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

78–128 2013

H.R. 5820, THE TOXIC CHEMICALS SAFETY ACT 

OF 2010 

HEARING 

BEFORE THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON COMMERCE, TRADE, 

AND CONSUMER PROTECTION 

OF THE

COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND 

COMMERCE 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

ONE HUNDRED ELEVENTH CONGRESS 

SECOND SESSION 

JULY 29, 2010 

Serial No. 111–151 

( 

Printed for the use of the Committee on Energy and Commerce 

energycommerce.house.gov 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
(II) 

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 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
(III) 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON COMMERCE, TRADE, AND CONSUMER PROTECTION

BOBBY L. RUSH, Illinois 

Chairman 

JANICE D. SCHAKOWSKY, Illinois 

Vice Chair 

JOHN 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 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARING

jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD 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. Ed Whitfield, a Representative in Congress from the Commonwealth 

of Kentucky, opening statement ......................................................................... 2 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 4 

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

California, opening statement ............................................................................. 8 

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

of Pennsylvania, opening statement ................................................................... 9 

Hon. Frank Pallone, Jr., a Representative in Congress from the State of 

New Jersey, opening statement .......................................................................... 10 

Hon. Robert E. Latta, a Representative in Congress from the State of Ohio, 

opening statement ................................................................................................ 10 

Hon. John D. Dingell, a Representative in Congress from the State of Michigan, opening statement ....................................................................................... 11 

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

opening statement ................................................................................................ 12 

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

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

opening statement ................................................................................................ 17 

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

opening statement ................................................................................................ 17 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 19 

Hon. Diana DeGette, a Representative in Congress from the State of Colorado, opening statement ...................................................................................... 24 

Hon. Steve Scalise, a Representative in Congress from the State of Louisiana, 

opening statement ................................................................................................ 24 

Hon. Kathy Castor, a Representative in Congress from the State of Florida, 

opening statement ................................................................................................ 25 

Hon. Tim Murphy, a Representative in Congress from the Commonwealth 

of Pennsylvania, opening statement ................................................................... 26 

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

of Illinois, opening statement .............................................................................. 27 

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

Ohio, opening statement ...................................................................................... 28 

WITNESSES

Steve Owens, Assistant Administrator, Office of Chemical Safety and Pollution Prevention, Environmental Protection Agency .......................................... 29 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 32 

Richard Denison, Senior Scientist, Environmental Defense Fund ...................... 37 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 39 

Cal Dooley, President and Chief Executive Officer, American Chemistry 

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

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 48 

Answers to submitted questions ...................................................................... 230 

Ken Cook, President, Environmental Working Group ......................................... 55 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 57 

Answers to submitted questions ...................................................................... 247 

Howard Williams, Vice President, Construction Specialties, Incorporated ........ 79 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 82 

Mark Mitchell, President, Connecticut Coalition for Environmental Justice ..... 157 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 159 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
Page

VI 

Beth Bosley, Managing Director, Boron Specialties, LLC, Society of Chemical 

Manufacturers and Affiliates .............................................................................. 163 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 166 

SUBMITTED MATERIAL

Statement of Charles M. Auer, submitted by Mr. Whitfield ................................ 188 

Statement of the National Petrochemical & Refiners Association ............... 204 

Letter from American Cleaning Institute, Grocery Manufacturers Association, and Consumer Specialty Products Association .................................. 210 

Letter from chemical interest groups ............................................................. 212 

Letter from CropLife America ......................................................................... 214 

Letter from National Association of Manufacturers ...................................... 216 

Letter from Pine Chemicals Association ......................................................... 218 

Letter from Retail Industry Leaders Association .......................................... 220 

Letter from the Vinyl Institute ....................................................................... 224 

Letter from the National Association of Chemical Distributors ................... 226 

Letter from the American Chemistry Council ................................................ 228 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
(1) 

H.R. 5820, THE TOXIC CHEMICALS SAFETY 

ACT OF 2010 

THURSDAY, JULY 29, 2010 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES,

SUBCOMMITTEE ON COMMERCE, TRADE, 

AND CONSUMER PROTECTION, 

COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND COMMERCE, 

Washington, DC. 

The Subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 10:08 a.m., in Room 

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

[Chairman of the Subcommittee] presiding. 

Members present: Representatives Rush, Schakowsky, Sarbanes, 

Sutton, Pallone, Green, Gonzalez, Barrow, Castor, Space, DeGette, 

Dingell, Waxman (ex officio), Murphy of Connecticut, Whitfield, 

Pitts, Murphy of Pennsylvania, Gingrey, Scalise, Latta, and Barton 

(ex officio). 

Staff present: Bruce Wolpe, Senior Adviser; Michelle Ash, Chief 

Counsel; Tim Robinson, Counsel; Robin Appleberry, Counsel; Tracy 

Sheppard, Counsel; Jacqueline Cohen, Counsel; Melissa Bez 

Cheatham, Professional Staff; Rebecca Brown, Fellow; Peter 

Ketcham-Colwill, Special Assistant; William Wallace, Special Assistant; Elizabeth Letter, Press Assistant; Billie McGrane, Press 

Intern; Monica La, Energy and Environment Intern; Jerry Couri, 

Senior Professional Staff; Brian McCullough, Senior Professional 

Staff; Shannon Weinberg, Counsel; and Sam Costello, Legislative 

Analyst. 

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

Mr. RUSH. The Subcommittee on Commerce, Trade and Consumer Protection will now come to order. The Chair wants to recognize all who are gathered here. The Chair would like to extend his 

welcome to the witnesses who are here, and the Chair recognizes 

himself for 5 minutes for the purposes of an opening statement. 

Today we are pleased to welcome all of our seven witnesses who 

represent a wide range of views on the state of chemical regulation 

in the U.S. I know that each and every one of you are very concerned about the proper role of the EPA in assessing chemical risk, 

hazards, exposure, and safety as they relate to subject of human 

health, public safety, and the environment. And I look forward to 

listening to the testimony of the witnesses and their reactions to 

H.R. 5820, The Toxic Chemicals and Safety Act of 2010, which I 

proudly co-authored and introduced in the House of RepresentaVerDate Mar 15 2010 04:32 Apr 03, 2013 Jkt 078128 PO 00000 Frm 00007 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 E:\HR\OC\A128.XXX A128

jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
2 

tives along with our Full Committee Chairman, Chairman Waxman, one week ago last Thursday. 

Because we anticipated that we would introduce a major chemical reform bill before the August recess, Mr. Waxman and I invited critical stakeholders beginning in early May 2010 to comment 

and participate in, in person I might add, at a number of stakeholder sessions on a draft discussion that serves as a precursor to 

the bill that is the subject of today’s hearing. 

My own role in all of this was to put forth a bill that all sides 

would not necessarily fall in love with, but a bill that they can actually live with. Just like the hundreds of millions of Americans 

must live with chemical substances, mixtures, and articles that 

they put on their bodies and found in containers where they store 

their food and water, and then they put onto their breakfast, lunch, 

and/or dinner tables of their families, their loved ones before putting it into their precious, precious bodies. 

One thing that is absolutely clear to me is that Americans want, 

need, and demand to know much more than they have ever known 

in the past. They want to know what chemicals are in their consumer products, what chemicals are in their food and drink, what 

chemicals are in their homes, their surrounding communities, and 

throughout their environment. Americans are also demanding to 

know what are the associating use, hazard and exposure risk and 

harms. Are they from these chemicals to their own health, and to 

the health of their families and to the environment? 

This hearing and this bill will open this important discussions 

about these important issues and regulatory dysfunction beyond 

just the players inside the Washington Beltway by meaningfully 

shifting the burdens to industry all along this consumer and industrial goods supply chains to provide much to this missing scientific 

and health and information to the EPA. The American people who 

have far too long been left out of the loop on these matters will be 

far better off tomorrow than they are today. 

With that I again want to thank the witness and I yield back the 

balance of my time, and I recognize now the Ranking Member, Mr. 

Whitfield for 5 minutes. 

Mr. WHITFIELD. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you Mr. 

Chairman and is my microphone on? 

Mr. RUSH. Is his microphone on? 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. ED WHITFIELD, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE COMMONWEALTH OF KENTUCKY 

Mr. WHITFIELD. OK, thank you. Not that you all would miss anything by not hearing what I would say, but first of all I want to 

welcome all the witnesses. We look forward to your testimony on 

a very important subject. It is my understanding in 90 percent; six 

percent of all manufactured goods in America are involved in some 

way with chemicals. And yesterday on the House Floor we passed 

a bill setting up a National Strategy Board to encourage more manufacturing jobs in America. And Majority Leader Hoyer and Speaker Pelosi have adopted just recently a theme, Make It in America, 

and all of us certainly support that. 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
3 

But when you look at this legislation, not trying to be an obstructionist, not trying to just create problems to be creating problems, 

but when you analyze this bill we have serious concerns with this 

bill. And many of us genuinely believe that if this legislation is 

passed as written and as amended then instead of helping us create more jobs in America, it will help us lose more jobs in America. 

I am not going to go over all my concerns. I am just going to list 

a few. 

Under this legislation a company trying to make a new product 

will need to run an assessment not only of the product as they intend to use it, but for also any other area in Commerce where a 

consumer may come in contact with that product. This could be especially problematic for automobile makers and many other manufacturers. The approval process through the EPA is impossible. 

Hundreds of toxicologist and risk assessors will need to be hired 

even with the extra staffing it will be long, cumbersome and time 

consuming if Reach is an example, their offices have been overwhelmed with paper just on the study portions. The so called Safe 

Standard is so complex and involved with its conditions and caveats I am not sure what chemical would be able to meet it. The bill 

compromises confidential business information by requiring that 

businesses file all the data on their product and make some of the 

information through public databases. And finally this bill creates 

a user fee to fund the entire operation of the bill, yet the user fee 

is not directed to go to the agency or its chemicals program. 

I would also just like to read from the testimony some experts 

on this subject. H.R. 5820 as currently drafted promotes unworkable approaches to chemicals management. As a—on the Safety 

Standard this comment was made. The Safety Standard established in this bill sets such an impossible high hurdle for all chemicals in Commerce that would provide—that it would produce technical, bureaucratic, and commercial barriers so significant that 

that law would be ineffective and unworkable. On the new chemicals portion, H.R. 5820 is so overly broad that there would be adverse effects in the amount of upfront data required before a new 

chemical could be put on the market; was so complex that the result will be that this innovation moves to other countries to 

produce chemicals with more manageable regulatory regimes and 

the production of these new chemistries would move there as well. 

We would be exporting innovation and jobs instead of products. 

H.R. 5820 puts the burden of compliance on the retailer and 

other importers in a manner that is unworkable, unenforceable, 

and not compliant with International Trade Laws. H.R. 5820 does 

include some improvements over the discussion draft, but its foundation is still unworkable. So we have genuine concerns about this 

legislation. We think it is vitally important that TCSA be reformed 

and we do look forward to working with the witnesses, with the 

majority, and everyone to adopt a plan that is workable, that uses, 

basic common sense, and provides a balance. Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Whitfield follows:] 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
4 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 10 here 78128A.001

Statement of the Honorable Ed Whitfield 

Ranking Member, Subcommittee on Commerce, Trade, and Consumer Protection 

Hearing on H.R. 5820 

July 29, 2010 

• Mr. Chairman, thank you for recognizing me for the purposes of giving 

and opening statement. I appreciate that you and your staff have been 

both cooperative and deliberate in looking at this issue and want to 

encourage more of that before this committee moves forward with this 

bill. 

• I want to welcome our witnesses and thank them for their time and 

effort on this legislation. I look forward to their testimony and the 

question and answer period. 

• Mr. Chairman, the breadth and depth of regulation, bureaucracy, scope, 

and costs under this bill make me very uncomfortable. After our 

experience with the Toy Bill, where w~ were all trying to do the right 

thing for toys, and wound up creating huge problems in one sector. 

Considering that the American Chemistry Council suggests that 96 

percent of a person's day is touched somehow, by chemicals, I am very 

worried about the level of damage we could do with this bill if we get it 

wrong. 

• Yesterday morning we passed a bill encouraging manufacturing in the 

United States, yet, it seems to me that we are putting American 

manufacturing at risk with this very bi\\. Already, the Financial Times 

reported on June 20, 2010 that China is poised to end our country's 110-

year run as the world's leader in factory production. 

• Noteworthy to me is that in December 2009, the Bureau of Labor 

Statistics was projecting that, through 2018, the non-pharmaceutical 

side of the chemical industry was going to experience a 13 percent 

decrease in wages and employment while every other industry of the 
5 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 11 here 78128A.002

U.S. economy combined was projected to increase by 11 percent. 

Among the factors cited for the lack of growth in the chemical sector 

were environmental regulation and legislation. 

• This bill is not just about stricter regulations for a few large chemical 

companies. This bill is so big and so broad, that its ripple effects will be 

felt throughout the entire supply chain. So much so that I worry the 

incentive for any manufacturer to stay in this country will be lost. 

• In thinking about this bill, I worry about chemical distribution 

companies like Brenntag Mid-South (located in Henderson, KY) who 

have begun providing additional services to customers, including 

repackaging and customized blending of chemicals to create mixtures. 

Given that distribution companies are a critical component of the supply 

chain, I worry that companies like it, it many of which have little to no 

experience with current TSCA, do not have the resources or even the 

expertise to comply with this legislation. 

• In the interest of time, I want to list out a few of my concerns: 

o A company trying to make a new product will need to run an 

assessment of their product for other areas in commerce where a 

consumer may come in contact with the "articles" in their new 

products. This could be especially problematic for automakers 

whose products are part intensive. 

o The reform bill will require more testing of animals. It does not 

capitalize on the information EPA already has, nor the treasure 

trove of information that exists in other countries or programs, 

like REACH. 

o The approval process through EPA is impossible. Hundreds of 

Toxicologists and Risk assessors will need to be hired. Even with 

the extra staffing, it will be long, cumbersome, and time 
6 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 12 here 78128A.003

consuming. If REACH is any example, their offices have been 

overwhelmed with paper just on the study portions. 

o The so called "safe standard" is so complex and involved with its 

conditions and caveats, I am not sure what chemical would be 

able to meet it. 

o This bill treats importers (retailers) as manufacturers and makes 

them liable for products being brought into the United States for 

sale. An example is a blackberry being sold at Best Buy and Best 

Buy would be liable in knowing that the product and all ofits 

components meet the safety requirements under the new bill. 

Retailers are not equipped to make the kids of determinations 

required by this bill. 

o This bill compromises confidential business information by 

requiring that businesses file all the data on their product to 

people and makes some of the information available through 

public databases. We need to guard against foreign competitors 

stealing this information and reverse engineering our products 

and economy. 

o Finally, this bill creates a user fee to fund the entire operation of 

this bill. Yet, the user fee is not directed to go to the Agency or its 

chemicals program. This amounts to a massive standard of living 

tax on domestic manufacturers and consumers. We should not 

pursue user fee policies under the guise that they are funding the 

program in question when they in reality are subsidizing 

unrelated spending. 

• Mr. Chairman, we need to have safe chemicals in commerce in our 

country and in our homes, but I think this bill will compromise 

innovation and make destroy our economy more than it will protect 

human health. I think if we are to do a bill, we need to do it more 

smartly than this. Unfortunately, regardless of my respect for the 

process and the work that went into it, this bill is a non-starter. 
7 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 13 here 78128A.004

• I look forward to the testimony of our witnesses and yield back. 
8 

Mr. RUSH. The Chair now recognizes the Chairman of the floor 

Committee, my friend from California, Mr. Waxman, for 5 minutes. 

