33 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 40 here 74851A.015
34 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 41 here 74851A.016
35 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 42 here 74851A.017
36 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 43 here 74851A.018
37 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 44 here 74851A.019
38 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 45 here 74851A.020
39 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 46 here 74851A.021
40 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 47 here 74851A.022
41 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 48 here 74851A.023
42 

Mr. RUSH. Thank you. The Chair now recognizes Dr. Ditz for 5 

minutes. 

TESTIMONY OF DARYL DITZ 

Mr. DITZ. Thank you, Chairman Rush, Ranking Member Radanovich and members of the subcommittee for the opportunity to testify today. 

The public is rightly concerned about the long-term effects of 

chemicals on health including increasing incidence of asthma, autism, birth defects, infertility and certain types of cancer. It is especially troubling in light of the growing evidence that industrial 

chemicals are building up in our bodies and in our children’s. The 

Toxic Substances Control Act has failed to assess, let alone guarantee, safety of the overwhelming majority of chemicals on the 

market. TSCA stymies action by EPA, as you just heard, and other 

agencies. It perpetuates the reliance on dangerous chemicals. It 

leaves businesses in the dark and it undermines U.S. competitiveness. So I am grateful for this opportunity to discuss practical improvements to TSCA that can bring it into the 21st century. 

I strongly agree that the United States must set priorities in 

order to manage chemicals safely but beware of any proposal that 

would give thousands of chemicals a free pass. More on that in a 

second. 

Today I would like to discuss three critical fixes to TSCA. First, 

EPA needs authority to promptly regulate the worst of the worst 

chemicals. Second, EPA should evaluate all chemicals against a 

health-based standard. Third, Congress should require chemical 

manufacturers to provide all necessary information. Together, 

these can result in a stronger, more effective TSCA that restores 

public confidence while protecting the health of American workers, 

consumers and communities. 

Let me briefly elaborate on these three points. First, EPA needs 

authority to regulate the worst of the worst chemicals. A new, reinvigorated TSCA can pinpoint high chemicals even now despite 

large data gaps. Chemicals that persist in the environment, that 

bioaccumulate in our bodies and threaten public health by their 

toxicity are especially high priorities for action. Such chemicals, 

called PBTs for short, defy traditional risk assessment techniques. 

For these substances, a slow, methodical process for evaluating 

safety is not necessary and it is not appropriate. The United States 

has already acknowledged the need to act on PBTs but EPA, as you 

have heard, is severely constrained by the statute. More than a 

decade ago, the United States and Canada targeted such pollutants 

for phase-out based on their buildup in the Great Lakes. Frustrated by the slow pace of federal progress, States from Maine to 

Hawaii are taking decisive action to tackle these chemicals. 

Eliminating PBTs is also the goal of the Stockholm Convention 

on Persistent Organic Pollutants. This international treaty signed 

under President George W. Bush has been ratified by 168 countries 

but not the United States. Meanwhile, PBT levels are rising in the 

U.S. population, and sadly, Native Americans in Alaska, quite 

counterintuitively, are among the highest exposed people in the 

world. 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
43 

In addition to PBTs, chemicals like formaldehyde, asbestos, 

phthalates, mercury and bisphenol A also warrant immediate action. The EPA administrator recently announced plans to address 

these and other notorious substances but the agency’s ability to act 

depends on TSCA’s unreasonable-risk standard, which is the Achilles heel that has prevented effective action for more than 2 decades. 

Second, the EPA should evaluate all chemicals against a healthbased standard. Because it will takes years to complete this task, 

the EPA should prioritize the order in which chemicals are evaluated. The proposed 2008 Kid-Safe Chemicals Act charged the EPA 

with deciding which substances should be evaluated first based on 

a set of multiple criteria: high production volume, known hazards, 

presence in air, water and food, or human exposure. These are all 

reasonable factors to consider in managing an orderly process. But 

here is a critical point. Prioritization should be applied to organize 

the review but not to circumvent a full safety evaluation. It would 

be a serious mistake if in the guise of priority setting many or most 

chemicals escape the needed scrutiny. The American Chemistry 

Council’s new principles for modernizing TSCA appear to favor this 

shortsighted approach. 

Third, Congress should require chemical manufacturers to provide up-to-date, comprehensive safety information. This is vital if 

we are going to identify chemicals that pose little or no concern as 

well as high-risk chemicals. There is a role for prioritization here 

too. Chemicals that are first in line for the safety determination 

should be required to submit their data first. It just makes sense. 

Eventually all chemicals on the market should be required to submit and periodically update this information. That is basically how 

we regulate pesticides and pharmaceuticals today and it is suitable 

for industrial chemicals too. Safety data should also be supplemented by the kind of biomonitoring data we just heard about from 

CDC which provides a good reality check on the actual exposures 

of people in the real world. 

Finally, in filling the existing data gaps, a revitalized TSCA can 

benefit from REACH, which his the European Union’s attempt to 

update their own chemical law. This initiative is already generating valuable information that we can use to protect the health 

and safety of Americans and bolster our own international competitiveness. Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Ditz follows:] 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
44 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 52 here 74851A.024
45 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 53 here 74851A.025
46 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 54 here 74851A.026
47 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 55 here 74851A.027
48 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 56 here 74851A.028
49 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 57 here 74851A.029
50 

Mr. RUSH. The Chair now recognizes Mr. Greggs for 5 minutes. 

TESTIMONY OF BILL GREGGS 

Mr. GREGGS. Thank you, Chairman Rush, Ranking Member 

Radanovich and members of the subcommittee for asking me to testify. I am Bill Greggs, a chemical engineer. My field of expertise 

is in global chemical management policy supporting the development of safe and sustainable products. 

I am testifying on behalf of the Consumer Specialty Products Association, the Grocery Manufacturers Association and the Soap and 

Detergent Association. Now, these groups represent users of chemicals that are formulated into a broad array of consumer and commercial products. Our members are committed to manufacturing 

safe and innovative products that provide essential benefits to consumers while protecting public health and the environment. 

Now, product safety is the foundation of consumer trust and confidence and our industry devotes substantial resources to achieving 

that goal. We support the modernization of TSCA and we continue 

to urge Congress to establish a stakeholder process to identify and 

work on the complex issues that are involved in this legislation. 

Prioritizing chemicals for review and assessment is key to TSCA’s 

modernization. It provides the means to efficiently address important policy concerns such as children’s health and chemical exposures that are identified through biomonitoring. 

Now, you have my written testimony. I really want to briefly 

summarize three main points. The first is setting priorities based 

on hazard and exposure, the second is a quick-start concept and 

the third is stakeholder involvement. 

Now, the priority-setting process developed by Congress must be 

risk based, that is, it ought to consider both hazards and potential 

exposures of a chemical in setting priorities. Our associations have 

collaborated with others in industry to develop an efficient riskbased matrix tool that EPA can use to set priorities in a timely 

manner. EPA can employ this tool to select the highest hazard and 

the highest potential exposure chemicals as the highest priority for 

further assessment. Chemicals with low hazard and potential exposure would be the lowest priority. 

Now, this tool produces a numerical ranking, which is a lot better than kind of a yes-no type of approach. The matrix is illustrated in this illustration on my right. It shows increasing levels 

of hazard along the vertical access, and EPA would consider in this 

human environmental toxicology information such as whether a 

chemical has been identified as causing cancer, reproductive or developmental toxicity or is persistent, bioaccumulative and toxic. Indicators of increasing exposure are shown on the horizontal access. 

EPA would consider in this the use pattern of a chemical such as 

its use in closed systems, use in consumer and commercial products, and products intended for use by children. Also, EPA should 

consider CDC’s biomonitoring findings as well as information from 

industrial releases and from environmental monitoring. 

To reiterate, hazards and potential exposures must both be considered. A single factor, just hazard of just exposure, really isn’t 

sufficient. If everything is a priority, then nothing is a priority. 

This process is relatively straightforward and EPA can conduct it 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
51 

in a reasonable time frame, ranking all chemicals from high to low. 

Where information is not available, the agency, we believe, should 

have the authority that it doesn’t have today to require timely submission of information after which a chemical can then be ranked. 