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

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

Substances Control Act was enacted in 1976 to product the American People from exposures to toxic chemicals and to steer our 

chemical industry toward safety and innovation. These were laudable goals and one’s we still can agree on. But 34 years later those 

goals have not been met. TSCA has been tested and found severely 

deficient. This statute has been fundamentally unchanged for 34 

years where it has been amended it is with new titles that address 

discreet issues and bypass the unworkable structure of the current 

law. TSCA has become a patchwork, but not a framework. Today 

Americans are exposed to a staggering number and variety of 

chemicals even before birth. Yet consumers lack basic information 

about these chemical exposures and the Federal government is no 

less in the dark. 

EPA lacks critical information about chemical hazards and exposures even though it needs to make decisions about them and they 

lack the authority to take action even where the risk is clear. The 

result is that the U.S. is not leading the global move toward safer 

chemicals, American’s public health is not being protected, and 

American businesses are behind the curve when they should be 

leading the world in innovative and safe chemical development. We 

can do better and the legislation Chairman Rush and I and several 

of our colleagues have introduced will modernize this law. 

This bill will address the failures of TSCA and set up a flexible, 

responsive, and workable system for protecting health and the environment while promoting American jobs and innovation. Under 

this legislation all chemicals will be subject to a safety review and 

the burden of proof will be rightly shifted from EPA to chemical 

manufacturers. Basic safety data will be generated and made public, commercial users of chemicals will get the information they 

need to make better business decisions. New policies will encourage 

the development of safer chemicals and created the green jobs of 

tomorrow. These are major steps forward. 

This Subcommittee has held three hearings this Congress on this 

important issue. Draft language was circulated in April, followed 

by a robust and comprehensive stakeholder process. This dialogue 

was requested by industry and welcomed by environmentalists to 

move legislation forward and it has resulted in the text we are considering today. There is work still to be done and I look forward 

to further constructive conversations with my colleagues, all of 

them, about how best to achieve our common goals. 

This bill is the right starting point for this conversation. It is ambitious but also workable, and I believe it is the right thing to do 

for American consumers and businesses alike. I want to thank 

Chairman Rush for his leadership on this issue and the Minority 

for their involvement in the stakeholder process. Just like Chairman Rush, I am hopeful that TSCA reform can proceed on a bipartisan basis and with continued input from the stakeholders. We all 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
9 

want legislation that improves protection for public health and the 

environment, as well as continued innovation and job production. 

I thank all of our witnesses for being here today and I look forward 

to their testimony. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. RUSH. The Chair thanks the Chairman of the Full Committee. The Chair now recognizes Mr. Pitts for 2 minutes. 

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 

hearing on H.R. 5820, The Toxic Chemicals Safety Act of 2010. Let 

me begin by saying that none of us wants harmful and dangerous 

chemicals to endanger public health and the environment. I have 

children and grandchildren and grandchildren and their safety and 

wellbeing is of the upmost importance to me. However, this bill before us today creates such a burdensome framework for chemicals 

to be approved that I am concerned that it will not actually achieve 

its intended purpose. 

The existing law, The Toxic Substance Control Act is responsible 

for identifying and regulating toxic substances in the United States 

Commerce. It is a risk base statute that requires the EPA to regulate against unreasonable risk and to do so in a—in the least burdensome way. The existing law also contains preemption provisions 

that do not allow states to establish testing and other requirements 

that conflict with existing federal laws. Yet H.R. 5820 completely 

revamps TSCA and mandates unrealistic testing which essentially 

calls for the complete absence of any risk associated with a chemical. 

According to the National Association of Manufacturers this is 

‘‘an impossible goal that will hamper lower risk beneficial products 

from coming to the market.’’ In addition NAM calls the new safety 

standard ‘‘an unworkable risk assessment methodology for every 

chemical substance and for all EPA prioritized mixtures.’’ Additionally Section 18 of H.R. 5820 eliminates federal preemption by permitting that each state or locality to enact any law regulation on 

chemicals under the purview of TSCA as long as compliance with 

both federal and state law is not impossible. Mr. Chairman, if this 

bill becomes law severely hamper our economy, it will hamper innovation, it will encourage chemical companies to go offshore and 

unemployment will increase, and our nation will suffer. 

I urge a thoughtful reconsideration of this bill while carefully 

evaluating risk including hazards, exposures, intended uses, and 

the impact to the economy and let those—these factors inform and 

guide our any regulatory action. I appreciate the witnesses being 

here today, look forward to listening to their testimony, thank you, 

and I yield back. 

Mr. RUSH. The Chair recognizes the gentleman from New Jersey, 

Mr. Pallone for 2 minutes. 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
10 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. FRANK PALLONE, JR., A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF NEW JERSEY 

Mr. PALLONE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I do have to start out 

by responding to Mr. Whitfield’s comments. I like Mr. Whitfield a 

lot but I have to that on the one hand I was happy that he recognized the Democratic agenda of Make It in America. And he also 

indicated that he supports it. I was a little surprised because I 

think that many times Republican support of free trade bills, which 

we had a proliferation under President Bush, you know don’t seem 

to do much to protect American jobs, and I am often really not sure 

if the Republican leadership really cares about preserving jobs here 

anymore with all their free trade advocacy. But I know now that 

at least Mr. Whitfield at least supports our Make It in America 

agenda and I do appreciate that. 

I also wanted to thank you, Mr. Chairman for holding the hearing today on a very important subject and that is TSCA. The original TSCA law was enacted in ’76, and it is clear that this law had 

failed to sufficiently—failed to protect public health and our environment. It was supposed to allow the federal government to keep 

harmful chemicals out of Commerce, but provisions in the law have 

kept EPA from being able to collect the data necessary to even determine what chemicals are harmful. With over 80,000 chemicals 

in Commerce in the U.S., and roughly 700 new chemicals introduced every year, EPA has only been successful in regulating limited use of five chemicals under the TSCA statute. And the provisions in this will place so much burden on the EPA they even run 

into trouble banning asbestos which we know is extremely hazardous to human beings. 

The problem stems from the burden being placed on the EPA to 

approve a chemical is unsafe when the agency does not have access 

to the data required to make that case. Reform is necessary and 

I commend the committee and the EPA for taking this issue seriously. I think that the legislation before us would make a big difference. And I also wanted to mention that the EPA Administrator 

Lisa Jackson invited members of this Subcommittee to her office to 

personally discuss this issue last year. And it was nice to have the 

opportunity to sit down with her and talk about TSCA, because I 

know she is very concerned about it. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. RUSH. The chair thanks the gentleman. The Chair now recognizes Mr. Latta for 2 minutes. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. ROBERT E. LATTA, A 

REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF OHIO 

Mr. LATTA. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member Whitfield, thank you for conducting this hearing on The Toxic Chemicals Safety Act of 2010 which will have a significant impact on the 

Midwest. I represent the fifth District of Ohio which is the State’s 

largest agricultural and manufacturing district. As we are all too 

painfully aware, America’s manufacturing sector has been hard hit. 

In my district many farmers are dependent on these outside manufacturing jobs to supplement their agricultural incomes. I strongly 

feel that we cannot pass the proposed legislation in its current 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
11 

form since manufacturing and agriculture would be put at a great 

disadvantage against our overseas competitors. 

Congress needs to help businesses by encouraging job growth, 

helping to spur innovation, and retaining jobs in the United States. 

I have grave concerns that the EPA under its broad authority within this legislation would do more harm than good. American farmers and ranches provide hundreds of millions of people with the 

safest, most affordable, and most abundant food supply in the 

world. This is all done with less than two percent of Americans engaged in agriculture compared to 40 percent in 1900. This legislation will lay claim to many chemicals and keep valuable food and 

commodities off the shelves from American families. 

Our American farmers and ranchers are the environmental stewards of this earth and they do everything in their power to protect 

it, their families, and their neighbors. This legislation will be extremely disruptive and detrimental to AG production. As members 

of Congress we have an obligation to protect human health and the 

environment, however many can argue that this bill fails to accomplish this instead will cost American jobs, lower the standard of living, and will empower our overseas competitors. 

Mr. Chairman, I look forward to today’s hearing and hearing 

from our witnesses. And I hope the Subcommittee keeps in mind 

that chemicals affect roughly 96 percent of our daily lives, and this 

bill will need to be thoroughly better. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, 

and I yield back. 

Mr. RUSH. The Chair now recognizes the Chairman Emeritus of 

this small committee, my friend from Michigan, Mr. Dingell, for 5 

minutes. 

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

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

I commend you for holding this hearing today. There is wide agreement and experience tells us that The Toxic Substances Control 

Act needs to be reformed. After 33 years it has been blatantly clear 

the law needs a thorough examination and reauthorization. We 

have heard about this from industry, from environmental groups, 

and from consumer advocacy organizations. Indeed EPA has not 

banned a single chemical under TSCA for nearly 20 years. 

Despite our best intentions back in 1976, TSCA is not working 

as we hoped that it would when it was enacted. We simply must 

be doing something in an effort to protect the public from exposure 

to harmful chemicals. This must be done by using sound and reliable science as the basis. Further, I must bring up an important 

factor that all too often gets neglected: funding. As we work to reauthorize and revise TSCA, we must work to have an adequate and 

consistent stream of funding for the program. Without proper funding we will not get results and will lead to a constant source of 

frustration for everyone involved including industry which desperately needs certainty in order to compete in a global marketplace. 

I am pleased that the committee has convened a series of stakeholder discussions. This is very important and it is important to 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
12 

consumer advocates, environmental groups, and industry play a 

role as this process moves forward. I sincerely hope that the process continues and that stakeholders will continue to be consulted 

as we move forward. I would note that we are still at the beginning 

of this process and not at the end. And while I feel we must move 

with speed and expeditiousness, I want to point out that undue 

haste can result in serious problems. 

Mr. Chairman, we have our work cut out for us in reforming The 

Toxic Substances Control Act. We clearly need to protect the public, 

but we need to do so in a way that does not stifle innovation and 

that protects American manufacturing and industry, something 

that we have been hearing quite a bit about lately. The United 

States has at this time a very fragile economy and we cannot afford 

to lose any more jobs in this country than we have already lost. In 

fact we have to work to actually create jobs through legislation like 

this. 

This committee has a long and a proud history of taking on the 

most difficult legislative challenges and turning out good quality 

and not infrequently bi-partisan bills that have gone on to be both 

successful in terms of protecting people that we represent and protecting their jobs and financial security. I am hopeful that reforming The Toxic Substances Control Act could be another story of success by this committee. I look forward to hearing our witnesses and 

to working with you, Mr. Chairman and the Committee on this important matter. I yield back the balance of my time. 

Mr. RUSH. The Chair now recognizes the gentleman from Texas, 

my friend, Mr. Barton for 5 minutes, the Ranking Member of the 

Subcommittee. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. JOE BARTON, A 

REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF TEXAS 

Mr. BARTON. Well, thank you, Chairman Rush. And I also want 

to thank Chairman Waxman, and former Chairman Dingell and of 

course our Ranking Member Mr. Whitfield on this Subcommittee 

for their excellent work so far on this subject and this Congress. 

I am going to submit my formal statement for the record and I am 

going to read a little bit from the Republican Memo on this hearing 

because I think it is by itself a fairly good opening statement. This 

is from the Republican memo on this hearing. It says on July the 

22nd, 2010, Chairman Waxman and Chairman Rush introduced 

legislation entitled The Toxic Chemical Safety Act. This legislation 

would dramatically rewrite Title I of the Toxic Substance Control 

Act or TSCA. 

This legislation is introduced following the circulation of discussion draft in April, followed by 10 listening sessions for various 

stakeholders to express their views on potential improvements to 

the technical and policy parts of the draft legislation. TSCA enacted in 1976 gives the EPA authority to regulate the manufacture, 

processing, distribution, and commerce use and disposal of chemical substances and mixtures. For the purposes of this memo discussion draft Title I which has the actual authorities related to generic chemical regulation is the focus. Title I of TSCA is the only 

federal environmental law that explicitly gives EPA broad power to 

regulate domestic manufacturing. 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
13 

In addition, Title I provides EPA authority to gather data on 

chemicals, review petitions for the use of new chemicals and take 

action against imminent threats to the environment and the public 

health. TSCA is a risk based statute that requires the EPA to regulate against an unreasonable risk and to do so in the ‘‘least burdensome way. Interestingly section 6C of TSCA requires the EPA to 

use another environmental law besides TSCA if a risk of an intruding human health or the environment could be eliminated or reduced in a sufficient—to a sufficient extent by actions taken under 

another federal law.’’ 

Finally TSCA contains preemption provisions that do not allow 

states to establish testing and other requirements that conflict with 

existing federal laws. Mr. Chairman, TSCA has been referred to by 

the current EPA administrator as a model federal law. And yet the 

discussion draft that yourself and Chairman Waxman have introduced radically changes TSCA. It sets a safety standard that probably could not be met. It changes the burden of proof; I mean it 

is 170 degrees in its change in direction from the current law 

which is in my opinion working well. 

So I want to commend you, Chairman Rush, and the full Committee Chairman Mr. Waxman for the process. To your credit you 

have put your discussion draft out, you have listened to stakeholders, you have had meetings with myself, and Mr. Whitfield, 

and other Republicans, and you have indicated that you are not 

going to have a rush to judgment and no pun intended, Chairman 

Rush on this legislation. We have got an expert panel here today 

including the Administrator of the program at EPA. I suggest that 

we re-listen to them before we decided what to do. 

I think it is apparent given that today and tomorrow are the last 

two days we are going to be here before the middle of September, 

and when we get back in September we are not going to be in session hopefully more than two to three weeks before we break for 

the campaign for the election. It is very unlikely that we can—are 

going to do anything on TSCA unless we decide that you wanted 

to just do a straight, clean, reauthorization. Based on this discussion draft, that doesn’t appear to be our intention of our friends on 

the Majority. So this is a very important hearing, because it probably sets the floor for discussion and act in this area in the next 

Congress. And with that, Mr. Chairman, I yield back. I do appreciate the hearing, and I do again appreciate the process of the— 

of listening, and discussing, and sharing that have been exhibited 

on this issue so far in this Congress. Thank you, Chairman Rush. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Barton follows:] 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
14 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 20 here 78128A.005

Statement of the Honorable Joe Barton 

Legislative Hearing on H.R. 5820, the Toxic Chemicals Safety Act of 2010 

Subcommittee on Commerce, Trade, and Consumer Protection 

July 29, 2010 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

I would like to commend you and Chairman Waxman for not rushing 

this bill through committee. And I appreciate that my staff was included 

in your meetings with stakeholders. But I think we must still explore the 

existing program and only then propose appropriate, workable solutions. 

I, of course, want our citizens protected from harmful exposure to 

chemicals. I also want to caution against accelerating the process now 

because we all know that a rush to regulate is likely to do more harm 

than good. We saw the unhappy consequences of haste with the toy bill, 

and that experience should stand as an example of why getting it done 

right is usually so much more important that getting it done right now. 