Additionally, this tool is dynamic as well. It allows EPA to update 

priority when new information does become available. 

Now, the second idea that we have for Congress is to develop an 

additional mechanism, kind of a quick-start approach. It has been 

discussed today about the anxiety and the interest in moving 

quickly. We think EPA through this mechanism can identify the 

very highest-priority chemicals for immediate assessment. To do 

this, EPA would select chemicals that have the very highest hazards such as known carcinogens, reproductive or developmental 

toxicants, or PBTs, and the highest potential exposure, for instance, chemicals measured in CDC’s biomonitoring program or 

used in chemicals intended for children. This would be identified 

50 to 100 chemicals that could quickly move into EPA’s safety assessment process while the agency completes priority setting for 

the remaining chemicals. 

The third point is stakeholder involvement. The priority-setting 

process we believe should involve review and comment by stakeholders to allow them to provide additional data to EPA and allow 

more-informed decisions by EPA. CSPA, GMA and SDA believe this 

priority-setting approach is straightforward and efficient. We have 

discussed it with many industry and non-governmental groups and 

with many of your offices. We think it can provide EPA with a good 

way to identify the highest-priority chemicals for further assessment. 

Our associations look forward to working with you to modernize 

TSCA. Thank you very much. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Greggs follows:] 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
52 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 60 74851A.030
53 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 61 74851A.031
54 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 62 74851A.032
55 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 63 74851A.033
56 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 64 74851A.034
57 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 65 74851A.035
58 

Mr. RUSH. The Chair thanks the gentleman, and now the Chair 

recognizes Ms. Bosley for 5 minutes. 

TESTIMONY OF BETH BOSLEY 

Ms. BOSLEY. Good afternoon, Chairman Rush, Ranking Member 

Radanovich and members of the subcommittee. I am pleased to testify before you today on behalf of the Society of Chemical Manufacturers and Affiliates, or SOCMA. SOCMA has served the batch and 

specialty chemical industry since 1921. We have 300 members, 

usually small-to medium-sized companies. Our members make a 

$60 billion annual impact to the national economy and we contribute to the chemical industry’s position as one of the Nation’s 

largest exporters. 

As we testified before the subcommittee last February, SOCMA 

supports EPA’s and Congress’s fundamental goal of protecting 

human health and the environment from hazardous chemical exposure. SOCMA members are prepared to continue doing our part in 

this effort. We are pleased to have this opportunity to share with 

you our perspective on revising TSCA. SOCMA agrees that TSCA 

can be modernized and that policy goals can be accomplished in a 

way that doesn’t devastate a strategic American industry already 

fighting recession and foreign competition. As I will discuss, two 

principles are essential to sustainable chemical management law 

that won’t eliminate jobs, economic growth or critical products. 

First, TSCA priorities should be established based on risk, as you 

have heard from some other witnesses this morning, and second, 

proven regulatory mechanisms should be used as the basis for this 

modernization. 

Prioritization of risk must remain a fundamental principle of 

TSCA. This means basing priorities and regulatory criteria on scientific evaluation of toxicological response and exposure factors. 

For instance, if a chemical is highly toxic but used only in strictly 

controlled industrial environments or in small quantities, then the 

risk to public health is fairly small. 

The second important principle for TSCA reform is leveraging 

regulatory mechanisms that already work. We agree with EPA that 

the existing regulatory framework is better suited to American 

health, environmental and economic interests than Europe’s monolithic regime known as REACH. Applying an approach like REACH 

in the United States could devastate small- and medium-sized companies and do so unnecessarily since a more practical approach is 

available. Industry certainly does not oppose the potential for new 

regulation. We acknowledge the success of current environmental 

laws and programs and these mechanisms show promise in being 

able to achieve new policy objectives without sacrificing hundreds 

of businesses and thousands of jobs. For example, the Canadian approach to chemicals management has systematically prioritized 

that nation’s inventory and is therefore much further ahead of EU 

with respect to evaluation of chemicals in commerce. 

Another mechanism supported by SOCMA was the inventory 

reset, which was part of EPA’s recently discontinued ChAMP program. This would have provided an accurate measurement of the 

chemicals now in commerce, which we believe is the only realistic 

starting point. Of the over 80,000 chemicals now listed on the inVerDate Mar 15 2010 01:55 Aug 31, 2012 Jkt 074851 PO 00000 Frm 00064 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\A851.XXX A851

smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
59 

ventory, data suggests that only about one-third of these are presently in commerce. The program also identified categories of wellcharacterized chemicals, prioritized them and systematically targeted them for further review. Even the TSCA critics did not challenge the groupings identified by EPA at that time and supported 

this notion of prioritization. The program then went into an evaluation of the risks associated with the exposures to these chemicals. 

For these reasons, we believe that ChAMP should not have been 

abandoned because it will simply have to be reinstituted under another name. 

We should also embrace the TSCA mechanisms that have worked 

well like the New Chemicals Program, where EPA has successfully 

reviewed roughly 40,000 new chemicals since 1979 without impeding the innovation that is crucial to American competitiveness. 

Through this EPA program known as the PMN process, over 1,000 

chemicals undergo a review every year. This successful model 

should also be applied to existing chemicals. We should recognize 

the massive amount of data that was generated during HPV, or 

High Production Volume program, and leverage that data in making initial determinations of risk. With reasonable amendments, 

TSCA should provide an easier mechanism for EPA to poll manufacturers and users for data on volume, health effects, and by 

health effects, I mean all health effects. Right now EPA gathers 

data only on adverse health effects. And we also need to know exposure characteristics both to the environment and to human 

health. Section of Canada’s Environmental Protection Act effectively enables this sort of data collection. 

SOCMA members have a deep commitment to the safe use of our 

chemicals and we are proud of our collective track record in protecting our workers and in our communities. SOCMA favors a formulation whereby EPA would make a safety determination and 

that safety determination should be based first on risk. We also believe that EPA should not be burdened with the determination that 

each chemical is safe for its intended use. Specific chemicals and 

specific uses may be approached this way when dealing with a 

short list of chemicals and narrow uses such as pesticides under 

FIFRA and drugs under the FDA. But with 55 categories of chemicals, a requirement that all new uses of any chemical be specifically approved would be burdensome and delay our transition to a 

lower carbon future. Instead, under an improved TSCA, EPA 

should provide goals, prioritization and oversight but implementation should be based on proven and practical regulatory mechanisms. 

Finally, regardless of what approach Congress adopts, EPA will 

need to be adequately funded. The biggest shortcoming of the 

TSCA program today is a lack of resource and not the lack of the 

authority. 

I thank you for this opportunity to describe a pragmatic approach to TSCA reauthorization and I would be happy to answer 

any questions you have. 

[The prepared statement of Ms. Bosley follows:] 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
60 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 68 74851A.036
61 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 69 74851A.037
62 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 70 74851A.038
63 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 71 74851A.039
64 

Mr. RUSH. The Chair thanks all their witnesses for their testimony. Now it comes to the time where members of the committee 

will query the witnesses, and the Chair now recognizes himself for 

5 minutes for the questioning of the witnesses. 

One of the biggest problems that has been stated previously, one 

of the biggest problems today with TSCA is a lack of information 

on which EPA can base its decisions. A lack of information does not 

mean that there is not a problem. Also without information, it is 

hard to make informed decisions on prioritization. It seems to me 

that the EPA should require the submission of crucial information 

needed to determine how a chemical should be prioritized. The 

chemical industry is not currently required under TSCA to develop 

data on toxicity or exposure of the chemicals for chemicals that existed in commerce when TSCA was passed. My question is focused 

on the testimony of Mr. Owens. Mr. Owens, certain voluntary programs that offer a menu for industry to produce and submit data 

to EPA, have they been successful? And I have two related questions. You can answer all three of them at the same time. Do you 

believe there is existing data that has not been provided to EPA 

because submission is not mandatory? And the last part of the 

question is, if there were a mandatory submission of existing data 

to EPA, I would think that this requirement would be required not 

only for chemicals currently in commerce but for any chemical for 

which data may be available. Wouldn’t a comprehensive data collection process assist the agency in other areas such as environmental cleanup, et cetera? Would you care to answer those questions, please? 