As drafted, this bill would have sweeping ramifications for our 

economy. By regulating all entities that make, process, sell, or dispose 

of anything with a chemical in it, including consumer goods, it directly 

impacts every business, every home and every person in America and 

shuffle every level of a nationwide manufacturing economy that was 

struggling even before the recession drove unemployment to nearly IO 

percent. 
15 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 21 here 78128A.006

In fact, long before the discussion draft was introduced, the Bureau of 

Labor Statistics projected that, through 2018, the non-phannaceutical 

side of the chemical industry would suffer a 13 percent decrease in 

wages and employment while every other industry ofthe U.S. economy 

combined was projected to increase by 11 percent. Environmental 

regulation and legislation were listed as a cause of this steep decline. I 

worry that this bill will only exacerbate this decline and without good 

justification. 

Let me be more specific about some ofthe reasons I am so troubled by 

this legislation. 

First, the testing requirements in the bill are so over the top that they 

remind me of the same mistakes made in the toy bill. The bill requires 

manufacturers and processors to submit so called "minimum data sets" 

to EPA on every chemical they make. It disregards whether EPA 

already has the infonnation and it denies the ability to petition EPA if 

the requirements are unnecessary in the individual case. These 

provisions create bureaucracy for its own sake, waste taxpayer dollars, 

needlessly require animal testing, and divert the efforts of research labs 

from newer and greener products to handling compliance work, instead. 

Secondly, the current administrator of the EPA says the current program 

dealing with new chemicals is a model program. Yet, this bill overhauls 
16 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 22 here 78128A.007

that model program and makes it harder instead of easier to get newer, 

safer products to consumers. 

Thirdly, the so-called safety standard is neither safe nor standard 

because it is so impractical. I am not sure what chemical or combination 

could ever meet the test of "reasonable certainty of no harm." Presidents 

and hermits are that sheltered, but ordinary people sometimes need to 

cross the street. This standard was plucked from existing pesticide law 

that regulates poisons used on food. Most TSCA-regulated chemicals 

are not part of any person's normal diet. 

Finally, the pre-emption provisions in the bill are just irresponsible. It 

incentivizes states to enact conflicting laws, which will only undermine 

the national marketplace and make products more expensive for 

everybody. 

Mr. Chairman, I think this bill is unworkable. I am open to being 

convinced otherwise by our witnesses, but that's going to be a steep 

order. Americans don't want unsafe chemicals. They also don't want 

feckless regulations that kill their jobs and make life harder. The federal 

government has a blind spot for how ordinary Americans live and knack 

for making it tougher on them through well-intentioned bills like this 

one. 

Thank you and I yield back. 
17 

Mr. RUSH. The Chair thanks the Ranking Member and now recognizes Mr. Green, gentleman from Texas for 2 minutes. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. GENE GREEN, A 

REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF TEXAS 

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

I would like to welcome both our panels. I want to thank all the 

stakeholders for their participation in the process over the last few 

months. Your input is valuable to us and as we work towards reforming TSCA. I also want to thank the Committee for considering 

the input in consideration as the bill was crafted. I hope this dialogue will continue as the bill moves through the Committee process. 

In 1976 The Toxic Substance Control Act was written to ensure 

that human health and environment effects on—of chemical substance were identified and properly controlled prior to placing these 

materials in Commerce. However, since then recognition that the 

bill needs to be updated to give the EPA the necessary authority 

to oversee and regulate chemicals that are hazardous to human 

health and the environment has only grown to the point that EPA 

is no longer seen as an effective regulator of consumer products. 

This need to regulate has been recognized by industry participants 

as well as consumer, labor, and environmental advocates alike. So 

while it is broadly recognized that changes need to be made in 

TSCA, there remains to be some disagreement over the scope of 

these changes, and I look forward to hearing from our witnesses 

today on their thoughts on the bill before us. 

While I appreciate the Committee’s work on this bill, I do have 

some concerns about changes made in the new chemicals program 

and whether the timelines included in the bill for the EPA to complete their work on reviewing existing chemicals are realistic from 

a time and personnel perspective. I believe it is important that 

TSCA reform protects consumers, workers, and the environment 

while encouraging innovation and ensuring a workable regulatory 

program. As we move forward I steep that balance in these objections with the end result that is beneficial for both the environment consumers and businesses, and I look forward to working 

with our Chairman and our Ranking Member. And again thank 

you, and I yield back my time. 

Mr. RUSH. The Chair now recognizes Dr. Gingrey for 2 minutes. 

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

Mr. GINGREY. Mr. Chairman, thank you. I have got a written 

statement and I would like to submit it for the record. I may paraphrase some of it, but the distinguished Chairman Emeritus remarks are basically the way I feel about this reauthorization of 

TSCA. It is necessary. I feel sure that it is necessary. It has been 

a long time since the law was basically passed back in 1976. And 

certainly we don’t want to expose the public to harmful chemicals; 

Not one of the 84,000 under the jurisdiction of TSCA. But when I 

read some of these testimonies, I haven’t read every word of every 

testimony, of course you always bring up what the harmful effects 

are on the children. 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
18 

Now I am a physician and indeed an OB–GYN physician. I have 

delivered 5,200 children, babies, and I am concerned about them. 

Of course I am concerned about everybody, but I think there is a 

great risk here of getting to the point where we literally scare the 

bejesus out everybody. In fact I was reading one of the testimonies, 

I don’t think I—well, I can find it. I was—go real quickly to page 

one and we are going to hear from Mr. Owens, but in the second 

paragraph the last sentence it says and maybe this is just a typo, 

the time has come to bring TSCA into the 21st century and give 

the American people the protection from harmful chemicals they 

expect. So they expect harm from the chemicals? That probably 

should have read the American people the protection they expect 

from harmful chemicals. So you know I have some real concerns 

about overshooting here. I think I went into—went to Georgia Tech 

as a co-op student back in 1960, and I said I am going to major 

in chemistry because I love that ad that DuPont had: Better things 

for better living through chemistry. And so you know, it is good to 

regulate and make—protect people and everything, but let us not 

throw the baby out with the bathwater here. And I really do look 

forward to your testimony. Mr. Chairman, I yield back. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Gingrey follows:] 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
19 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 25 here 78128A.008

Rep. Phil Gingrey 

Opening Statement for Hearing on H.R. 5820 - TSCA Overhaul 

Commerce, Trade, and Consumer Protection Subcommittee 

2010 

Mr. Chairman, thank you for calling today's hearing 

on H.R. 5820 - the Toxic Chemicals Safety Act of 

2010. This legislative hearing is on the legislation 

that will overhaul the Toxic Substances Control Act 

of 1976. 

Under current policy, TSCA directs the 

Environmental Protection Agency to regulate all 

phases of the manufacturing of chemicals and 

identify unreasonable risk of injury from new or 

existing chemicals. In regulating these chemicals, 
20 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 26 here 78128A.009

TSCA directs the EP A to use the "least burdensome 

option" to reduce the risk of harm while balancing 

the benefits provided by the chemical. As a riskbased law, TSCA relies on the presence of sound 

science from both the chemical producers and the 

EPA in order to properly implement this law. 

Mr. Chairman, the legislation that we have before 

us today will fundamentally change our current 

system to one that is hazard-based. I would like to 

remind my colleagues that the use of chemicals 

impacts 960/0 of everything in the stream of 

2 
21 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 27 here 78128A.010

commerce, which means that this legislation will 

impact nearly everything on the market from raw 

material to retail. 

As we all know, Article I, Section 8 of the 

Constitution calls on Congress to regulate 

commerce. One of my biggest fears regarding H.R. 

5820 is that because 96% of commerce is directly 

impacted by the chemical industry in some way, we 

will now be asking EP A to - for all practical 

purposes - control commerce. 

3 
22 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 28 here 78128A.011

Furthermore Mr. Chairman, H.R. 5820 will only 

grow the size of the federal government and 

substantially increase compliance costs for 

companies during production. Unfortunately, there 

are some things that the Majority will not tell you 

about this legislation. 

The most important is that these compliance costs 

will either be passed along to consumers or will 

force small to mid-sized companies to shut their 

doors - shedding even more jobs in this country 

4 
23 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 29 here 78128A.012

when we have 9.5% unemployment and 16 million 

people out of work. 

Mr. Chairman, I believe that this is dangerous 

legislation before us today, and I ask that each 

member of the Subcommittee listen and learn about 

how this legislation will negatively impact our 

economy as a whole. 

I yield back. 

5 
24 

Mr. RUSH. The gentlewoman from Colorado, Ms. DeGette is recognized 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 think we 

should put this into perspective. We have 80,000 chemicals present 

in Commerce today and many Americans assume that these potentially toxic substances are heavily regulated and are therefore safe. 

But somehow, only 200 of the 80,000 chemicals have been required 

to undergo EPA mandated testing. Only five are currently under 

EPA restrictions. And even more alarming is that American babies 

even before they are born are exposed to more than 350 industrial 

chemicals, pesticides, and pollutants, most of which are subject to 

little or no regulation. Now the reason why we have this situation 

is because TSCA is just frankly inadequate and outdated. 

When this law was first put into effect in 1976 it was a groundbreaking piece of legislation that took steps to limit the country’s 

exposure to harmful chemicals and toxins. But despite its initial 

success, TSCA failed to anticipate the scientific and technological 

developments of the next 30 years that would result in unprecedented numbers of chemicals. This updated legislation has a lot of 

good benefits. It vastly improves our ability to monitor commercial 

chemicals, it has strong disclosure requirements, and equally importantly it doesn’t stop at regulation of current chemicals, but also 

inspires innovation with incentives to encourage the development 

of new, safer chemical alternatives. And it is our hope that many 

of the companies that currently rely on potentially harmful and 

toxic chemicals will look at the feasibility of safer options. 

So Chairman, I am proud to be an original co-sponsor of this legislation. It was developed with input from everybody and I think 

the resulting Act will better equip our regulatory agencies to fight 

the dangers. I commend you, I commend the committee staff, and 

I hope that our friends on the other side of the aisle will work with 

us as we move forward on it. 

Mr. RUSH. The gentleman from Louisiana, Mr. Scalise is recognized for 2 minutes. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. STEVE SCALISE, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF LOUISIANA 

Mr. SCALISE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman for having today’s hearing on The Toxic Chemical Safety Act, a bill that would dramatically change chemical regulation in the United States, and severely 

impact every sector of our economy particularly places like my 

home State of Louisiana that are so dependent on the chemical industry. Mr. Chairman, Louisiana rates second in the nation in total 

chemical industry value output and we are the ninth largest employer of chemical industry workers in the country. 

In addition there are more than 100 major chemical plants located in my state not to mention the many petrachemical refiners, 

chemical processors, distributors, exporters, and retailers that all 

work in Louisiana and provide thousands of quality high paying 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
25 

jobs. Simply put the chemical and petrachemical industries are the 

very backbone of our state’s economy and the future in economic 

well being would be threatened if H.R. 5820 were to become law 

in its present form. I have very serious concerns about the legislation and the consequences it would have for our chemical industry. 

First, the scope of the legislation is extremely broad. EPA would 

be given unprecedented new authority to regulate chemical substances, mixtures, and articles and the bill would require a minimum data set for every chemical and mixture distributed in Commerce. And every chemical and mixture will be subjected to scores 

of job killing new regulations. No one in the supply chain would go 

untouched. 

The scope of this legislation also brings its workability in to 

question. I believe the EPA’s resources will be overwhelmed and 

the chemical industry will be overburdened with the tracking and 

reporting requirements under the bill. It piles up massive regulatory burdens on the chemical industry and it gives powers to the 

EPA that will not be able to accomplish, which will disrupt Commerce and put the industry and EPA into a never-ending loop of 

review. Another serious concern I have is the bill’s treatment of 

confidential business information. The chemical makeup of commercial chemicals and mixture components will be compromised 

meaning that crucial trade secrets and intellectual property will be 

lost. Why would a chemical manufacturer or processor try to develop new chemicals or seek new innovative mixtures in America 

when their work will be made available to their competitors if they 

make it here rather than a foreign country? 

And finally, Mr. Chairman, this legislation removes the current 

TSCA requirement that EPA analyze a new regulations effects on 

employment. This is proof that the proponents of this legislation 

know how damaging this bill will be to jobs in the chemical industry, and it flies in the face of claims by this Administration, and 

the liberals running Congress that their focused on jobs. And really 

I guess the proponents of this legislation don’t want the EPA to 

look at the impacts of jobs when the bill gives the EPA the authority to shut down businesses and plants. It doesn’t take a Ph.D. in 

economics to understand the impact there. Those actions will destroy jobs. This legislation will cause serious harm to the chemical 

industry and put thousands of hard working Americans out of 

work. While I am for ensuring that safe chemicals are being manufactured and used in Commerce we must create—we must not create new federal powers that will defer innovation, destroy American competitives, and kill jobs. Thank you, I yield back. 

Mr. RUSH. The Chair now recognizes the gentleman from Texas, 

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

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. KATHY CASTOR, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF FLORIDA 

Ms. CASTOR. Good morning and thank you, Chairman Rush very 

much for this hearing and all of your leadership during this session 

of Congress on TSCA reform including H.R. 5820 The Toxic Chemical Safety Act which I am proud to be an original co-sponsor. You 

know toxic, or comprehensive TSCA reform has now been put off 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
26 

for a generation, an entire generation. But we have an opportunity 

now to confront the threats with toxic chemicals posed to the public 

health, and to our families, and to your communities. I mean it was 

1976 when The Toxic Substances Control Act was passed and there 

were already more than 60,000 chemicals in production in the 

United States. And we knew very little about the health and environmental impacts. Unfortunately TSCA proved to be very weak 

and inadequate. EPA required testing on a mere 200 chemicals despite the years of solid science that has shown that many, many 

more are highly toxic. Even more concerning the EPA regulates 

just five of the more than 80,000 that are now in circulation. We 

can do so much better. This is the United States of America. We 

have the science; we have the experts. A particular concern are the 

consistent biocumulative toxic chemicals—these PVTs pose an especially worrisome threat to our communities because they build 

up in the food chain, and the human body, and they linger for 

years, and because they increase the risk of breast cancer, and 

brain cancer, autism, asthma, reproductive disorders, and birth defects. The good news is that we are now the threshold to make real 

progress. We have terrific experts here today. We have dedicated 

colleagues throughout the halls of Congress and professional staff, 

and all of you that are ready to help us modernize chemical regulation. After—so after 34 long years it is time to take action starting 

with the worst offenders including PVTs. It is time to alter the burden of proof, move away from the research and delay strategy that 

has done a lot of harm to consumers and families. There is so much 

at stake for the public health, and our families, and consumers 

across America, so I am hopeful that we are going to make 

progress. Thank you and I yield back. 

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

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. TIM MURPHY, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA 

Mr. MURPHY of Pennsylvania. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. The 

Toxic Substance Control Act of 1976 is in need of critical updates. 

Since it was written, thousands of more chemicals have been invented; many have substantially improved public health and prolonged life. Vehicles made lighter and safer, building materials 

stronger and safer, medical devices and material coatings that are 

more useful, reduce rejection by the body, improve medication effectiveness, and reduce infection of risk. Farms are more productive 

and for all these we are thankful for the scientific inventions. 

On the other hand there have also been new chemicals associated with harm and public health. Further substances previously 

thought safe were later deemed unsafe after years of research or 

after new technologies were developed to test substances. New 

technologies not available at the time the product was invented. In 

1899, Charles Duell, the then Commissioner of the U.S. Patent Office declared ‘‘everything that can be invented has been invented.’’ 