Mr. OWENS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I will actually take them 

a little bit out of order, if I may, your last question first. I think 

absolutely a comprehensive data collection system would benefit 

not just the TSCA program but the agency as a whole. That is one 

of the biggest challenges that we face in implementing TSCA as 

well as some other programs but especially TSCA, that we don’t 

have the data we need to make the kinds of safety determinations 

that we feel to be making in order to protect the health and safety 

of the American people and the children and families in this country. 

With regard to your first question about voluntary programs, I 

think you asked whether they were successful. I would I think 

overall have to say no but maybe to qualify it by saying kind of sort 

of. The so-called ChAMP program that was started under the previous Administration was only modestly beneficial at best. It collected some data from some companies. It was an effort designed 

to develop screening-level assessments and to prioritize thousands 

of chemicals. It was over 6,000 chemicals that the agency was looking at at the time and it seems that some folks outside the agency 

have a much higher opinion of ChAMP than the people who are actually implementing it inside the agency. And a decision was made 

before I came on board in July by Administrator Jackson to take 

a look at ChAMP to see how it was working, and based on the review that was conducted by the staff at OPPTS, it was determined 

that that program, ChAMP, was too focused on categorizing chemicals and it would take years and years in order to get around to 

categorizing all those chemicals, and those categorizations were 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
65 

having to be made on the basis of incomplete and inadequate information because it was a voluntary program. So being a westerner, 

I think one way that I have always tried to describe the ChAMP 

program since I have been there is, especially folks from Texas 

might say but in Arizona we would say as well it was all hat and 

no cattle, that is looked good on the outside but in terms of actually 

achieving what we needed to have it achieve and the agency just 

didn’t do the job. 

But lastly, you asked the question about is there existing data 

that is out there that hasn’t yet been provided. TSCA does require 

companies if they have data in their possession of adverse health 

and environmental effects, they are required to provide that, and 

so it was actually a perverse disincentive in the statute for the generation of that kind of data because if they have it, they have to 

turn it over. There is no requirement now that they actually provide it up front either, especially for an existing chemical because 

of the way that new chemicals are treated vis-&-vis existing chemicals. But even with a new chemical, the burden is still on EPA to 

show that we think that there may be a problem from a health and 

environmental perspective in order to request data from the manufacturers or producers of those chemicals before it actually has to 

be provided to us. 

Mr. RUSH. Thank you. 

The Chair now recognizes the ranking member for 5 minutes. 

Mr. RADANOVICH. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and again welcome 

everybody to the subcommittee. 

Mr. Owens, I would like to ask a few questions. Although I appreciate the testimony of everybody who is here, I really kind of 

want to get into this 80,000 figure because it was mentioned in 

some previous testimony but a third of that is stuff that is not in 

commerce anymore. There is some talk of worst-of-worst chemicals 

but I have not heard an amount of what is, you know, the numbers 

that entails. Here is what concerns me: 10 percent unemployment. 

I live in a part of California where the misapplication of the Endangered Species Act has driven the timber industry out of the 

State of California. In my area there used to be a number of them, 

now there is none because of overregulation. My concern is that 

when you are here talking about 80,000 chemicals without differentiating between the two of them, you are talking about canceling 

ChAMP, which is a cooperative effort, I think, between the government and the industry to base some risk assessment on these 

chemicals and you are looking at beefing up the Administration to 

me looks like treating those 80,000 chemicals the same. You are 

going to be driving the chemical production industry out of the 

United States much the way that the timber industry has been 

driven out by the Endangered Species Act. Is that what you want 

to do at the Administration, Mr. Owens? Do you want the chemical 

production industry to leave the United States? 

Mr. OWENS. Is that a yes-or-no question? 

Mr. RADANOVICH. Sure. Please. I don’t have a lot of time. 

Mr. OWENS. Representative Radanovich, I think the best way to 

answer that is obviously no, sir. 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
66 

Mr. RADANOVICH. Is the Administration aware that the unemployment right now is over 10 percent? It is a fair question. This 

is my time and it is a fair question. 

Mr. OWENS. I believe they are, Mr. Radanovich. 

Mr. RADANOVICH. Thank you. Can you tell me, what is the worst 

of the worst? I will ask you, Mr. Owens or Mr. Ditz, what is the 

worst of—how many are there worst-of-worst chemicals on the list 

of 80,000? 

Mr. OWENS. Congressman, if I may, I will go back a little bit to 

your question about the 80,000 because I think that was an important point you did make in that regard, that it isn’t clear exactly 

how many of those 80,000 are still in commerce. There is a general 

belief that obviously the overwhelming majority of those chemicals 

are still in commerce. There are some questions out there certainly 

by industry and also by our agency that the existing inventory may 

not actually reflect what is going on out there. There is an effort—— 

Mr. RADANOVICH. Would you agree with the statement that there 

was about one-third that is not in commerce now? 

Mr. OWENS. No, sir, I couldn’t agree with that now because we 

just don’t know. That assertion has been made by some industry 

groups but we just don’t know, and one of the things that we do 

intend to move forward with over time is looking at updating the 

inventory, what is called the inventory reset. We would have to 

move forward with that in some point in the future after we get 

the other things in a row here. That was a long-term goal of the 

agency as part of the ChAMP program and some of the other efforts that were underway, and I think that is a valuable thing that 

we need to do in the future. The challenge is that we have to get 

that information from the industry groups. You have to have a 

mechanism for getting that and we have to have reliable data on 

what really is being used out there and what is being produced in 

commerce. 

Mr. RADANOVICH. Thank you, Mr. Owens. 

Mr. Ditz, how many are the worst of worst? How many? 

Mr. DITZ. Of course, when we have the giant question marks 

about what—— 

Mr. RADANOVICH. Mr. Ditz, if you could just say how many worst 

of worst chemicals are out there. 

Mr. DITZ. Thank you. I will try to give you a straight answer. 

Mr. RADANOVICH. Well, it would be a number. Since you are the 

expert, you can tell me how worst-of-worst chemicals are out there. 

Mr. DITZ. I can tell you roughly how many chemicals are known 

to be in this group. For example, for PBT chemicals—— 

Mr. RADANOVICH. Just tell me—— 

Mr. DITZ [continuing]. We are talking about dozens. 

Mr. RADANOVICH. Mr. Ditz, if you could—dozens, so there is 12, 

24? 

Mr. DITZ. No, that would be a dozen, but there are 21, for example, on the international treaty, which the rest of the world is moving on with. There are—— 

Mr. RADANOVICH. OK. So there are 80,000 chemicals out there 

and you have got probably say less than 50 that are on the worst 

of worst. 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
67 

Mr. DITZ. There is no way to know, and this is exactly the point 

that this hearing is so helpful for. We will never know unless they 

look at the—— 

Mr. RADANOVICH. All right. I appreciate the fact. I am just trying 

to get things in perspective because I don’t want the chemical production industry to go offshore. Pretty much that it is. Thank you 

very much. 

Now, Mr. Owens, you mentioned, ChAMP and how there was 

careful consideration under my, the information that I have, it was 

a rather hasty move. Can you tell me how you went through the 

deliberative process? And I would also like to know how that effects 

the Montebello Agreement where ChAMP was a significant part in 

the cooperation between Mexico and Canada in getting a handle on 

these chemicals and regulating them. 

Mr. OWENS. Congressman, the review that took place, as I said, 

did place before I got there but what the staff did was take a look 

at the timelines involved for review of the over 6,000 chemicals 

that were being looked at under ChAMP, the types of data, the information that were being provided and it was fairly spotty, kind 

of hit-or-miss data that was coming in, some companies providing 

a fair amount, others providing none at all. Some chemicals had 

what they were calling sponsors where a particular company or 

group of companies would provide data on that. Other chemicals 

were completely orphaned and there was no data at all on those 

chemicals, so it really was a hit-or-miss, very spotty process going 

forward with ChAMP, and with the length of time it was going to 

take under the existing regulatory regime to cajole that data out 

of the people who had it, if it existed at all out there among industry groups, then to put it into these bins, as they were being called, 

three different categories that the agency was going to use, and 

then somewhere down the line to get around to actually deciding 

which were the worst of the worst and to do something about it, 

we were looking at years and years and years down the road. 