Well we recognize now how out of step he was, but we are at risk 

of applying and codifying a similar standard today. If we were to 

apply a far reaching standard that says ‘‘ensures for all intended 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
27 

uses with regard to public health that there is a reasonable certainty that no harm will result’’ I fear this standard must assume 

that every test that can be invented has been invented, that every 

outcome that can be anticipated has been anticipated, that every 

long term cumulative effect of everything has been measured in 

every way thinkable and not yet thinkable. This legislation assumes that the EPA is capable of doing these things but assumes— 

excuse me the EPA is incapable of doing all these things, but it assumes all private industry is capable of meeting this standard. 

Rather it assumes a standard of ‘‘We can’t tell you exactly what it 

is, and we can’t do it ourselves, but you’re responsible for knowing 

what we meant now and the future with the tools you don’t have.’’ 

Now I will support standards which say we must work with industry, not abdicate the EPA’s or the FDA’s or anybody else’s role in 

independently assessing product safety. But it is difficult to have 

a standard applied that no one can quite define but we say we 

want you to assume all risk. If we are apply and zero risk standard 

legislation we would pass no bills. I hope that this Committee will 

continue work on this very, very important issue to move forward 

on public health, but let us not immobilize our systems and standards, and let us help promote further inventions in the scientific 

community. Thank you. 

Mr. RUSH. The gentleman from Illinois will pass, the Vice Chairman 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. I want to take just 

a different perspective on Mr. Owen’s statement that my good 

friend Mr. Gingrey pointed out in the testimony that the time has 

come to bring TSCA into the 21st Century and give American people the protection from harmful chemicals they expect. I want to 

use as case in point the issue of asbestos. Eight thousand Americans die each year from complications associated with exposure to 

asbestos. In 1989, the Environmental Protection Agency attempted 

to use TSCA to issue a rule to ban the use of asbestos citing the 

strong evidence of hundreds of studies that conclusively found that 

asbestos was extremely hazardous to workers and the public as a 

whole. And despite the overwhelming evidence the U.S. Court of 

Appeals reversed that decision saying that the EPA had not fulfilled the necessary burden of proof under TSCA. In Mr. Owen’s 

testimony he cites the inability of EPA to phase out the use of asbestos in products despite the ‘‘unanimous scientific opinion about 

the risk’’ as an example of TSCA’s ineffectiveness. Now I would actually like to see, there is a process that would allow asbestos to 

be phased out. I would like it actually to go even faster and to 

allow the EPA to have the authority to immediately ban the most 

highly toxic substances like asbestos that including long lasting 

chemicals known as persistent bioaccumulative toxic pollutants 

(PBT’s) that build up in the food chain to levels that are harmful 

to human health and cause environmental harm. But certainly we 

want to empower the EPA to do the—to be able to remove from the 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
28 

environment those things that we know are killing people. And 

right now that is not even the possibility. So I am glad that we are 

doing this. I highly support, heartily support the bill. I am a cosponsor, and I yield back. 

Mr. RUSH. The Chair recognizes Mr. Space 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. I would like to thank you 

and Ranking Member Whitfield for holding today’s hearing on 

TSCA reform legislation. I am encouraged that we have made some 

significant process on this priority and I am especially pleased that 

you and your staff engage in lengthy stakeholder process following 

the creation of a draft bill and prior to introducing the legislation 

that is before us today. 

All of us want to see TSCA modernized because we agree that 

our current regulatory framework is broken. Indeed even the industry itself has made that explicit acknowledgement. All of us 

strive for safe communities and livable environments. And during 

this time of economic down turn part of creating a livable environment is ensuring that we are maintaining jobs and the American 

industries that support them. I think it is important to understand 

that there is—this is not a black and white situation here. It is a 

very grey area and finding that balance is critical to our success 

as a legislature in dealing with an issue which is admittedly one 

of grave concern to a lot of people. I look forward to working with 

you, Mr. Chairman, and members on both sides of the aisle as we 

piece together legislation that protects both the health of our families, and the jobs that provide for them. And I happen to be one 

who thinks that we can do so in an effective fashion with regards 

to both concerns. And with that, Mr. Chairman I yield back. 

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

Ms. Sutton for 2 minutes. 

Ms. SUTTON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And thank you very 

much for holding this very important hearing. I am going to submit 

my statement for the record, but this is a critical issue and I look 

forward to hearing what the witnesses have to say about how we 

might be able to strengthen and perfect this bill going forward. 

Thank you, I yield back. 

[The prepared statement of Ms. Sutton was unavailable at the 

time of printing.] 

Mr. RUSH. This hearing now will entertain a unanimous consent 

request that Mr. Tim Murphy from Connecticut—Christopher, I am 

sorry, Mr. Christopher Murphy from Connecticut be allowed to sit 

with the panel for the purposes of questioning the witnesses, and 

to make some introductory remarks to one of his former constituents and colleagues Dr. Mitchell. Hearing no objections, so ordered. 

Mr. Murphy, you will be allowed to participate in the questioning 

of the witnesses. Now it is my privilege and honor to introduce our 

five panelists who have sat by very patiently while the members 

address their opening statements. And I want to introduce the 

panel now. To my left we have Mr. Steve Owens who is the Assistant Administrator of the Office of Chemical and—Chemical Safety 

and Pollution Prevention for the EPA. Next to Mr. Owens is Dr. 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
29 

Richard Denison. He is a Senior Scientist for the Environmental 

Defense Fund. And next to Dr. Denison is our former colleague and 

outstanding member of Congress and he now is the President and 

Chief Executive Officer of the American Chemistry Council, Mr. 

Cal Dooley. And next to Mr. Dooley is Mr. Ken Cook who is the 

President of the Environmental Working Group. And seated next 

to Mr. Cook is Mr. Howard Williams the Vice President of Construction Specialties, Incorporated of Muncy, Pennsylvania. And 

seated next to Mr. Williams is Dr. Mark Mitchell, the president of 

the Connecticut Coalition for Environmental Justice. And seated 

next to Dr. Mitchell is Ms. Beth Bosley. She is the Managing Director of Boron Specialties, LAC—LLC of Valencia, Pennsylvania. And 

she is testifying on behalf of The Society of Chemical Manufacturers and their Affiliates. And so again welcome to each and every 

one of you. And it is the practice of this Subcommittee to swear in 

the witnesses so I will ask if you would please stand and raise your 

right hand. 

[Witnesses sworn.] 

Mr. RUSH. Please be seated. Let the record reflect that the witnesses have all answered in the affirmative. Now the Chair recognizes the witness Mr. Owens for 5 minutes. 

TESTIMONY OF STEVE OWENS, ASSISTANT ADMINISTRATOR, 

OFFICE OF CHEMICAL SAFETY AND POLLUTION PREVENTION, ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY; RICHARD 

DENISON, SENIOR SCIENTIST, ENVIRONMENTAL DEFENSE 

FUND; CAL DOOLEY, PRESIDENT AND CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER, AMERICAN CHEMISTRY COUNCIL; KEN COOK, PRESIDENT, ENVIRONMENTAL WORKING GROUP; HOWARD WILLIAMS, VICE PRESIDENT, CONSTRUCTION SPECIALTIES, INCORPORATED; MARK MITCHELL, PRESIDENT, CONNECTICUT 

COALITION FOR ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE; AND BETH 

BOSLEY, MANAGING DIRECTOR, BORON SPECIALTIES, LLC, 

SOCIETY OF CHEMICAL MANUFACTURERS AND AFFILIATES 

TESTIMONY OF STEVE OWENS 

Mr. OWENS. Good morning. Chairman Rush, Vice Chair Schakowsky, Ranking Member Whitfield, Chairman Emeritus Dingell 

and other members of this Subcommittee and the full Committee, 

thank you for the opportunity to be with you today to discuss modernizing The Toxic Substances Control Act or TSCA as it is commonly known. The outside—I am sorry, Mr. Chairman, can you 

hear me now? Is that better? Sitting here at the little boys table, 

so I got to sprite you up a little bit more. So but at the outset, Mr. 

Chairman, I want to thank you and Chairman Emeritus Dingell, 

and other members of this Subcommittee for the tremendous leadership you have shown on this very important issue. As EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson has said on many occasions the public expects the government to provide assurances the chemicals have 

been assessed with the best available science and that unacceptable risk has been eliminated. Restoring confidence in our chemical 

management system is a priority for EPA and this Administration. 

TSCA regulates chemicals manufactured and used in this country. 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
30 

And while TSCA was an important step when it was first passed 

in 1976 it is the only major environmental statute that has not 

been reauthorized since its passage. TSCA is clearly showing its 

age and its limitations. Over the last 34 years TSCA has proven 

inadequate for providing the protection against chemical risks that 

the public rightfully expects. Unlike the laws applicable to drugs 

and pesticides, TSCA does not have a mandatory program by which 

EPA must review the safety of chemicals. In addition, TSCA places 

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

generation and submission of health and environmental data on 

chemicals. 

When TSCA was enacted in 1976, it grandfathered in without 

any evaluation whatsoever the more than 60,000 chemicals that existed at that time. More than 24,000 additional chemicals have 

been produced since then with the result that EPA’s TSCA inventory now lists more than 84,000 chemicals. Very few of which have 

actually been studied by EPA for their risks to families and children. Indeed TSCA does not provide EPA adequate authority to reevaluate existing chemicals as new concerns arise or as science has 

updated. And it does not give EPA full authority to require chemicals to produce toxicity data. As a result, in the 34 years since 

TSCA was passed, EPA has been able to require testing on only 

around 200 of the more than 84,000 chemicals now listed on the 

TSCA inventory as several members of the Subcommittee have 

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

ban chemicals found to cause unreasonable risk to human health 

or the environment. Even if EPA has substantial data and wants 

to protect the public against known risks, the law creates obstacles 

to quick and effective regulatory action. For example as Vice Chair 

Schakowsky and other members of this Committee, in 1989 after 

years of study and nearly unanimous scientific opinion EPA issued 

a rule phasing out most uses of asbestos in products, and yet a 

Federal Court overturned most of this action because the rule had 

failed to comply with the 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 Governmental Accountability Office has put the law 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 if EPA is to properly do its job of protecting public health and the environment. 

Last September Administrator Jackson announced a set of principles on behalf of the Obama Administration to help fix TSCA. 

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, 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 attain other information from manufacturers relevant to determining the safety of chemicals without 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
31 

the delays and obstacles currently in place, and without excessive 

claims of confidentiality. Third, EPA should have clear authority to 

take risk management actions when chemicals do not meet the 

safety standard with flexibility to take into account a range of considerations. Fourth, EPA should have clear authority to set priorities for conducting safety review. Fifth, we must encourage innovation in green chemistry, and support strategies that will lead to 

safer and more sustainable chemicals and processes. And finally, 

implementation of the law as Chairman Emeritus Dingell pointed 

out 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 costs of Agency 

implementation including the review of information provided by 

manufacturers. Mr. Chairman, a time has come to bring TSCA into 

the 21st century and the legislation you have introduced is a big 

step toward doing just that. Administrator Jackson and I look forward to working with you, other members of this Subcommittee, 

and members of Congress on this very important issue. And I will 

be happy to answer any questions you might have. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Owens follows:] 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
32 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 38 here 78128A.013

Testimony of Steve Owens 

Assistant Administrator 

Office of Chemical Safety and Pollution Prevention 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 

before the 

Subcommittee on Commerce, Trade, and Consumer Protection 

Committee on Energy and Commerce 

U.S. House of Representatives 

July 29, 2010 

Good morning Chairman Rush, Ranking Member Whitfield, and Members ofthe 

Subcommittee. Thank you for the opportunity to address the Committee today on the 

reform of chemicals management in the United States and the newly introduced Toxic 

Chemicals Safety Act of 2010. Ensuring chemical safety in a rapidly changing world, 

restoring public confidence that EPA is protecting the American people, and promoting our 

global leadership in chemicals management are top priorities for EPA and our 

Administrator, Lisa Jackson. 

Chairman Rush, I want to thank you, Chairman Waxman, as well as members of this 

Subcommittee for your leadership on this very important issue and your efforts to bring 

about comprehensive reform of the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA). The time has 

come to bring TSCA into the 21st Century and give the American people the protection from 

harmful chemicals they expect. 

Although chemicals are found in virtually everything in our country, there are still significant 

scientific gaps in our knowledge regarding many chemicals. That's why, increaSingly, the 

public are demanding that the government provide an assurance about the long term safety 

of these chemicals. 

The Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA), which was enacted in 1976, gives EPA jurisdiction 

over chemicals produced and used in the United States. TSCA is the only major 
33 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 39 here 78128A.014

environmental statute that has not been reauthorized. The TSCA Inventory currently 

contains over 84,000 chemicals, few of which have been studied for their risks to children. 

Unlike the laws applicable to d.rugs and pesticides, TSCA does not have a mandatory 

program where EPA must conduct a review to determine the safety of existing chemicals. 

In addition, TSCA places legal and procedural requirements on EPA before the Agency can 

request the generation and submission of health and environmental effects data on existing 

chemicals. 

TSCA was an important step forward at the time. But over the years, not only has TSCA 

fallen behind the industry it is intended to regulate, it has also proven an inadequate tool 

for providing the protection against chemical risks that the public rightfully expects. 

Mr. Chairman, the bill recently introduced by you and Chairman Waxman reptesents an 

important step toward providing greater protection for the health and safety of the 

American people, particularly our children. 

When TSCA was enacted, it grandfathered in, without any evaluation, all chemicals in 

commerce that existed in 1976. Further compounding this problem, the statute never 

provided adequate authority for EPA to reevaluate existing chemicals as new concerns 

arose or science was updated, and failed to grant EPA full and complete authority to compel 

companies to provide toxicity data. As a result, in the 34 years since TSCA was passed, EPA 

has only been able to require testing on around 200 of the 84,000 chemicals listed on the 

TSCA Inventory. To date, only five of these chemicals have been regulated under TSCA's 

ban authority. 

It has also proven difficult in some cases to take action to limit or ban chemicals found to 

cause unreasonable risks to human health or the environment. Even if EPA has substantial 

data and wants to protect the public against known risks, the law creates obstacles to quick 

and effective regulatory action. For example, in 1989, after years of study and nearly 

2 
34 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 40 here 78128A.015

unanimous scientific opinion about the risk, EPA issued a rule phasing out most uses of 

asbestos in products. Yet, a federal court overturned most of this action because the rule 

had failed to comply with the requirements of TSCA. 

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 in order to properly protect public health and the environment, TSCA must be 

updated and strengthened, including providing the appropriate tools to protect the 

American people from exposure to harmful chemicals. 

The principles that Administrator announced last September presented Administration 

goals for updating TSCA that would enable EPA to expeditiously target chemicals of concern 

and promptly assess and regulate new and existing chemicals. 

Let me highlight those principles: 

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. 

EPA should have the clear authority to establish safety standards based on risk assessments, 

while recognizing the need to assess and manage risk in the face of uncertainty. 

Second, the responsibility for providing adequate health and safety information should rest 

on industry. Manufacturers must develop and submit the hazard, use, and exposure data 

demonstrating that new and existing chemicals are safe. If industry doesn't provide the 

information, EPA should have the necessary tools to quickly and efficiently require testing, 

or obtain other information from manufacturers that are relevant to determining the safety 

of chemicals, without the delays and obstacles currently in place, or excessive claims of 

confidential business information. 