With the focus of Administrator Jackson on the need to make 

chemical management a top priority for our agency and to do the 

kinds of things we need to do to protect the health and safety of 

children and families in this country, it was felt that we needed to 

take a more proactive approach to trying to identify what might be 

the worst-of-the-worst chemicals, in the immediate sense to take 

action on them, and that is why we have been developing these action plans, as I mentioned. We are hoping to unveil some of them 

in December and then every 4 months or so thereafter to have another smallish group of roughly four or so chemicals. You know, it 

is a pretty modest approach that we will be undertaking because 

of the limitations we have under TSCA and the limited amount of 

information but we are taking the data that we received under 

ChAMP and that we otherwise have at the agency, applying it to 

chemicals as we know we have, looking at data that CDC and other 

folks have developed through the biomonitoring processes that they 

have and the studies that have been done out there to do that kind 

of work. 

Mr. RADANOVICH. Thank you, Mr. Owens. I appreciate your testimony. 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
68 

Mr. RUSH. The gentlelady from Illinois is recognized for 2 minutes. 

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. Two minutes? 

Mr. RUSH. For 5 minutes. 

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Dr. Sampson, you talked about three States getting additional 

funds for biomonitoring, and you mentioned—and I am concerned. 

I live in Chicago and we are sitting on 20 percent of the world’s 

surface water in the Great Lakes. My understanding is that every 

fish that is caught in Illinois has excessive levels of mercury. I just 

wanted to know if there is any opportunity for a Midwestern city 

on the Great Lakes could be part of that or if you are doing that 

in other ways? 

Mr. SAMPSON. In the awards that we mentioned for California, 

New York and the State of Washington, there were actually 33 

States that turned in applications. They turned in very good proposals on how they would use their money locally and so—— 

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. Well, you know, Dr. Ditz mentioned the Great 

Lakes. I just think that is really important that we look at that as 

well. 

Mr. Owens, you said you are going to release action plans in December and then every 4 months, but Mr. Greggs mentioned, what 

did you call it quick-start approach, of 50 to 100 chemicals. I wonder what you think of that, you know, that there would be pretty 

universal agreement—I mean, correct me if I am wrong—of 50 to 

100—I guess I am just talking about getting started and this quickstart approach as being one way to go. 

Mr. OWENS. Well, Vice Chair Schakowsky, I think that that 

wouldn’t necessarily be a bad place to start. I mean, we have actually been having a lot of conversations with the groups that Mr. 

Greggs represents here as well as with the American Chemistry 

Council and other industry groups and there are a lot of industry 

groups out there that do support reform of the Toxic Substances 

Control Act. Without having had a detailed conversation with them 

about it, I would say though that that should be a floor rather than 

a ceiling. It should be kind of the jumping-off point, not the be all 

and end all because you might have a situation in which you have 

low exposure because of a very narrow limited population. I think 

Alaska Natives were mentioned, maybe Native Americans, maybe 

a subset of children in a certain—— 

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. No, I know. You talked about criteria. All I’m 

saying is that December we will have the action plan and then four 

months later some chemicals will be announced. It just seems to 

me if there is a consensus in regulators, the scientific community 

and the industry on some of the most toxic, the worst of the worst, 

that that would be a place to get going right away. 

Mr. OWENS. Congresswoman, the only thing I would say on that, 

I don’t think there actually has been an agreement on the actual 

list. I think that is what we are talking about with the criteria. But 

there would be substantial overlaps I think between what we 

would think would be the worst of the worst and what some industry groups would think and some advocacy groups as well and so 

that would be a good place to start, and we have identified six 

chemical groups that we are going to be looking at for the first acVerDate Mar 15 2010 01:55 Aug 31, 2012 Jkt 074851 PO 00000 Frm 00074 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\A851.XXX A851

smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
69 

tion plans. We will probably do four of those in December. Then the 

other ones will be carried over to early next year. We will have our 

public process where we will be getting information from NGOs 

and industry groups about what those worst-of-the-worst chemicals 

might be, to put them into our priority for action plans in the future. 

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. OK. I guess all I want to say is that while obviously we have to process, and it is refreshing to say that science 

is going to drive this, we also, I think, you know, need to move as 

quickly as possible. 

Let me ask Mr. Greggs and Ms. Bosley, in terms of minimum 

data requirements, do you agree that the industry needs to be provide the information? Let me ask you that. But then also ask Mr. 

Owens if you think it ought to be mandatory to require that data. 

Mr. GREGGS. Thank you, ma’am. We believe that EPA should 

have sufficient data not only just to make priority decisions but 

later as they do safety assessments and make decisions about risk 

and decisions about risk management, so we think that that is very 

important. As I testified today, the first thing to do is, let us identify the priority chemicals. We believe that there is substantial information, especially for this quick start using the criteria that I 

described where we could get started quickly. We believe that industry will have a significant role in that, unlike the action plan 

that EPA is starting now. Under our idea, the belief is that the development and assembly of that data, really the burden of that 

would be transferred to industry, industry putting that together 

and then providing it to the EPA to make the safety decision. 

Ms. BOSLEY. I might add that industry isn’t really sure what 

data EPA would like for a priority one, two, three, four or five 

chemistry. If there was a base set identified, industry could certainly provide as much data as it can. 

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. Mr. Owens, do you need the authority to require industry to provide the data? 

Mr. OWENS. Congresswoman, yes, we do. That has been one of 

the challenges with the ChAMP program, with the heralding it has 

received here this morning by Ms. Bosley, that not all companies 

participated and not all companies generated the data and not all 

companies provided it, and without a mandatory requirement that 

the data be produced in the first place and then be provided to 

EPA, we will never get where we need to be in that regard. 

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. Thank you. I appreciate everyone’s testimony. 

Dr. Ditz, though I didn’t ask you, I appreciate it. 

Mr. RUSH. The Chair recognizes now Mr. Scalise for 5 minutes. 

Mr. SCALISE. I thank the chairman. 

Mr. Sampson, in the CDC Third Report from July 2005, it stated 

that for many environmental chemicals we need more research to 

assess health risks from different blood or urine levels. The results 

shown in the Third Report should help prioritize and foster research on human health risks that result from exposure to environmental chemicals but the presence of a chemical does not imply 

disease. The levels or concentrations of the chemical are more important determinates of the relation to disease when established in 

appropriate research studies than the detection or presence of a 

chemical. Does CDC still stand behind that statement? 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
70 

Mr. SAMPSON. Yes, sir, that is a very good question. We do. 

Would you like me to just explain? 

Mr. SCALISE. Sure. 

Mr. SAMPSON. Typically what we do in our surveys are that we 

measure this cross-section of the U.S. population, several thousand 

samples, and that is in the Third Report that you are talking 

about, and what has happened since the beginning of these reports, 

when we identify a chemical in a large percentage of the population, that typically will spur a lot of research in that area but we 

are very careful not to say that this chemical by its presence is 

causing harm. In most cases we just need additional information, 

and it is very important to mention that our ability to detect the 

chemicals in our surveys and in populations is exceeding the ability 

to actually determine whether health effects are occurring, and we 

think that is a very big area of research that is needed. 

Mr. SCALISE. Thank you. 

Mr. Greggs, could you comment on the new REACH policy that 

is currently being implemented in Europe and if such a policy was 

implemented here in the United States, what would that mean for 

U.S. industry? 

Mr. GREGGS. Sure. As you I am sure are aware, REACH is an 

extremely comprehensive policy that has been recently put into 

place in Europe, some would say overwhelming is a potential concern. I think our thought really is, is that others as well as those 

in Europe have looked at chemical policies as well, Canada, for instance, which was mentioned in some earlier comments. Our 

thought really is, is that we ought to take the best parts from 

REACH from Canada and look at what is appropriate in the 

United States, apply that in the United States so that we get the 

gold standard in the U.S. for the chemical management policy that 

we put in as part of TSCA modernization. 

Mr. SCALISE. Thanks. And then some of the advocates of legislation recommended that we should have in the law some kind of 

list, an actual list of chemicals of concern. Now, some people suggest that rather than inform people, that list would end up being 

a blacklist and make it much more complicated for manufacturers 

and processors. Do you agree with having a list and what would 

be the impacts of that? 

Mr. GREGGS. Thanks for that question. I testified today that in 

approaching this prioritization that it ought to have several key 

steps. It ought to be science based. It ought to take a risk kind of 

approach using hazard and exposure. The scientists at EPA should 

be involved in that and there ought to be public review and comment to make sure that EPA has all the relevant data to make the 

right decisions about what chemicals should go under further assessment. Our concern about a list of course is, is that, you know, 

sort of whose list, what criteria. And our thought really is, is that 

by providing EPA with direction on the criteria for which priorities 

ought to be selected, that that will result in the right selection of 

priorities and the efforts going into the highest-priority chemicals 

first. 

Mr. SCALISE. Thanks. 

And then Ms. Bosley, if I can get your thoughts on both questions, on REACH as well as on the list. 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
71 

Ms. BOSLEY. I think REACH’s main problem is, it is a comprehensive legislation but it does not prioritize. So a chemical that 

is being manufactured at 20 metric tons that is highly toxic will 

get the same data set and the same priority as a chemical that is 

being manufactured at 20 metric tons that has almost no hazard 

to it. So there was no risk prioritization with respect to REACH, 

and I think the impact of a worst-of-the-worst list, those chemicals 

are fairly small and I think you just have to look at critical, strategic, national interest uses for those lists. I don’t think it would 

overburden the industry to come out with a list. 

Mr. SCALISE. That is all I have. I yield back. 

Mr. RUSH. The Chair now recognizes Mr. Sarbanes for 5 minutes. 

Mr. SARBANES. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. On this issue of the 

data the industry has provided, Mr. Ditz, I am going to direct a 

number of questions to you. On a scale of one to ten, where would 

you peg the integrity and usefulness of the data that industry now 

is providing, I gather mostly on a voluntary basis, in terms of what 

would be useful for reviewing an agency in making decisions about 

safety and so forth? 

Mr. DITZ. Let me try to make sure I am answering the right 

question. You are asking one to ten on the integrity of the data 

that industry is providing by voluntary means. Is that right? 

Mr. SARBANES. Yes, and then on the integrity in terms of whether they are trying to hide the ball, I mean just sort of how useful 

it is to the process of being able to get to the right answer. 

Mr. DITZ. Well, the voluntary programs have primarily asked industry for hazard data. That is data on the intrinsic property of a 

chemical, and that is part of what is needed for any kind of risk 

assessment. There isn’t a corresponding information on the exposure of the chemical, so basically in terms of risk, it is a zero. We 

don’t have the adequate information. EPA doesn’t have it. Customers of the chemical industry don’t have it. Investors don’t have 

it. So it is not a fault of industry that they haven’t given that. They 

didn’t offer that. It wasn’t asked of them in the voluntary program. 

But when I hear the comments in the hearing today about a riskbased system, I just have to stop and say we don’t have the information. The EPA doesn’t have it, nobody has it, and that is why 

we are not protecting Americans and we are not protecting our industry from countries who have higher standards than our own. 

Mr. SARBANES. And I assume that the REACH program is pulling all of that kind of information as part of its process, or not? 

Mr. DITZ. Well, REACH is trying. You know, there are shortcomings of the European approach, no doubt about it, but it is asking chemical producers to generate basic information on the nature 

of the chemical—does it cause cancer, does it accumulate in people, 

et cetera. And it is also asking companies how is that chemical 

used, is it put into consumer products, does it go into things which 

children are exposed to, what are the workplace exposures. Those 

two kinds of information have to come together before you can do 

any kind of a risk prioritization. So hats off to Europe for trying. 

The other say I would say about REACH is, no matter if you think 

it is, you know, misguided or overreaching or a lot of other descriptions have been attached to it, it will make our job in the United 

States a lot easier because the data on hazards will be on the 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
72 

Internet and the companies like Dow and Dupont who operate in 

the United States will not be hiding that information. It will be 

available for EPA and for CDC and for consumers and others. So 

frankly, we will benefit even if we don’t lift a finger. 

Mr. SARBANES. Let me ask you another question before my time 

runs out. First of all, I can see how seductive the conversation can 

become around the worst of the worst, which when you step back 

and think about it is a heck of a standard to start using. I mean, 

if you think of a spectrum, you would have chemicals that would 

be oK, you would have ones that would be bad, you would then 

have a universe that would be considered the worst, and then inside of that we seem to be spend a lot of time talking about the 

worst of the worst, but the danger is it will distract us from other 

parts of the spectrum that deserve I think an equal amount of attention for various reasons. Speak for a moment, because, you 

know, that matrix as well is quite seductive in advancing this notion of risk-based perspective and you start thinking, well, that red 

ball there, that red fiery ball down there in the bottom right-hand 

corner is really what we should be worrying about, but can you, 

Mr. Ditz, maybe give an example of a situation where you might 

not get to that part of the matrix but the inherent hazards associated with a particular chemical without maybe the corresponding 

high use of it would still suggest and call for taking steps to restrict its use. 

Mr. DITZ. Well, as I mentioned, when I refer to the worst of the 

worst, you are right, that is kind of the top of the pyramid of 

badness and it represents a very small number of the universe of 

chemicals but that is the place where we ought to be able to quickly reach agreement. That is not going to put workers out of jobs 

or put businesses to shut their doors. It does make sense to weed 

out dangerous things and that is exactly what a Toxic Substances 

Control Act should have been doing all these decades but it hasn’t. 

So I really think is the kind of thing where there ought to be broad 

agreement. An example of a chemical where is it not broadly used, 

widely used but still has these properties, well, the POPs treaty 

that I mentioned, the Stockholm Convention on Persistent Organic 

Pollutants, is an international scientific process that leads to the 

identification and the naming of exactly those chemicals. They get 

on that list when more than 100 countries agree to put them there. 

So that is the kind of place where it shouldn’t be hard for us to 

sign on and agree. It includes, for example, a couple of brominated 

flame retardants, chemicals which historically have been added to 

things like consumer products, computers, furniture, foam, that 

kind of thing, and actually even though TSCA didn’t really allow 

EPA the legal muscle to do it, they still negotiated an agreement 

with the producers to stop making that stuff. So I guess you could 

say in some certain cases when the writing is on the wall, even the 

manufacturer will surrender and move on to a different product. 

Those are the kinds of things where reasonable people ought to be 

able to agree, and frankly, we have to give EPA that power if we 

are going to ratify the treaty so eventually we are going to come 

back to this question even for the narrow question of those worstof-the-worst chemicals. 

Mr. SARBANES. Thank you. 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
73 

Mr. OWENS. Can I just offer just a quick additional factor, Congressman Sarbanes? One point that I didn’t get a chance to bring 

up in my oral testimony is covered in my written submission is the 

issue of the confidentiality of data that is submitted. Under the 

current law, the burden is on EPA to dispute a claim of confidential business information, CBI, as it is called, and on many occasions when the data submitted to us is claimed as confidential, 

over the years in fact taking the 80,000 figure just as a point, 

roughly one-fifth, about 16,000 chemicals on that list have claimed 

the identity to be confidential. So of the 80,000 chemicals that are 

on the list, the names of them are claimed to be confidential, so you 

could actually see that the chemical might cause a hazard to people 

or risk to people or adverse health effects but you don’t know what 

that chemical is by looking at the data that we actually might have 

in our database at EPA. And Administrator Jackson has directed 

us to do what we can do under existing TSCA to try to make more 

of that data available but we do need TSCA reform to address that 

issue as well so that the data can be made publicly available when 

it is provided. 

Mr. SARBANES. That is like the opposite of a blacklist in a sense, 

right? 

Mr. RUSH. The Chair now recognizes the gentlelady from Florida 

for 5 minutes. 

Mr. CASTOR. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you all very 

much for your testimony. I would like all of your opinions. Everyone is fairly united in their opinion that TSCA adopted originally 

in 1976, never updated, never modernized, is in need of reform. 

Does anyone disagree with that? So we have industry, we have environmental health experts, we have agency folks and legal experts, and this is generally the consensus across all of your fields, 

correct, that TSCA just hasn’t lived up to what it was supposed to 

do to protect the environmental health, that it is in need of reform. 