3 
35 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 41 here 78128A.016

Third, EPA should have clear authority to take risk management actions when chemicals do not 

meet the safety standard, with flexibility to take into account a range of considerations, including 

children's health, economic costs, social benefits, and equity concerns. Both EPA and industry 

must include special consideration for exposures and effects on groups with higher 

vulnerabilities - particularly children. For example, children ingest chemicals at a higher 

ratio relative to their body weight than adults, and are more susceptible to long-term 

damage and developmental problems. 

Fourth, EPA should have clear authority to set priorities for conducting safety reviews. In all 

cases, EPA and chemical producers must act on priority chemicals in a timely manner, with 

firm deadlines to maintain accountability. This will not only assure prompt protection of 

health and the environment, but provide business with the certainly that it needs for 

planning and investment. 

Fifth, we must encourage innovation in green chemistry, and support research, education, 

recognition, and other strategies that will lead us down the road to safer and more 

sustainable chemicals and processes. All of this must happen with the utmost transparency 

and concern for the public's right to know. 

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. To that end, manufacturers of chemicals should support the costs 

of Agency implementation, including the review of information provided by manufacturers. 

Mr. Chairman, the bill recently introduced by you and Chairman Waxman takes a step 

towards the vision embodied in these principles. This legislation would require that all 

chemicals be reviewed against a safety standard that appears to be based on sound science 

and reflects risk-based criteria protective of human health and the environment. It would 

4 
36 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 42 here 78128A.017

squarely place the burden on industry to provide data to demonstrate that chemicals are 

safe. It would give EPA significantly greater authority to require any data necessary to 

assess the safety of chemicals and to quickly take action on chemicals which cause harm. 

The substantial increase in information available on toxic chemicals would vastly improve 

the understanding of chemical risks and greatly enable government and the public to make 

better informed decisions about the chemicals that are in the products we use daily. These 

key elements represent a significant change in the approach the U.S. has historically taken 

in regulating chemicals, and if enacted, would substantially update and modernize TSCA. 

Further, this legislation addresses a number of other areas the Administration believes are 

important in modernizing this nation's chemicals management efforts, such as encouraging 

the development and use of green chemistry and adoption of safer alternatives. It would 

set reasonable limits on confidentiality claims while allowing the sharing of critical data -

with appropriate safeguards -- with state governments also regulating chemicals. And clear 

authority is given to assess fees to support the operation of an improved chemicals 

management program. 

Mr. Chairman, your efforts to engage stakeholders have allowed a wide range of parties to 

raise issues and identify areas where there is agreement as well as matters for further 

debate. We look forward to working with you and this Committee as you move forward 

with this important legislation. 

The time has come to bring TSCA into the 21st Century. I would be happy to answer any 

questions you may have. 

5 
37 

Mr. RUSH. The Chair recognizes Dr. Denison for 5 minutes. 

TESTIMONY OF RICHARD DENISON 

Mr. DENISON. Thank you very much. Over the last decade a wide 

array of concerns has called into question the safety of the thousands of chemicals that we encounter in our everyday lives. Let me 

just mention a few of these, many more of which are in my written 

statement. Lead began showing up in a host of children’s products 

finally leading Congress to impose a ban only to have another toxic 

heavy metal cadmium immediately take its place. PBT chemicals 

that several members of the Subcommittee have already mentioned 

this morning that we were told we would never be exposed to are 

now routinely found in the dust in our homes, in our environment, 

and even in the bodies of people living in the most remote parts 

of the globe. EPA cannot tell us with any accuracy how many 

chemicals are actually in Commerce today. And it is forced to perform Google searches to find out how chemicals like the hormonedisrupting bishpenol A are actually used because it lacks adequate 

authority to require reporting of chemical production and use. 

Eighty-five percent of new chemical notices received by EPA have 

no health data whatsoever because unlike every other developed 

country in the world, the U.S. lacks a requirement that companies 

submit a minimum data set when they notify EPA of the new 

chemical. EPA does require testing occasionally but only in a few 

percent of cases. These problems, Mr. Chairman can be directly attributed to the failures of The Toxic Substances Control Act. Happily H.R. 5820 would largely or completely ameliorate these problems. It provides a comprehensive systematic solution to a set of 

problems that we have addressed if at all through a reactive piecemeal approach. H.R. 5820 will help to protect our health and our 

environment while also encouraging innovation, insuring the use of 

the best and latest science, and meeting the needs of the market 

and consumers for better information. Let me touch briefly on 

these three. 

First, it will encourage innovation and protect American jobs. It 

will allow safer, new chemicals, or those serving critical uses to 

enter the market without a safety determination and provide ready 

market access to innovative greener chemicals. It will level the 

playing field between new and existing chemicals for the first time 

requiring existing chemicals to meet a safety standard and by raising overall U.S. standards it will help U.S. companies compete in 

a global economy for customers are demanding safer chemicals and 

products. 

Second, H.R. 5820 will be informed by the latest science. It will 

spur more effective and efficient testing methods that also reduce 

cost and the use of animals. It will adopt the same tried and true 

risk based safety standard that Congress enacted with overwhelming bi-partisan support 14 years ago in the Food Quality 

Protection Act. And it takes the common sense approach of assessing the aggregate of exposure to different uses of a chemical and 

to protect the most vulnerable among us. It incorporates the recommendations of the National Academy of Sciences and calls on 

EPA to frequently update its methods to incorporate the newest 

and best science. And it calls for expedited reductions in the expoVerDate Mar 15 2010 04:32 Apr 03, 2013 Jkt 078128 PO 00000 Frm 00043 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 E:\HR\OC\A128.XXX A128

jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
38 

sure to PBT chemicals a particularly dangerous class of chemicals 

that have been targeted by authorities across the globe. 

Finally H.R. 5820 will spur the development and access to better 

information about chemicals vital not only to EPA safety decisions, 

but also to empower to the market to move toward safer chemicals 

well in advance of government regulation. It will also directly respond to the growing demand for such information by many American businesses and from consumers. As to workability given the 

large number of chemicals involved, the legislation reasonably 

phases in requirements over a number of years. It gives EPA the 

authority to tailor requirements rather than being one size fits all. 

It allows EPA to categorically exempt intrinsically safe chemicals, 

and it allows companies to protect legitimate trade secrets while 

still allowing EPA to share that information with state governments where needed. Mr. Chairman, I strongly urge the Subcommittee to advance this critically important legislation in this 

Congress. It represents a once in a generation opportunity to protect American people and our environment from dangerous chemicals. Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Denison follows:] 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
39 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 45 here 78128A.018

OF 

ON 
40 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 46 here 78128A.019

THE PROBLEM 

Over the past decade, a litany of serious concerns has emerged that calls into question the 

safety of the thousands of chemicals we use and encounter in our everyday lives: 

o lead has shown up in a host of children's products, imported and domestic, finally leading 

Congress to impose a ban to see another toxic heavy metal, cadmium, immediately 

take its place, a most deadly version of the kids' game "whack-a-mole," 

" The science of biomanitoring has revealed that virtually Americans, including newborns, 

carry in our bodies hundreds of toxic synthetic chemicals, many derived from everyday 

products only to learn that no one can tell us how they got there or what effects such a 

mixture of chemicals is having on ollr and our children's health, because they haven't been 

adequately tested or assessed for safety. 

• Persistent, bioaccumulative and toxic (PST) chemicals that we were told we would never be 

exposed to·~ such as those used flame retardants used in furniture and TV casings, in 

stain-resistant coatings on textiles and food packaging, and as plastics additives are now 

routinely detected in the dust in our homes, in our environment, in marine mammals, and 

even in people living in the remotest parts of the globe. 

• Our scientific understanding of how chemicals affect our biology has grown dramatically 

over the last decade, We now know that the timing of exposures, especially during early 

development, is critical; that even very low doses of certain chemicals can have adverse 

effects; and that it is the cumulative effects of long-term, real-world exposures to mUltiple 

chemicals that matter most. 

" A large and growing body of scientific evidence! is linking chemical exposures to several 

serious chronic diseases and disorders that are becoming more prevalent, including: 

o leukemia, brain and other childhood cancers, which have increased more than 20% 

since 1975; 

breast which went up by 40% from 1973 to 1998; 

asthma, which almost doubled in prevalence from 1980 to 1995; 

o autism, diagnoses of which have increased 10-fold in the last 15 years; and 

difficulty in conceiving and maintaining a pregnancy, which affected 40% more 

women in 2002 than in 1982. 

* EPA has had little choice but to resort to pleading with the emerging nanotechnology 

industry to provide, through a voluntary program, the most basic information EPA feels it 

needs to decide how best to regulate these materials only to see level of participation 

best described as paltry. Such materials can by no means be assumed to be benign; for 

example, one class of nanomaterials multi-walled carbon nanotubes - behaves a 

manner that is ominously similar to asbestos, 

• EPA is forced to perform Google searches to try to identify of the uses of chemicals like 

the hormone-disrupting bisphenol A because it lacks authority to compel reporting of 

chemical uses from levels of chemical supply chains, And even though people are 

exposed to such chemicals from many different sources, EPA lacks a mandate to assess the 

aggregate risks. 

2 
41 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 47 here 78128A.020

• EPA can't provide even a rough approximation of the actual number of chemicals in 

commerce today or how and where they are used - because EPA is severely constrained in 

collecting even the most basic information from companies that make and use chemicals. 

Many companies are not even required to notify EPA when they begin to produce a 

chemical or use it in a new way. 

• 85% of all new chemical notices submitted to EPA have no health data whatsoever, and 95% 

lack any ecotoxicity data. That's because the U.S. is virtually alone among all developed 

countries in not requiring a minimum data set to be submitted for new chemicals. While 

EPA can in theory require subsequent testing, the burdens are so high that it has done so 

for at most a few percent of new chemicals. 

• Residents in low-income communities of color like Mossville, louisiana (which is surrounded 

by 14chemical plants) are routinely exposed to deadly chemicals like dioxin, benzene and 

vinyl chloride in amounts that far exceed general population exposures -yet such 

disproportionate impacts need not be accounted for when government conducts risk 

assessments on such chemicals, and actions to reduce the exposures are few and far 

between. 

• The public, state governments and even workers who may be directly exposed to chemicals 

are denied access to the great majority of chemical information that companies submit to 

EPA. That's because the companies have been given wide latitude to claim it as 

confidential, and EPA lacks resources to review the claims to determine if they are 

legitimate. 

o EPA reviews an average of fourteen -14 - out of thousands of such claims made 

each year. 

o Companies are under no obligation to routinely test their chemicals. If they do 

happen to obtain data showing a chemical they make presents a substantial risk, 

they are required to submit it to EPA. Yet when doing so, companies have claimed 

the identities of nearly half of those chemicals to be confidential- despite the fact 

that Congress ruled such information is ineligible for such protection. 

o More than a quarter of industry submissions claimed information as to whether 

their chemicals are used in children's products to be confidential. 

• Earlier this month, President Obama signed a new law to restrict the use of formaldehyde in 

plywood and other pressed wood products. In the aftermath of the "toxic trailers" debacle 

in which hundreds of victims of Hurricane Katrina were exposed to toxic levels of this known 

human carcinogen, Congress had to step in to address the problem after EPA indicated it 

lacked authority to do so. Yet this new law limits only one use of one toxic chemical, and it 

does nothing to halt the ongoing sale and resale of those trailers for use as housing. 

o This sad episode is but one example of how our failure to address chemical risks 

stymies innovation toward safer chemicals and products: U.S. companies with safer 

alternatives to this use of formaldehyde have struggled to gain market share against 

producers of the cheaper, more toxic product. 

• Finally and most recently, government has been able to provide few answers to the myriad 

questions and public concerns raised about the nearly 2 million gallons of chemical 

dispersants that have been used in the BP oil disaster in the Gulf of Mexico - in large part 

because precious little safety testing has been required. Moreover: 

3 
42 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 48 here 78128A.021

o No toxicity standard applies tothe approval process for dispersants; as a result there 

has been no incentive for companies to develop safer, more effective dispersants. 

o EPA had to cajole and pressure the dispersant makerfor weeks before it finally 

agreed to identify the ingredients in its dispersants, because EPA lacks adequate 

authority to compel disclosure. 

All of the problems I just described can be attributed, in whole or in part, to the failures of our 

country's main chemical safety law, the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA). 

THE SOLUTION 

Happily, Mr. Chairman, all of these problems would be largely or entirely ameliorated by 

adoption of the legislation you introduced last week, H.R. 5820, the Toxic Chemicals Safety Act 

of 2010. It provides the framework for a comprehensive, systematic solution to a set of 

problems that until now have been addressed, if at all, through reactive, piecemeal actions. 

Environmental Defense Fund actively participated, both individually and as a member of the 

Safer Chemicals, Healthy Families coalition (www.saferchemicals.org), in the intensive 3-nionth 

process your Subcommittee and Committee staff convened to actively gather and incorporate 

feedback on a "discussion draft" of the bill that was introduced in mid-April. Numerous 

changes were made to the draft by staff to clarify intent and reflect stakeholder concerns raised 

during that deliberative process. 

The result is legislation that reflects the considered input from a wide array ofstakeholders - all 

sectors of business and industry, health groups, environmental justice and community 

organizations, parent groups, the religious community, animal protection organizations, labor, 

state regulatory officials, and state and national environmental organizations. 

In our view, H.R. 5820 strikes the right balance, by reforming TSCA first and foremost to fully 

protect human health and the environment (including the most vulnerable among us), while 

also: 

• encouraging and rewarding innovation toward safer chemicals and products; 

• informing the chemicals marketplace as well as consumers and the public, while protecting 

legitimate business-confidential information; 

• fully utilizing all available information and new scientific methods so as to reduce costs and 

minimize the use of laboratory animals in testing chemicals; and 

• providing EPA with the resources it needs to efficiently and effectively carry out its 

expanded responsibilities to ensure chemical safety. 

My Written testimony provides a more detailed comparison of current TSCA to the Toxic 

Chemicals Safety Act that describes the many vital reforms the new legislation includes. 

Let me highlight a few features of H.R. 5820 that reflect its sound basis in science and its 

balance: 

4 
43 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 49 here 78128A.022

PROMOTING INNOVATION AND SAFER CHEMICALS: First, the legislation will encourage and 

reward innovation in the marketplace, protecting American jobs while ensuring public and 

workplace safety. Three examples: 

Far from impeding innovation, H.R. 5820 would allow new chemicals to enter the market 

without safety determinations if they are intrinsically low hazard, are safer for particular uses 

than chemicals already on the market, or serve critical uses. This serves to enhance the 

competitive strength of the American chemical industry by providing ready market access to 

innovative, safer chemicals. 

H.R. S820 will level the playing field between new and existing chemicals, by requiring for the 

first time that existing chemicals be assessed and shown to be safe in order to remain on the 

market. By also ensuring the safety of new chemicals before they enter commerce, it will help 

to position those chemicals - and the companies that innovate them - to satisfy the growing 

global demand for safer chemicals and chemical products. 

And by raising U.S. chemical safety standards to a level comparable to that in other major 

chemical markets across the globe, H.R. 5820 will help U.S. companies to compete in an 

economy where customers are demanding more and better information about the chemicals 

they buy, and more evidence of their safety. 