So I find it interesting that there is some criticism right off the bat 

that this could harm jobs because I think you both said representing industry groups that this could be done, reform could be 

done without harming jobs and industry. Is that correct? Did I misstate your testimony? 

Ms. BOSLEY. No, that is true. 

Ms. CASTOR. And I think we all acknowledge, I have heard Administrator Jackson state how important it is to have a stakeholder 

process, and Mr. Owens, is that what is going on now? How important are stakeholders to reform efforts? 

Mr. OWENS. Congresswoman, as I mentioned, the administrator 

unveiled a set of principles on behalf of the Obama Administration 

and those principles were developed in part based on a lot of conversations that we had at EPA, the administrator herself had with 

representatives of industry and various NGO groups, and as I also 

mentioned in testimony, as we go forward and develop these action 

plans in the future, we will be having conversations, we will have 

public meetings, we will have input from industry and public 

health groups as well as States and others that are looking at this 

issue and have things to add to the conversation. 

Ms. CASTOR. Is there any disagreement that you all know of over 

the initial approach to focus on the highest risk? Does anyone disVerDate Mar 15 2010 01:55 Aug 31, 2012 Jkt 074851 PO 00000 Frm 00079 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\A851.XXX A851

smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
74 

agree? And Mr. Owens, that is the EPA’s initial approach is to 

focus on the highest-risk chemicals in our environment that have 

the greatest threat to the health of our families and children and 

our public? Is that the—— 

Mr. OWENS. That is correct. 

Ms. CASTOR. So no one disagrees with that approach? How do 

we—— 

Mr. DITZ. Could I add to it, though? 

Ms. CASTOR. Yes, sir. 

Mr. DITZ. It is one question, what should EPA do now with the 

law we have got, and they might as well start kind of where the 

streetlight is on, you know, where they already have information 

about chemicals that are posing risk to humans, yes. On the legislative side, on fixing TSCA, it is also necessary that we fix the 

basic structure of this approach, which means information 

shouldn’t be hidden under rocks or in the dark, it should be out in 

the open and that should be the responsibility of business. I think 

that is also necessary as well as starting with where we know the 

problems already lie. 

Ms. CASTOR. And then Dr. Sampson, how do we ensure that all 

of the great medical research that the taxpayers are paying for is 

incorporated into such a legislative process, for example, the study 

that you mentioned, the very broad-based, comprehensive study of 

pregnant women and children and following the health data for 

many years? 

Mr. SAMPSON. We actually think it could be used as a very good 

mechanism for both setting the priorities but also looking at priority chemicals in the population over time, and one of the advantages of seeing it in people, it actually is how you are exposed from 

all sources, be it food, water, air or whatever. So if it is getting into 

people and we are detecting it, we can basically look at priority 

chemicals if there are regulations that are enacted, we will see 

those levels drop, or if new chemicals are introduced, they could appear through biomonitoring. 

Ms. CASTOR. Mr. Owens, you will be actively looking for ways 

through the modernization of TSCA to incorporate all of the terrific 

medical research that is available? 

Mr. OWENS. Absolutely. As I mentioned, we are already working 

closely with CDC as well as other federal agencies in looking at different substances and making sure that we are coordinating our activities as well and we have our own internal research group at our 

Office of Research and Development that are working on these 

issues as well. 

Ms. CASTOR. Thank you. I yield back. 

Mr. RUSH. The Chair now recognizes the gentleman from Utah 

for 5 minutes. 

Mr. MATHESON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. Greggs and Ms. Bosley, is TSCA is reauthorized and reformed, how can Congress best balance necessary changes to the 

current program while still providing for appropriate cost-benefit 

analysis so that various players can make good decisions regarding 

which chemicals to use and not use? 

Ms. BOSLEY. I can say that a definition of their safety standard 

would be a good first place to start, also, prioritization of high-risk 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
75 

chemicals. I think that establishing a data set for different priorities of chemicals is very important and that data set should include that cost-benefit analysis. 

Mr. MATHESON. Do you have anything to add to that? 

Mr. GREGGS. You are asking me, sir? 

Mr. MATHESON. Do you have anything to add to that? 

Mr. GREGGS. Yes, the one thought I have on this is that, you 

know, you asked about risk-benefit. In current TSCA, I think it has 

been described in previous hearings where the safety determination 

is combined with risk-benefit analysis, and I think going forward 

one of the things that we really think is, is that chemicals ought 

to be looked at and determined whether or not they are safe for 

their intended uses and then separately risk management decisions 

made about how and when those—what kind of actions should be 

taken to make sure that those have been shown not to be safe can 

be taken. 

Mr. MATHESON. Another question I would ask, and Dr. Sampson, 

if you can answer this first but others can chime in too, CDC currently runs the national biomonitoring program. It has produced a 

number of reports. Does the EPA or does the private sector have 

access to the data from these reports? 

Mr. SAMPSON. Absolutely. After we have finished our measurements, it goes back to the National Center for Health Statistics and 

they actually put it online so everybody has access to it, and then 

our scientists as well as other scientists can begin working on it. 

EPA as other agencies are using it actually incorporate our data 

very heavily into their report on the Nation in terms of chemical 

exposures. Other programs such as the Office of Smoking and 

Health use our data. We look for tobacco products in addition. But 

it is used quite extensively now in terms of—— 

Mr. MATHESON. Do you have suggestions for improvements that 

could take place with the program at the CDC? 

Mr. SAMPSON. In terms of an expansion, from what I understand 

today, if there was to be a large expansion of our present activities, 

first of all, I think the science of biomonitoring would have to be 

improved and increased. During the last decade instrumentation 

has come out that has just revolutionized our ability to measure 

chemicals in people and I think that will continue so that more 

chemicals can be measured in smaller and smaller amounts of 

blood. The amount of sample you get from a person is a very big 

deal. Getting more than a Vacutainer tube is a fairly big deal, so 

we have to do all of our measurements in very small amounts of 

bodily fluids. And then the second area is, if you are interested in 

any type of infrastructure outside of the existing ones, and the best 

one is the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey, that 

would require an infrastructure to do that, and since it is human 

samples you have to go through institutional review boards and 

very detailed approval, so just saying we want to start looking at 

a new matrix—cord blood has been proposed—actually will have 

some hurdles and challenges associated with that. 

I think, as I mentioned a little while ago, our ability to measure 

chemicals is ahead of our ability to interpret those in terms of 

health effects so more research is needed, and finally, if it was to 

be greatly expanded, we have most of the scientists that are doing 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
76 

this in our current laboratory, and there will be a very large workforce demand, I think if you expand it hundreds more and thousands of chemicals, it would be a challenge just in terms of training 

a slightly larger workforce. 

Mr. MATHESON. Thanks, Mr. Chairman. I yield back. 

Mr. RUSH. The Chair now has a request, and without objection, 

Mr. Markey, the chairman of the Subcommittee on Energy and the 

Environment is recognized for 5 minutes for the purpose of questioning the panel. Mr. Markey. 

Mr. MARKEY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, very much, and thank 

you for giving me this opportunity. Thank you for your leadership 

and focusing on these issues of risk posed by toxic substances in 

our environment. 

I would like to ask Mr. Ditz, Mr. Greggs and Ms. Bosley this 

question. Are there chemicals that you would identify that are already known to be so dangerous that they should be phased out or 

subject to other action to reduce human exposure immediately? Mr. 

Ditz? 

Mr. DITZ. Thank you, Congressman. It is possible that I partially 

answered this question earlier before you joined us, but the answer 

is yes, and the sort of colloquial phrase I use is the worst-of-theworst chemicals, those which are by their very nature inclined to 

last in the environment for months or years. 

Mr. MARKEY. Could you name some, please? 

Mr. DITZ. OK. Well, for example, brominated diphenol ethers. It 

doesn’t exactly—it is not a household name but these are constituents that are added to plastic so they don’t burst into flames. That 

is a very useful property but there are safer substances out there, 

and when there are such safer substances, it makes sense that we 

would not allow something which is inherently unsafe. 

Mr. MARKEY. Are there others that come to mind? 