ENSURING USE OF THE BEST AND LATEST SCIENCE: Second, H.R. 5820 ensures the best and 

latest science is used to inform data requirements and risk-based safety determinations and 

address chemicals of greatest concern. It promotes development and use of emerging methods 

for testing chemicals that can enhance our knowledge of chemical effects, while increasing 

efficiency and minimizing costs and animal use. It calls on EPA to rely on the latest 

recommendations of the nation's premier scientific body, the National Academy of Sciences, in 

formulating the risk assessment methodology it will use to support safety determinations. It 

requires EPA periodically to review data requirements and assessment methodologies and 

revise them to incorporate the best and latest science. 

H.R. 5820 establishes a risk-based safety standard that incorporates the common-sense need to 

assess the aggregate of exposures to multiple sources of the same chemical, and, where 

sufficient science supports doing so, cumulative exposures to multiple chemicals that 

contribute to the same health effect. The standard also reflects the firmly established fact that 

certain segments of the population have an enhanced vulnerability to the adverse effects of 

chemicals. This is the same tried-and-true safety standard that Congress enacted into law 14 

years ago with overwhelming bipartisan support, and that has served us well in protecting 

public health from pesticides used on food crops. 

H.R. 5820 calls for expedited action to reduce exposures to chemicals identified through 

application of rigorous scientific criteria as persistent, bioaccumulative and toxic (PBT) 

chemicals to which people are exposed. This particularly dangerous class of chemicals has been 

targeted for similar action by authorities across the globe - because they build up in the 

environment and the food chain, posing health risks long after their initial release. The 

5 
44 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 50 here 78128A.023

legislation also calls for prompt action to address "hot spots," localities where ample scientific 

evidence demonstrates that people are subject to disproportionatelyhigh exposures to toxic 

chemicals. 

MEETING lEGITIMATE INFORMATION NEEDS: Third, H.R. 5820 ensures that more and better 

information becomes available on all chemicals, not only informing EPA safety decisions, but 

also responding to the growing market demand for such information from many "downstream" 

American businesses and from consumers. Chemical producers are required to declare the 

chemicals they make and their known uses, and to provide a minimum data set to characterize 

their hazards and exposure potential. Producers are also to provide their commercial 

customers with information on the chemicals they purchase and use, enhancing chemical users' 

ability both to make informed decisions and to report to EPA on their own uses of chemicals. 

At the same time, given the large number and diversity of chemicals involved, the legislation 

reasonably phases in the new data requirements over a number of years; gives EPA the 

authority to tailor data requirements to specific types or groups of chemicals, rather than 

applying a one-size-fits-all approach; reduces both the costs and use of animals in testing by 

allowing a range of methods to be used to fulfill data requirements; and allows EPA to 

categorically exempt intrinsically benign chemicals from information as well as other 

requirernents. It also retains the ability of companies to protect legitimate confidential 

business information (CBI), while allowing EPA to share CBI with state, local and Tribal 

governments and ensuring full public access to non-CBI. 

Mr. Chairman, I strongly urge the Subcommittee to advance H.R. 5820, the Toxic Chemicals 

Safety Act of 2010, in this Congress. This critically important legislation represents a once-in-ageneration opportunity to protect the American people and our environment from dangerous 

chemicals. 

Thank you. 

1 Summarized in The Health Case for Reforming the Toxic Substances Control Act, 2010, available at 

http://healthreport.saferchemicals.org!. 

6 
45 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 51 here 78128A.024

Comparison of key policy elements under the 

Toxic Substances Control Act and the Toxic Chemicals Safety Act of 2010 

Currently under the Toxic Substances Control Act Under'the Toxic Chemicals Safety Act of 2010 

SAFETY DATA: Few data call-ins are issued, even Up-front data call-ins for all chemicals would be required. 

fewer chemicals are required to be tested and no A minimum data set (MDS) on all new and existing 

minimum data set is required even for new chemicals sufficient to determine safety would be 

chemicals. required to be developed and made public. 

BURDEN OF PROOF: EPA is required to prove harm Industry would bear the legal burden of proving their 

before it can regulate a chemical. chemicals are safe. 

ASSESSMENT OF SAFETY: No mandate exists to Both new and existing chemicals would be subject to 

assess the safety of existing chemicals. New safety determinations as a condition of entering or 

chemicals undergo a severely time-limited and remaining on the market, using the best available science 

highly data-constrained review. that relies on the advice of the National Academy of 

Sciences. 

SCOPE OF ASSESSMENT: Where the rare chemical The safety standard would require EPA to account for 

assessment is undertaken, there is no requirement aggregate and cumulative exposures to all uses and 

to assess all sources of exposure to a chemical, or sources of a chemical, and to ensure protection of 

to assess risk to vulnerable populations. No vulnerable populations that may be especially susceptible 

guidance is provided on how to determine whether to chemical effects (e.g., children, the developing fetus) 

a chemical presents an "unreasonable risk." or subject to disproportionately high exposure (e.g., lowincome communities living near contaminated sites or 

chemical production facilities). 

REGULATORY ACTION: Even chemicals of highest Chemicals would be assessed against a health-based 

concern, such as asbestos, have not been able to standard, and deadlines for decisions would be specified. 

be regulated under TSCA's "unreasonable risk" EPA would have authority to restrict production and use 

cost-benefit standard. Instead, assessments often or place conditions on any stage of the lifecycle of a 

drag on indefinitely without conclusion or decision. chemical needed to ensure safety, 

CHEMICALS AND EXPOSURES OF HIGH CONCERN: EPA would develop and apply criteria to identify toxic 

No criteria are provided for EPA to use to identify chemicals that persist and build up in the environment 

and prioritize chemicals or exposures of greatest and people (PBTs), and promptly mandate controls to 

concern, leaving such decisions to case-by-case reduce use of and exposure to such chemicals. "Hot 

judgments. spots" where people are subject to disproportionately 

high exposures would be specifically identified and 

addressed. 

INFORMATION ACCESS: Companies are free to All CBI claims would have to be justified up front. EPA 

claim, often without providing any justification, would be required to review them, and only approved 

most information they submit to EPA to be claims would stand. Approved claims would expire after 

confidential business information (CBI), denying a period oftime. Other levels of government would have 

access to the public and even to state and local access to CBL 

government. EPA is not required to review such 

claims, and the claims never expire. 

RULEMAKING REQUIREMENTS: To require testing In addition to the MDS requirement, EPA would have 

or take other actions, EPA must promulgate authority to issue an order rather than a regulation to 

regulations that take many years and resources to require reporting of existing data or additional testing. 

develop. 
46 

Mr. RUSH. The chair now recognizes our former member of the 

Congress—I was elected with him in ’93. Mr. Dooley is recognized 

for 5 minutes for the purposes of opening statement. I want to welcome you back to the—this House of Representatives. 

TESTIMONY OF CAL DOOLEY 

Mr. DOOLEY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, I am delighted to be 

back, and I want to thank you and Congressman Whitman, as well 

as members of the Subcommittee for inviting me to testify today. 

Chemical and chemical regulations have a broad impact on the 

American economy. A sustainable American chemistry industry is 

critical to American security and economic health, and that is why 

the American Chemistry Council last year introduced 10 principles 

around which we believe TSCA modernization can and should be 

designed. But briefly it is our view that any approach toward updating chemical regulation should insure worker, and consumer, 

and public safety as its highest priority, preserve the ability of the 

United States to serve as the innovation industry of the world, to 

protect the hundreds of thousands of American jobs fueled directly 

and indirectly by the business of chemistry. Recently I was delighted to hear Speaker Pelosi announce for the balance of this legislative session Democrats would focus on a Make It in America 

theme. While not always obvious that chemistry, industry, and the 

industries, and businesses that rely on it at the core of our manufacturing sector, the chemical manufacturing sector alone employs 

more than 800,000 American workers. 96 percent of all manufactured goods are touched in some way by chemicals. We firmly believe that reforming TSCA to enhance the safety assessment of 

chemicals while maintaining the ability of the U.S. chemical industry to be the international leader in innovation and manufacturing 

are not mutually exclusive. However, we must strike the right balance and our assessment of H.R. 5820 as currently drafted promotes unworkable approaches to chemical management. It creates 

additional burdens that do not contribute to and in fact detract 

from making advancements in safety while coming up short with 

respect to promoting innovation and protecting American jobs. In 

my written testimony I acknowledge that there have been significant improvements over the discussion draft and—but today with 

my limited time I want to focus on some of the provisions that continue to be a great concern. 

First, let me approach—address the safety standard. I am confident that everybody agrees that when someone gets behind the 

wheel of a car, buys a piece of furniture, or puts on clothing, the 

chemicals in those products should be safe for their intended use. 

However the safety standard as established in this bill sets an impossibly high hurdle for all chemicals in commerce that would 

produce technical, bureaucratic, and commercial barriers that 

would stifle the manufacturing sector. This—for example the bill 

requires that aggregate exposure to a chemical or a mixture meets 

the reasonable certainty of no harm. This means that when a 

chemical or mixture is listed for a safety determination, the manufacturer carries the burden of showing with reasonable certainty 

not just that the chemicals used, or the chemical poses no harm, 

but that all other aggregate exposures from all other uses of that 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
47 

chemical pose no harm. Even more troubling are the provisions in 

the bill that would identify chemicals that would be subject to a 

safety determination. The bill identifies 19 specific chemicals and 

requires within 12 months that the Administrator of EPA develop 

and maintain a list of 300 chemicals that would be subject to a 

safety determination. I don’t have a clue, you know, what the rationale was to identify 300 chemicals, but I do know that there are 

significant real world consequences resulting from a chemical being 

listed. Again the legislation requires that the manufacturer bear 

the burden of proof. As an industry, we are prepared to accept a 

greater responsibility to ensuring that we provide the date that 

meets an appropriate safety standard, but what is troubling is that 

there is no requirement that EPA evaluates the information we 

submit and render a safety determination during a specific time 

frame. Furthermore, under the bill if the EPA does not issue a 

safety determination for whatever reason, it would prohibit any 

new use of the chemical. Now you don’t have to be a rocket scientist or a chemical engineer to understand the impact that this 

policy will have on innovation and product development in the 

United States. Regardless of the environmental, the economic, or 

the societal benefits, and attributes of a product if this contains one 

of the 300 chemicals listed it would be shut out of the market for 

reasons that have nothing to do with the risk of that product and 

the exposure that it would present to consumers or the environment. And it shouldn’t be lost on any of you that this legislation 

would require every chemical and mixture that is in Congress to 

eventually be subject to this safety determination. You know when 

you think about the impacts that this has, I mean, they are so dramatic because you can have—this is a piece of polysilicon. This is 

a very common chemical that has an additive that goes into solar 

panels that you see here, it is in the, you know, the blackberrys, 

and the cell phones we use. It is in the computers that we use 

every day. If perhaps one of these chemicals that are in all these 

products was in fact on that safety determination, that list of 300, 

and the Administrator of EPA didn’t take action in a timely manner and issue a determination, it would ban any new use of this 

polysilicon on any new application regardless of the actual exposure and the increased risk that would emanate or result from that 

product. Clearly this is something that runs contrary to the interest of providing and insuring the United States maintains at the 

forefront of innovation. We also have serious concerns about the 

new chemicals provisions, we have serious concerns as well about 

the import provisions which we acknowledge that there was a good 

faith effort to try to maintain a level playing field and I hope that 

we have the opportunity to address some of those during our question and answer period. 

[The prepared statement of Cal Dooley follows:] 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
48 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 54 here 78128A.025

merican. 

Chemistry Council 

Testimony of 

The Honorable Cal Dooley 

President and CEO 

American Chemistry Council 

1300 Wilson Blvd. 

Arlington, V A 22209 

Before the 

Subcommittee on Commerce, Trade and Consumer Protection of the 

amerlcanchemlstry.com~ 

House Committee on Energy and Commerce 

"H.R. 5820 - The Toxic Chemicals Safety Act 0/2010" 

July 29,2010 

BOO Wilson Boulevard, Arlington. VA 211091 (703) 741.5000 \'? 
49 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 55 here 78128A.026

Mr. Chainnan, Congressman Whitfield, members of the Subcommitteethank you very much for inviting me to testify today. As everyone on this 

committee knows, the American Chemistry Council is a strong advocate 

ofrefonn of the Toxic Substances Control Act. 

Chemicals and chemical regulation have a broad impact on the American 

economy. A sustainable American chemistry industry is critical to 

American security and economic health. 

This is why we introduced ten principles around which we believe TSCA 

modernization can and should be designed. Put briefly, it is our view that 

any approach toward updating chemical regulation should 

• Ensure worker, consumer and public safety as its highest 

priority; 

• Preserve the ability of the United States to serve as the 

innovation engine for the world; and 

• Protect the hundreds of thousands of American jobs fueled 

directly and indirectly by the business of chemistry. 

Recently, we were delighted to hear Speaker Pelosi announce that for the 

balance of this legislative session Democrats would focus on a "Make it 

in America" theme. While not always obvious, the chemistry industry 

and the industries and businesses that rely on it are at the core of our 

manufacturing sector. For example, the chemical manufacturing sector 

alone employs more than 800,000 American workers. And, 96% of all 

manufactured goods are touched in some way by chemistry. 

First and foremost, our industry is committed to ensuring our chemicals 

are safe for their intended use. And we finnly believe that reforming 

TSCA to enhance the safety assessment of chemicals while maintaining 

the ability of the U.S. chemical industry to be the international leader in 

innovation and manufacturing are not mutually exclusive. 

However, we must strike the right balance and our assessment of H.R. 

5208 as currently drafted promotes unworkable approaches to chemicals 

management. 

2 
50 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 56 here 78128A.027

It creates additional burdens that do not contribute to and, in fact, detract 

from making advances in safety, while coming up short with respect to 

promoting innovation and protecting American jobs. 

I greatly appreciate the task you have undertaken. I also greatly 

appreciate your willingness to listen to our ideas both during the 

stakeholder process and today at this hearing. My simple request is that 

we recognize that chemicals management is an extremely complex 

undertaking that affects the entire American economy and there is much 

more work that needs to be done. 

As to HR 5820, I want to first acknowledge that the bill, as filed, 

attempts to address some concerns that ACC and others had with the 

original discussion draft. 

For example, the legislation makes it explicit that safety determinations 

should focus on "intended uses" for chemicals (though there are troubling 

uncertainties as to how this would be applied under the safety standard as 

presented in the bill). 

It now mandates that EPA develop tiered and varied approaches to gather 

the data that would be required on chemicals - in keeping with the 

principles of sound science. 

The bill also allows for the renewal of confidential business information 

claims (although, again, troubling concerns remain). 

Despite some improvements, there are still significant fundamental issues 

in the legislation that undermine its workability. 

In modernizing TSCA we need to take stock ofthe shortcomings we are 

trying to improve and build on what currently works. Most stakeholders 

have pointed to the lack of a systematic look back at the grandfathered 

chemicals in the current program as an area that needs to be addressed -

and we agree. 

They have also suggested that current TSCA can make it difficult for 

EPA to get the information it needs and take appropriate actions due to 

burdensome requirements - and we agree with that as well. But it is 

important to note that many believe the new chemicals program under 

current law is working quite well. 

3 
51 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 57 here 78128A.028

There are many aspects ofHR5820 that we feel need to be addressed. 