Mr. DITZ. Well, I think there are a family of fluorinated compounds which are also almost infinitely persistent that last for a 

very long time in the environment. It has been the focus of some 

Congressional attention already. There are of course uses, not necessarily the full ban of a chemical, but uses of a chemical which 

might deserve to be phased out. I am thinking, of course, 20 years 

ago the attempted and failed restriction on forms of asbestos in certain products. 

Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Greggs, are there any that you would ban immediately, phase out immediately? 

Mr. GREGGS. Thank you, Mr. Markey. I testified about 

prioritization. One of the things I talked about was a quick-start 

effort that we believe that EPA could quickly undertake to identify 

50 to 100 chemicals that met certain criteria and that could quickly 

be moved into assessment and decisions where there are safety 

issues into risk management. 

Mr. MARKEY. Are there any that you have already concluded 

from previous studies that should be phased out immediately? 

Mr. GREGGS. Sir, there are a number of chemicals, you know, 

that have been phased out out of a lot of uses—— 

Mr. MARKEY. No, I mean any right now that not have been 

phased out. Can you just name a few that you think should be 

phased out? 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
77 

Mr. GREGGS. No, I don’t have any I would name but I think these 

are decisions really that should be made by EPA scientists looking 

at the data that is supplied by industry and other stakeholders. 

Mr. MARKEY. So you are saying there are not some that don’t 

need additional study, that they all need additional study? 

Mr. GREGGS. No, sir. You know, I think that there is substantial 

data that is available. We also understand through REACH, which 

Mr. Scalise asked about, there will be substantial additional data, 

as Dr. Ditz indicated. 

Mr. MARKEY. Well, let me go to you, Ms. Bosley. Any that you 

would phase out or subject to—— 

Ms. BOSLEY. No, not at this point, not phase out. I would point 

to a chemical’s use and its exposure criteria. For instance, if you 

were to take a chemical like phosgene, it is a pretty bad chemical 

that killed tens of thousands of people in World War I and II yet 

you couldn’t make Crixivan, an AIDS drug, today or breast-cancer 

drugs today or frankly this tabletop without phosgene, and there 

has not been a phosgene death in the United States for 30 years. 

Mr. MARKEY. So let me ask the three of you yes or no, do you 

believe that the EPA should look at the chemicals that are known 

to cause health problems and at the chemicals that are already 

known to be found in humans immediately, yes or no? 

Mr. GREGGS. Yes, sir, I testified to that. 

Mr. MARKEY. Ms. Bosley? 

Ms. BOSLEY. I think that those chemicals should be prioritized 

and EPA should take a closer look at them, yes. 

Mr. DITZ. Yes. 

Mr. MARKEY. And unlike many chemicals where one studies 

acute health impacts associated with high-dose exposure, there are 

disruptors that impact health after exposures to low doses over 

sustained periods of time. Can these disruptors be categorized 

using the same risk assessment as other toxic chemicals even 

though their characterizations are very different? Mr. Owens, can 

you answer that, please? 

Mr. OWENS. Congressman, let me answer it this way. I think 

there are some differences there because of the issue related to low 

dosage. I think that is a very important thing for our agency to be 

looking at because there will be some chemicals, there are some 

chemicals that can have harmful effects in low dosage either because of the effect themselves or because they do bioaccumulate 

and have a cumulative effect when compared with other chemicals 

or other chemicals of the same type of grouping you can see not 

just linear but sometimes exponentially increases and effects and 

studies based on cumulative exposures, so that is one of the issues 

that we really have to take a look at. 

Mr. MARKEY. So do you believe that the EPA’s endocrine 

disruptor screening program does need modernization like the rest 

of the EPA’s toxic chemical safety authority does? 

Mr. OWENS. Congressman, as you know, we finally got the first 

test orders issued and that program was mandated by Congress in 

1996. Finally a few weeks ago in October we were able to get the 

first test orders. The assays were developed and released earlier 

this year. The first test orders went out in October. There is a lot 

of catching up to be done in that program and we are going to be 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
78 

working as hard as we can. Certainly Administrator Jackson has 

made that a priority for my office to get the endocrine disruptor 

screening program on track and move forward. So we will be looking very closely at the data that we receive from those test orders. 

They are focused right now on pesticides. There is a list of 67 pesticides that were identified and we will be investigating and reviewing the data, as I said, that we get in from the test orders that 

we have issued and that we will be issuing going forward to address those 67. 

Mr. MARKEY. Thank you very much. What about non-pesticides? 

Mr. OWENS. Congressman, that is an issue that we are clearly 

looking very closely at as well. I know there is language in the 

health report from earlier this year talking about the need for us 

to look at non-pesticides. That is a topic of very serious conversation within the agency. We have to address what is on our screen 

first, which is the list of 67 pesticides, but clearly that is—there is 

a great deal of concern about the endocrine-disrupting impact of 

non-pesticide chemicals and we certainly want to work very closely 

with members of this committee and other groups that have expressed concern about those chemicals and talk about how we can 

go forward on it, so we are very much aware of the interest of the 

House in that. 

Mr. MARKEY. Well, the chairman is moving forward on the overhaul of TSCA and I think this non-pesticide issue is something that 

you should stay close to us on so that we can assure that we include everything that needs to be—— 

Mr. RUSH. The Chair will ask the witnesses if they could possibly 

stay for a second round of questioning. We will give each member 

2 minutes for questioning. And the Chair recognizes himself for 2 

minutes. 

The CDC has stated that, and I quote, ‘‘The measurement of an 

environmental chemical in a person’s blood or urine does not by 

itself mean the chemical caused the disease.’’ Dr. Sampson, the 

question is, can’t biomonitoring evaluations be used to show a higher likelihood than not that a potential chemical is the cause of a 

certain disease? For example, a recent AMA Journal study tied 

higher blood BPA levels to cardiovascular diseases, diabetes and 

liver enzyme conditions, so the question again to you is, can’t biomonitoring evaluations be used? 

Mr. SAMPSON. Mr. Chairman, that is a very excellent question. 

What we do—that publication came out of using our data which is 

collected on the HANES participants as well as medical information. As I explained, when people go through the survey, they actually do a complete physical. They collect 1,000 pieces of questionnaire information and then they donate blood and urine. Some of 

the other tests have to do with cardiovascular disease and diabetes 

and so forth, so investigators do have the ability to link our exposure data with disease type of data. Now, our ability to detect 

chemicals has exceeded the current ability to interpret it in those 

of those health effects so we are trying to work with other federal 

agencies like the National Institutes for Environmental Health 

Sciences and so forth to look at that problem more closely. The 

chemical you’re referring to is bisphenol A and I believe NIEHS 

has just introduced some money from the stimulus package to look 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
79 

at more health effect studies associated with exposure to bisphenol 

A. 

Mr. RUSH. Thank you. The Chair recognizes the ranking member. 

Mr. RADANOVICH. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

A question for Mr. Owens, if I may. I want to go back to the 

Montebello agreement and how the Administration plans to carry 

out the Montebello agreement without ChAMP. If you could respond rather quickly. I am sorry, I have only got 2 minutes. 

Mr. OWENS. Well, I think certainly if we get TSCA reform, we 

will be able to have a lot more data on those chemicals and to be 

able to address it, but in the interim we will be using the data we 

have. We will be asking continually for data from industry, but 

again, our ability to get that data is based on the willingness of industry to provide it, and some of them have not. 

Mr. RADANOVICH. Thank you. 

My last question is for Mr. Greggs and Ms. Bosley. Mr. Greggs, 

I appreciated your poster over there that advocated the risk-based 

prioritization matrix and having that risk-based approach in analyzing these 80,000 chemicals that are out there. Can you tell me— 

and Mr. Ditz had advocated three priorities: identifying the worst 

of the worst, going up against a specific standard and industry providing a lot of the research and information, if I got that right. But 

how would this type of requirement without making it a risk-based 

approach affect your industries, and, you know, specifically to the 

cost of the regulations potentially that could be imposed? 

Mr. GREGGS. I think what I heard Dr. Ditz talk about, I heard 

him talk about the need to have hazard and exposure data and 

some concerns that he expressed about the unavailability of some 

of that data. I think, you know, sort of two thoughts on this very 

quickly. One is that under REACH, over 90 percent of the chemicals reported to EPA just a couple years ago as being in commerce 

in the United States are pre-registered under REACH and most of 

that data is going to be submitted next year as part of the REACH 

deadlines. So on the hazard data, I think that there is going to be 

a resource there and I think EPA and others ought to be looking 

for how can we make that data available in the United States. 

The second part is on the use and exposure data. Again, EPA 

started a system for collecting use and exposure data in 2006. In 

doing that, they asked the chemical manufacturers about where 

were chemicals being used. Of course, some of that information is 

known to the manufacturers but not all of that information and so 

the information that EPA presently has is incomplete. What CSPA, 

GMA and SDA have talked about is an idea for users providing 

chemical use information as part of the periodic inventory update 

that EPA does. That way we will have more complete use and exposure data to be able to both do prioritization but as well to target 

the assessments that need to be done on chemicals. 

Mr. RADANOVICH. Ms. Bosley? 

Ms. BOSLEY. As I mentioned, I think that EPA’s ability to ask 

for data from industry should be enhanced. The data that industry 

has isn’t hidden under any rocks. It informs everything that industry does from their material safety data sheets to their safety and 

handling information to general public knowledge, and for EPA to 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
80 

be able to ask for that data should be enhanced. I also agree that 

EPA has exposure data based on the 2005 inventory update and 

that exposure data should be made public. I don’t think the IUR 

is yet public in 2005. 

Mr. RADANOVICH. Thank you, and thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. RUSH. By unanimous consent, the gentleman from Massachusetts is recognized for 2 minutes. 

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

Ms. Bosley, your testimony stated that we should embrace TSCA 

mechanisms that have worked well like the New Chemicals Program where EPA has successfully reviewed some 35,000 new 

chemicals since 1979 without impeding innovation. But according 

to EPA, 67 percent of pre-manufacture notices received by EPA 

under this program contain no hazard data on health or the environment and 85 percent contain no health data at all. If the goal 

is to determine the health and environment impacts of a chemical, 

how can this program possibly be characterized as successful if the 

data isn’t even provided to make that determination? 

Ms. BOSLEY. I can say that EPA has methods they have pioneered, the notion of structure activity relationships such that if 

data is not provided, they look at the chemical and take the most 

conservative approach and they decide their regulation of that 

chemical based on that conservative approach along with the premanufacture notice process always is needed, process information, 

identification information—— 

Mr. MARKEY. But how do they make—— 

Ms. BOSLEY [continuing]. Exposure and use information. 

Mr. MARKEY. How do they make a decision if there is no health 

data or environmental data? How do they make a decision? 

Ms. BOSLEY. EPA has a tremendous amount of health and environmental information and they use that structure activity relationship—— 

Mr. MARKEY. But if it is not provided by the corporation to them, 

how can they possibly be flying blind? What is the empirical basis 

that is used to make a decision if it is not even part of their process? 

Ms. BOSLEY. They look at similar chemicals that have health and 

safety data available and that is the structure activity program 

that EPA has pioneered. 

Mr. MARKEY. But then it sounds like EPA becomes kind of a 

chemical Carnac where they hold up the envelope, you know, without knowing the answer. They are somehow supposed to know 

what the answer is inside without ever having reviewed it, then 

they give the answer, huh? So that can’t be a process that really 

can work for the long term. 

Ms. BOSLEY. Well, I think it has worked successfully over the 

last 30 years. 

Mr. MARKEY. Well, I think that is debatable. If they didn’t have 

the health and environment data, then—Mr. Owens, would you like 

to briefly respond to that? 

Mr. OWENS. Yes. Thank you, Congressman. I may have said this 

when you were out of the room but one issue we do have is the 

issue of confidential business information and the claiming of certain types of data, not necessarily health and safety data. So we 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
81 

get data that is claimed as CBI we have but we can’t make public 

and there is a resource issue here in terms of our ability to review 

all the information that is coming in. We have a 90-day window 

when data comes in to EPA to make a determination under the 

new chemical program that we have and if the data isn’t provided, 

we have to go back and show a reason why we think that data 

needs to be provided and even then there is no requirement that 

it actually be generated or created in the first instance and so 

there are a number of handicaps and obstacles that we faced, and 

I think while it feels nice sitting over here as a new person at EPA 

to hear the agency being praised by someone on the outside, you 

know, it just ain’t so. That is really not what reality is in terms 

of what the agency has been able to do over the years. 

Mr. MARKEY. I thank you, Mr. Owens. I wrote to OMB to express 

my concerns that their approval for your endocrine disruptor rules 

appear to be limiting your ability to require the testing needed to 

determine the health risks of endocrine disruptors. I just received 

a response to my letter from OMB Director Peter Orszag last night 

which indicated that OMB was not in any way seeking to limit 

EPA’s ability to get the data it needed to determine the health effects of potential endocrine disruptors. Are you confident that EPA 

will have the ability to get the data needed in this area? 

Mr. OWENS. Absolutely, Congressman. Administrator Cass 

Sunstein, who is the head of the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs at OMB, and I have had a lot of conversations about 

this and it is certainly my understanding based on our conversations with Mr. Sunstein that OMB’s terms of clearance for the 

EDSP information collection request in no way limits our discretion 

in any way through the program so it sounds as though the letter 

you received is consistent with that. 

Mr. MARKEY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. RUSH. The Chair thanks the gentleman. The Chair thanks 

all of the witnesses for the time that you have so graciously shared 

with us and I want to commend you for your testimony. It has been 

very enlightening and illuminating for us, and again, the Chair 

thanks the witnesses for participating. 

The Chair has a unanimous-consent request with respect to two 

items that were submitted to the subcommittee for entry into the 

record of today’s hearing. One is the testimony from the Humane 

Society, the Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine, and 

the People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals, and the second 

UC request is written testimony from the National Petrochemical 

and Refiners Association. Hearing no objection, the unanimous consent is approved. 

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

Mr. RUSH. Now the Chair must bring this hearing to a conclusion. The Subcommittee is hereby adjourned. 

[Whereupon, at 1:15 p.m., the Subcommittee was adjourned.] 

[Material submitted for inclusion in the record follows:] 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
82 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 90 here 74851A.040
83 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 91 here 74851A.041
84 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 92 here 74851A.042
85 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 93 here 74851A.043
86 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 94 here 74851A.044
87 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 95 here 74851A.045
88 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 96 here 74851A.046
89 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 97 here 74851A.047
90 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 98 here 74851A.048
91 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 99 here 74851A.049
92 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 100 here 74851A.050
93 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 101 here 74851A.051
94 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 102 here 74851A.052
95 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 103 here 74851A.053
96 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 104 here 74851A.054
97 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 105 here 74851A.055
98 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 106 here 74851A.056
99 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 107 here 74851A.057
100 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 108 here 74851A.058
101 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 109 here 74851A.059
102 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 110 here 74851A.060
103 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 111 here 74851A.061
104 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 112 here 74851A.062
105 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 113 here 74851A.063
106 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 114 here 74851A.064
107 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 115 here 74851A.065
108 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 116 here 74851A.066
109 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 117 here 74851A.067
110 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 118 here 74851A.068
111 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 119 here 74851A.069
112 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 120 here 74851A.070
113 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 121 here 74851A.071
114 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 122 here 74851A.072
115 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 123 here 74851A.073
116 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 124 here 74851A.074
117 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 125 here 74851A.075
118 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 126 here 74851A.076
119 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 127 here 74851A.077
120 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 128 here 74851A.078
121 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 129 here 74851A.079
122 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 130 here 74851A.080
123 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 131 here 74851A.081
124 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 132 here 74851A.082
125 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 133 here 74851A.083
126 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 134 here 74851A.084
127 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 135 here 74851A.085
128 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 136 here 74851A.086
129 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 137 here 74851A.087
130 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 138 here 74851A.088
131 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 139 here 74851A.089
132 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 140 here 74851A.090
133 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 141 here 74851A.091
134 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 142 here 74851A.092
135 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 143 here 74851A.093
136 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 144 here 74851A.094
137 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 145 here 74851A.095