Today, I'd like to highlight three: the safety standard, the regulation of 

new chemicals and the regulation of products imported into the United 

States. 

SAFETY STANDARD 

I am confident everyone agrees that when someone gets behind the wheel 

of a car, buys a piece of furniture or puts on clothing, the chemicals in 

those products should be safe for their intended use. 

However, the safety standard as established in this bill sets such an 

impossibly high hurdle for all chemicals in commerce that it would 

produce technical, bureaucratic and commercial barriers so significant 

they would be the law's undoing. 

For example, the bill requires that "aggregate exposure" to a chemical or 

a mixture meets the "reasonable certainty of no harm" standard. 

This means that when a chemical or mixture is listed for a safety 

determination, the manufacturer( s) carries the burden of showing with 

reasonable certainty not just that the company's use of the chemical and 

any resulting exposures from those uses pose no harm, but that all other 

aggregated exposures from all other uses of the chemical pose no harm. 

It is not clear to us how any company could actually do that. 

TSCA regulates thousands of chemicals, many with hundreds of uses. 

TSCA chemicals have industrial applications and consumer product 

applications. I am not sure how industry or the EPA would be able to 

gather enough information to meet this aggregate exposure standard for 

each and every chemical. 

In addition to aggregate exposure, HR 5820 also requires EPA to 

consider the "cumulative effects of exposure to chemical substances or 

mixtures in making its safety determination." 

The term "cumulative effects" is undefined and at present there is neither 

sufficient data nor a sufficient process in science to conduct a proper 

analysis of cumulative risk. 

The bill also directs EPA to incorporate recommendations from a recent 

National Academy of Sciences report called "Science and Decisions," 

4 
52 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 58 here 78128A.029

which includes some that are quite useful, but others that remain very 

controversial and are not based on the best available science. 

The result of these and other aspects of the safety standard as currently 

articulated in HR 5820 would be tremendous uncertainty and a 

bureaucratic stalemate, which would result in less innovation, and job 

losses rather than job creation. The combined effect would place a 

serious drag on an already sputtering economy. 

NEW CHEMICALS 

With respect to new chemicals, many have commented that EPA's 

current process is the most effective part of existing chemical 

management regulations. 

But the new approach in HR5820 - such as its overly-broad defmition of 

adverse effects and the amount of up front data required before a new 

chemical can be put on the market - will effectively discourage the 

introduction of new chemicals, including new greener chemicals, into 

commerce in the United States. 

If EPA cannot render a timely decision - and doing so may prove to be 

an overwhelming task-- new chemicals would essentially be barred from 

the U.S. market.. Even a better resourced EPA will struggle to make 

these new chemicals decisions while simultaneously evaluating existing 

chemicals, receiving and managing thousands of minimum data sets and 

making routine declarations of new uses of existing chemicals. Timely 

action is almost unimaginable. 

Our customers won't stop asking for new chemistries because EP A is 

unable to act. The result will be that this innovation moves to other 

countries with more manageable regulatory regimes - and the production 

of these new chemistries will move with it. We would export innovation 

and jobs instead of products. Moreover, EPA will now have a full year to 

approve a new chemical, which is considerably longer than the 90-day 

period now afforded the agency. The extended time cycle just doesn't 

work with the realities of the marketplace. 

There are better ways to do this - such as requiring additional data as a 

new chemical's volume increases or as its use patterns undergo 

significant change. 

5 
53 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 59 here 78128A.030

Related to new chemicals is the provision that provides incentives for 

development of what are defined as "safer" alternatives. On the surface 

this sounds appealing but the approach suggested in the bill is 

problematic. 

If a chemical meets the safety standard, it is, by definition, safe for its 

intended uses. Under the safer alternatives provision, EPA is forced to 

engage in the impossible and inappropriate task of picking winners and 

losers among a class of chemicals, all of which have already been 

deemed to be safe. 

By way of example, is a chemical that has a higher flammability but 

lower acute toxicity a "safer" chemical? Who is best equipped to make 

that determination? 

Just as troublesome is a provision casting doubt over the future ofthe 

existing polymer exemption even though in 1995 EPA reviewed the 

safety of polymers and concluded that this exemption was appropriate. 

This provision would create serious uncertainty over the future of a major 

economic engine in our industry. 

Innovations in polymer chemistry are creating jobs and providing energy 

savings by light-weighting vehicles, by creating the products that harness 

wind and solar energy, and by making appliances, homes and commercial 

buildings more energy efficient. It would be a giant step backwards to 

drive the development of these products and the jobs they create off our 

shores. 

IMPORTERS OF ARTICLES 

In the discussion draft, one of our greatest concerns was that it created an 

expensive and time-consuming regulatory burden that would put u.s. 

manufacturers at a competitive disadvantage to our international 

competitors. It unintentionally created a double standard by permitting 

overseas manufacturers the freedom to avoid most of the regulations that 

would be imposed on domestic manufacturers. 

In response to this concern, H.R. 5820 puts the burden of compliance on 

the retailer and other importers in a manner that is unworkable, 

unenforceable and not compliant with international trade laws. 

6 
54 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 60 here 78128A.031

For example, a company importing products from China may be required 

to certify that that the Chinese exporter has conducted a full assessment 

of the aggregate exposure risk of that product in the United States,. 

While we agree that you need to avoid double standards, we're entering 

into an area of extraordinary complexity that must be thoroughly 

evaluated. We do not believe the proposed approach is workable, and 

this, again, reflects the magnitude of the challenge before Congress in 

addressing chemicals management. 

CONCLUSION 

For TSCA modernization to succeed, consumers, industry, investors and 

government alike need a system that is sound, fair and provides a high 

degree of certainty. Regulatory certainty and workability are critical to 

the success ofD.S. businesses. National uniformity, rather than a 

patchwork of state laws, is also important. 

We must recognize that this is an issue of great national significance. It 

needs to be addressed in a manner that recognizes its complexity, takes 

into account what we've learned from TSCA and other regulatory 

programs and sets up the EPA for success. Reforming TSCA the right 

way ensures we will "Make it in America." 

Modernization of TSCA must also be done in a way that allows the 

United States to maintain its preeminent role as the country that 

innovates, the country that makes things and the country that provides 

jobs and economic security to its people. 

HR 5820 includes some improvements over the discussion draft 

circulated to this committee in the spring, but its foundation is still 

unworkable. There is clearly significant work that remains to be done. 

To that end, the American Chemistry Council and its members are 

committed to continuing to work with this committee and with other 

stakeholders to modernize the law in a meaningful and effective way. 

We firmly believe that you can develop legislation that ensures safety 

while promoting innovation and protecting jobs. 

Thank you again for this opportunity, I look forward to your questions. 

7 
55 

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

TESTIMONY OF KEN COOK 

Mr. COOK. Mr. Chairman, thanks for the opportunity to testify 

today, and Mr. Whitfield, and other members of the Committee. 

When it comes—oh I am sorry—when it comes to protecting the 

public from toxic—— 

Mr. RUSH. Pull the mic closer to you please. 

Mr. COOK. When it comes to protecting—you still can’t hear? 

Mr. RUSH. No, turn it on, yes. 

Mr. COOK. It wasn’t—it says it is on. All right, sorry. I guess it 

is—technological breakdown—should I try the other mic? I am 

about halfway through my testimony already. 

Mr. DOOLEY. So far my plan is working. 

Mr. COOK. Cal says his plan is working. When it comes to protecting the public health from toxic industrial chemicals Mr. Chairman, The Toxic Substances Control Act has been so ineffective for 

so long a lot of people forgot it was on the books or didn’t even 

know it was. It was the one environmental law according to their 

own internal documents that the industry was actually satisfied 

with, liked, because unlike the Clean Air Act or the Clean Water 

Act, or other statutes, TSCA really didn’t interfere with their business very much at all. And when the EPA did try and use The 

Toxic Substances Control Act under the first President Bush to ban 

a notorious stone cold killer, asbestos, the law itself defeated the 

agency. 

Now this law is defeating the chemical industry. Because TSCA 

leaves the government so stunningly unable and powerless to deal 

with this soup of toxic industrial chemicals that are in the environment, that are in all of us, the American public has lost confidence, 

has lost trust that the products they are using, the chemicals they 

are exposed to are safe. Now the chemical industry wants a strong 

law behind it instead of a weak law underfoot. Within the environmental community TSCA was the crazy aunt in the attic that no 

one talked about and wanted to forget with one exception, the Environmental Defense Fund which to its great credit maintained a 

focus on this statute when most of the rest of us were not paying 

attention. 

Mr. Chairman, you, Mr. Waxman, your co-sponsors and the extraordinary staff that has put so much work into this, you have 

changed all of that. With the introduction of this bill which when 

it becomes law will be the strongest public health environmental 

statute in the world. There is not a person in this room, not a one, 

not a person in this country, not a one who does not now have in 

their body, in their blood dozens, if not hundreds of TSCA regulated chemicals that are known to cause cancer in laboratory animals or in people—known. How many carcinogens? We don’t know. 

Nearly a century into the chemical revolution no one, not government, not my friends in industry has bothered to look. As the 

President’s cancer panel reported earlier this year we are largely 

left to speculate if those chemicals alone or in combination are contributing to cancer and how much they may be contributing. What 

that landmark panel’s report did say is that we have grossly underVerDate Mar 15 2010 04:32 Apr 03, 2013 Jkt 078128 PO 00000 Frm 00061 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 E:\HR\OC\A128.XXX A128

jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
56 

estimated the role these chemicals have played in the surge of cancer. 

Here is what is not speculation, Mr. Chairman. Half of all the 

men in this country, a third or all women will one day hear a doctor say to them you have cancer. I have nothing to tell you, Mr. 

Chairman about those moments. It has gripped my family, my 

loved ones, as it has the families of everyone in this room. What 

could be worse? Let me tell you. Every baby born in this country 

today for decades past has come into the world pre-polluted with 

a load of toxic carcinogenic chemicals, pre-polluted with a load of 

chemicals that threaten the intricate wiring of their delicate rapidly developing brains; pre-polluted with a mix of chemicals that 

upset their exquisitely sensitive hormone systems that will regulate their bodies for the rest of their lives and many more chemicals circulate through that 300 quarts of blood while they are in 

the womb that can affect virtually every organ system in their 

body. Pollution from the industrial chemicals that you see to regulate with this landmark legislation begins in the womb. We know 

this because my colleagues have done the studies, the pioneering 

studies that documented it. 

Mr. Chairman, I have to commend you for this legislation. It is 

far reaching. I believe it is fair. I want to talk very briefly about 

three points. We believe strongly that the standard reasonable certainty of no harm borrowed very usefully from the pesticide law 

that has helped our companies lead the world in that marketplace 

is vital. Two, we believe very strongly that biomonitoring should be 

at the center of this bill more so than it is now. We would encourage you to look back at the kid safe chemicals act because our more 

than 100,000 supporters who signed a petition to this committee, 

almost a million supporters in total, they want to know what 

chemicals are in the blood of babies in the womb. And they want 

to know, if those chemicals are in there, are they safe? We expect 

the government to be able to do that. 

One final point, Mr. Chairman, I think you have struck the right 

balance on confidential business information, the right balance in 

addition on most of the other provisions in the bill that would encourage the government to divulge more information obtained from 

the industry. They do bear the burden to demonstrate that their 

chemicals are safe in commerce. Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Cook follows:] 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
57 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 64 here 78128A.032

eNVIRONMCNTAl WORKING ('"ROUP . ~_ 

Testimony of Kenneth A. Cook 

President 

Environmental Working Group 

Before the 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON COMMERCE, TRADE AND CONSUMER PROTECTION 

U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND COMMERCE 

On 

"H.R. 5820, the Toxic Chemicals Safety Act of2010" 

Thursday, July 29, 2010 

Mr. Chairman and distinguished members ofthe subcommittee: My name is Kenneth A. Cook. I am the 

President and Co-Founder of Environmental Working Group (EWG), a nonprofit research and advocacy 

organization based in Washington, DC, with offices in Ames, Iowa, and Oakland, California. Thank you 

for holding this important hearing and for offering me the opportunity to testify. 

I want to thank you, Chairmen Rush and WaJUIlan, for your leadership in initiating this long overdue 

policy debate over how to reform the Toxic Substances Control Act of 1976 (TSCA). Your bill, H.R. 

5820, the Toxic Chemicals Safety Act of2010, is essential to fixing our broken toxic chemicals policy. " 

We applaud you and your staff for conducting an extensive stakeholder process with numerous groups, 

including our colleagues in the environmental community, organized labor, health-affected groups, 

healthcare providers, the chemical industry, the consumer products industry and other interested parties. 

The strong foundation you have laid will build broad, deep support for this landmark legislation. EWG 

staff have met with every office represented on this committee to discuss the urgent need to reform 

TSCA. 

Modem science has lransfonned the debate over toxic chemicals policy and underscored the need for 

H.R. 5820. In 2005, a biomonitoring study commissioned by EWO found more than 200 synthetic 

industrial chemicals in the umbilical cord blood of 10 newborn infants (EWG 2005a). We discovered 

that even before they were born, these 10 children had been exposed to a long list of dangerous 

chemicals, including dioxins and furans, flame retardants, and active ingredients in stain removers and 

carpet protectors. We also found lead, polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs) and pesticides banned more 

than 30 years ago. Last year, in tests of cord blood samples from 10 more newborns, we found 

comparable unsettling results, including bisphenol A (BPA), a synthetic estrogen that disrupts the 

endocrine system, and perchlorate, a rocket fuel component and thyroid toxin that can alter brain 

development (EWG 2009a). The second group of children we tested happened to be of African 

American, Asian-Pacific and Latino heritage, but their body burdens were very much like the first 

group, whose ethnic and racial identities are unknown. What this means is that all of us are united by an 

inescapable and profoundly disturbing reality: toxic chemical pollution begins in the womb. 

HEADQUARTERS 1436 U St. NW, Suite 100 Washington, DC 200091 P: 202.667.6982 F: 202.232.2592 

CALIFORNIA OFFICE 2201 Broadway, Suite 308 Oakland, CA 94612 I P: 510.444.O'J73 F: 510.444.0982 

MIDWEST OFFICE 103 E. 6th Street, Suite 201 Ames, IA 50010 I P: 515.598.2221 
58 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 65 here 78128A.033

Testimony - Kenneth A. Cook. Environmental Worfdng Group 

Subcommittee on Commerce, Trade and Consumer Protection 

Comm;lIee on Energy and Commerce (July 29,2010) 

Page 2 0[22 

EWG and Centers for Disease Control and Prevention surveys of the scientific literature have found 

very few tests of umbilical cord blood for industrial chemicals. The few studies that exist have found up 

to 358 chemicals in cord blood from American newborns (Attachment A). More comprehensive testing 

would very likely find many more chemicals polluting the bodies of Americans, young and old. Since 

1976, when President Ford signed the Toxic Substances Control Act into law, chemical manufacturers 

have registered for use more than 80,000 chemicals. More than 15,000 chemicals have been 

manufactured or imported in medium-to-high amounts over the past 25 years. Biomonitoring tests of all 

Americans have involved less than one percent of those compounds. Over the past 15 years, EWG has 

tested more than 200 people for 540 chemicals and found up to 482 of them. The more chemicals we test 

for, the more we find. Meanwhile research on chemicals that are biologically active in extremely small 

amounts has exploded (Attachment B). The substantial public health costs associated with toxic 

exposures, ranging in the tens of billions of dollars, continue to rise (Attachment C). 

In April 2010, the President's Cancer Panel concluded that "to a disturbing extent, babies are being born 

pre-polluted." It declared that the number of cancers caused by toxic chemicals is "grossly 

underestimated" and warned that Americans face "grievous harm" from largely unregulated chemicals 

that contaminate air, water and food (President's Cancer Panel 201 0). 

As modem science has demonstrated, we must reform federal law through H.R. 5820 to ensure that new 

chemicals are safe for kids, our most vulnerable population, before they are allowed to go on the market. 

Each day brings another jarring headline as new research documents the health dangers of toxic 

chemicals. The need for H.R. 5820 has never been more urgent. 

Voices from across the political spectrum are calling on Congress to reform, modernize or overhaul this 

failed law. The American Chemistry Council's principles to modemize TSCA and the Safer Chemicals, 

Healthy Families Coalition's principles of reform provide excellent frameworks for engagement, debate 

and consensus building. EWG's principles for reform are embodied in the Kid-Safe Chemicals Acts of 

the previous two Congresses, many elements of which remain in H.R. 5820. We have strongly supported 

those principles since "Kid-Safe" was first introduced five years ago. 

Reasonable Certainty of No Harm. We applaud H.R. 5820's risk-based approach to regulation, and 

we support expedited risk assessments and actions on persistent, bioaccumulative toxins as set forth in 

Section 32. (EWG Testimony 2010). We strongly support Section 6's explicit language that would 

squarely place the burden of proof on industry to show that its products are safe for public health and 

vulnerable populations. We believe that the "reasonable certainty of no harm" safety standard in Section 

6 ofH.R. 5820, language similar to that of the well-regarded Food Quality Protection Act of 1996, 

should replace TSCA's futile "unreasonable risk of significant injury to health or the environment" 

regime. A "reasonable certainty of no harm" standard would require the Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA) to consider aggregate exposures and all exposure routes, again, a principle usefully 

borrowed from FQP A. H.R. 5820 requires that both existing and new chemicals must meet this safety 

standard, a needed clarification from the discussion draft. We applaud the requirement to make public 

safety determinations. 

Minimum Data Set. Section 4 outlines key data sets that manufacturers would be required to give the 

EPA, including chemical identity, substance characteristics, biological and environmental fate and 

transport; toxicological properties; volume manufactured, processed, or imported intended uses, and 

EWG: THE POWER OF INFORMATION 
59 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 66 here 78128A.034

T~/imony - Kenneth A. Cook. Environmental Working Group 

Subcommittee on Commerce, Trade and Consumer Protection 

Committee on Energy and Commerce (July 29, 2010) 

Pagel ofll 

exposures from all stages of the chemical substance or mixture's Iifecycle that are known or reasonably 

foreseeable. We support the language that provides for tiered testing and data sharing to reduce costs 

and minimize animal testing. It is essential to an effective toxics policy that EPA have clear authority to 

require additional testing and ask for any study needed to better understand the risks of any chemical. 

We would like to see clear requirements that industry disclose chemical dossiers prepared for: the 

European toxics regulatory framework Registration, Evaluation, Authorisation and Restriction of 

Chemicals (REACH); EPA's voluntary High Production Volume challenge program; internal uses; data 

from other government agencies, such as the Food and Drug Administration; the National Children's 

Study; EPA's TOXCAST and other high-throughput screening batteries. Lack of data must never again 

be an obstacle to protecting public health. Section 4 of H.R. 5820 puts us on the track to accomplishing 

that goal. 

Prioritization & Biomonitoring. Detection of a chemical in umbilical cord blood does not prove that it 

will cause hann. As researchers have mapped more and more of what we have dubbed the "human 

toxome," however, scientists, public health experts and policyrnakers have embraced biomonitoring as 

the logical foundation for regulation of industrial chemicals. The Kid-Safe Chemicals Act, H.R. 6100, 

as introduced in the I roth Congress, would have prioritized safety assessments by focusing first on the 

chemicals that show up in people. The measure would have required phasing out production and use of 

chemicals found in human umbilical cord blood unless rigorous testing showed these substances to be 

safe. 

EWO's nearly one million supporters, the vast majority of whom are parents, and the more than 111,000 

citizens who signed our Kid Safe Chemicals petition will be disappointed that H.R.5820 will not ensure 

that the government has determined what industrial toxic chemicals pollute babies in the womb, or that 

the government will not ensure the safety of chemicals that are "pre-polluting" babies. The text of our 

petition reads as follows: 

Babies are born pre-polluted with 100's of toxic chemicals. our broken toxics law is 

falling them. we need your help to change that. EWO tested the umbilical cord blood 

of 10 newborn babies and found nearly 300 chemicals, including BPA, fire retardants, 

lead. polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs) and pesticides that were banned more than 30 

years ago. Speak up for change. Our kids deserve it. Bills to overhaul federal toxic 

chemicals policies are now moving through Congress. They would require that all 

chemicals be proven safe for children before they can be sold. Lawmakers in Washington 

need to know that you want strong reforms for our broken toxics law. Please sign this 

petition to demand that Congress take action to make chemicals in consumer products 

kid-safe. 

We believe that much of the tremendous momentum for public support of toxic chemicals policy reform 

is driven by concern for children's health. 

H.R. 5820's vague language that a chemical's presence "in biological media" would be one of many 

factors considered when EPA moved to put a chemical on the priority list. Left unmodified, this 

approach appears to give equal weight to chemicals found in snails, fish or people. It is our view that 

industrial chemicals that cross the placenta to contaminate a developing child should be placed at the top 

of EPA's to-do list. Few factors translate to greater risk to health. Therefore, we will work with the 

EWG: THE POWER OF INFORMATION 
60 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 67 here 78128A.035

Testimony - Kenneth A. Cook, Environmental Working Group 

Subcommittee on Commerce, Trade and Consumer Protection 

Committee on Energy and Commerce (July 29, 2010) 

Page 4 of12 

committee to try to strengthen the priority criteria so that we can assure parents that the reform effort 

will truly protect children from toxic exposures in the womb. 

Section 33, on Children's Environmental Health, allows for biomonitoring research of infants and 

pregnant women if EPA deems the presence of the chemical in "biological media" to be "above that 

normally found" in pre-polluted babies - in other words, more than "normal" contamination. Fact is, 

Americans do not and should not accept any contamination of infants in the womb as "normaL" We 

would like to see this language strengthened. We strongly support this section's public disclosure 

requirements ofbiomonitoring data. 

We commend the committee for placing the 19 chemicals listed in Section 6 on the priority list. Over the 

last 15 years, EWG, along with our colleagues in the environmental community, has conducted research 

on many of these priority chemicals. In 2007, for example, a landmark study by EWG found BPA in 57 

percent of canned food samples tested. Last year, for the first time in U.S. infants, EWG detected BPA 

in 9 of 10 umbilical cord blood samples. This month, EWG reported finding high levels of BP A in 40 

percent of receipts from major U.S. businesses and services. In 2001 and 2003, EWG issued reports on 

perchlorate contamination of tap water and groundwater in California and other states and on high levels 

of this thyroid toxin in lettuce samples and cow's milk. EWG's analysis has found millions of American 

women of childbearing age at risk of abnormal thyroid hormone levels during pregnancy. In 2008, EWG 

reported detecting phthalates in adolescent girls. In March 2009, laboratory tests by EWG and the 

Campaign for Safe Cosmetics found that 23 out of28 children's personal care products were 

contaminated with formaldehyde, a probable carcinogen (Attachment D). Given the weight of scientific 

evidence on the health effects of these 19 chemicals, we agree they should be on the priority list. 

We were surprised that asbestos was omitted from the priority list. Given the longstanding scientific 

evidence of the dangers of asbestos and the Bush EPA's unsuccessful efforts to ban it in the 1980s, this 

legislation must expedite a rapid phase out of this dangerous substance. 

Reporting Requirements. We support Section 8's requirements to provide EPA with critical data on 

chemical use, manufacturer, potential worker exposures and facilities, and relevant health and safety 

data studies. The public inventory and online database requirements promote transparency and 

accountability. Most Americans would probably be shocked that these data requirements have not long 

been in place. 

"Hot Spots" and Fenceline Communities. We are pleased to see that this legislation tackles the 

myriad issues facing communities disproportionately affected by industrial pollution. EWG's 2009 

report, "Pollution in 5 Extraordinary Women: The Body Burden of Environmental Justice Leaders," 

documented up to 48 chemicals in the blood of five prominent women environmental justice leaders. 

The women, from New Orleans, Corpus Christi, Oakland and Green Bay are working to rid their 

communities of pollution from local manufacturing plants, hazardous waste dumps and oil refmeries. 

Every woman was contaminated with flame retardants, Teflon chemicals, synthetic fragrances, BPA and 

perchlorate (EWG 200ge). This legislation'S "hot spot" list and action plan would help EPA focus 

resources on the many communities that suffer disproportionate exposure to chemicals. We would like 

to see this provision toughened to ensure that emissions from "TSCA-regulated" chemicals are explicitly 

pegged for virtual elimination in the action plans. The bill should also spell out penalties if EPA, a state, 

or a locality does not fully implement an action plan or fails to meet the reduction targets. We thank the 

EWG: THE POWER OF INFORMATION 
61 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 68 here 78128A.036

Testimony - Kenneth A. Cook, Environmental Working Group 

Subcommittee on Commerce, Trade and Consumer Protection 

Committee on Energy and Commerce (July 29,20/0) 

Page 5 afn 

committee for acknowledging the need to focus on these communities. We look forward to working with 

you to ensure that the section will fully address the issue of disproportionate exposure. 

Confidential Business Information (CBI). Section 14 of H.R. 5820 reflects a major step forward in 

creating more transparency and curbing industry abuses of CBI. The Government Accountability Office 

has testified that about 95 percent of new chemical applications contain confidentiality claims. (GAO 

2009). EWG has found that industry has made CBI claims for the identities of 13,596 chemicals 

produced since 1976 - nearly two-thirds of the 20,403 chemicals added to commerce in the past 34 

years. A significant number of these secret chemicals are used in everyday consumer products, including 

artists' supplies, plastic products, fabrics and apparel, furniture and children's items. EPA data show that 

at least 10 of the 151 high volume confidential chemicals produced or imported in amounts greater than 

300,000 pounds a year are used in products specifically intended for children (EWG 20IOa). Last fall, 

EPA released the chemical identity of 530 high production volume chemicals because that information 

was already publicly available. 

The overbroad secrecy provisions in current law threaten public health. Under section 8( e) of TSCA, 

companies must turn over all data showing that a chemical may present a substantial risk of injury to 

health or the environment. By definition, these are the chemicals of the greatest health concern. In the 

first eight months of 2009, industry concealed the identity of the chemicals in more than half the studies 

submitted under 8(e).lndependent researchers and the public simply do not know how many of those 

chemicals are present in our bodies and in newborns. 

H.R. 5820 proposes a crucial improvement by prohibiting the secrecy of chemical identity in health and 

safety study submissions. It would ensure that chemical identity and health and safety data would be 

publicly available and that the EPA could share important information with other federal agencies and 

state and local governments. The legislation would require that manufacturers justify confidentiality. 

EPA could deny that claim. These provisions would end the spurious confidentiality claims that have 

plagued TSCA but would permit some information to remain confidential. We are pleased to see that 

there is a sunset of 5 years on confidential information. Even the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) and 

the National Security Administration (NSA) release confidential information every few years - why not 

EPA? 

Safer Alternatives & Green Chemistry. We generally support the "safer alternatives" language 

outlined in section 35 ofH.R. 5820, especially the requirement that they pass the "reasonable certainty 

of no harm" safety standard and submit a minimum data set for these alternatives. All too often 

consumers fmd that a bad actor chemical is replaced with an alternative, the identity and safety of which 

are uncertain. 

Exemption for Intrinsic Properties of Chemicals. Section 39 provides EPA broad discretion to 

exempt certain chemical substances or mixtures from the minimum data set, the safety standard and 

reporting processes. While we understand the need for chemicals to go to the market and a smart 

prioritization process, the "intrinsic properties" language of this provision could be abused. We look 

forward to working with the committee on options for dealing with this concern. 

EPA Oversight Authority. We applaud Section II, which would expand the authority for EPA to 

conduct inspections and issue subpoenas to chemical facilities. Consumers have lost confidence in many 

products as a result of EPA's terribly weak oversight authority. This section would help restore the 

EWG: THE POWER OF INFORMATION 
62 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 69 here 78128A.037

Testimorry - Kenneth A. Cook. Environmental Working Group 

Subcommittee on Commerce. Trade and Consumer Protection 

Committee on Energy and Commerce (July 29, 20ID) 

Page 6 0/22 

public's confidence in our regulatory framework. Sections 16 and 17 would provide EPA with needed 

authority to impose penalties for violations, criminal penalties for knowing endangennent, and would 

clarify that EPA has the authority to authorize compliance with any rule or order issued under the Act. 

Section 40 would ensure that the bill applies to federal agencies that manufacture or produce chemical 

substances or mixtures. These sections are critical measures to ensure a vibrant regulatory toxies policy. 

RECOMMENDATIONS 

In conclusion, we commend the committee for its commitment to TSCA refonn. We support H.R. 5820 

and the steps Chainnen Rush and Waxman have taken to ensure a strong safety standard, mandate 

stronger EPA authority to put the burden on industry to show a chemical is safe before it goes on the 

market promote prioritization, require a minimum data set and address abuses of confidential business 

infonnation claims. To protect our children's health, however, the federal govemment must place a 

greater emphasis on biomonitoring of cord blood. EWG applauds the committee for its dedicated work 

on toxic chemicals policy refonn. We look forward to working with you to urge Congress to take quiek 

action to establish a national policy on chemicals based on the newest and best science. Thank you for 

your time. I welcome the opportunity to answer any questions you may have. 

EWG: THE POWER OF INFORMATION 
63 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 70 here 78128A.038

ATTACHMENT 

effects 

ATTACHMENTC: 

Results of Select Cord 

show 

Studies 

exno,mr,es are to seriolls 

Exposures 

A(~WI1ENT D: Overview ofEWG's Research on Chemicals in Section 6 

References 

[ItVG: THE POWER OF INFORMATION 
64 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 71 here 78128A.039

RM N 
65 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 72 here 78128A.040

THE f M 
66 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 73 here 78128A.041
67 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 74 here 78128A.042

ER Hl 
68 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 75 here 78128A.043

OF INFORM 
69 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 76 here 78128A.044
70 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 77 here 78128A.045

Attacliment B: Studies sllow everyday cliemical exposures 

effects 

EWG: THE POWER Of I fO MATlON 
71 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 78 here 78128A.046
72 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 79 here 78128A.047

H ER 0 
73 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 80 here 78128A.048

Testimony - Kenneth A. Cook. Environmental Working Group 

Subcommittee on Commerce, Trade and Consumer Protection 

Committee on Energy and Commerce (July 29,2010) 

Page17of12 

REFERENCES 

Apelberg BJ, Witter FR, Herbstman JB, Calafat AM, Halden RU, Needbam LL, Goldman LR. 2007. 

Cord serum concentrations ofperfluorooctane sulfomate (PFOS) and perfluorooctanoate (PFOA) in 

relation to weight and size at birth. Environmental Health Perspectives 115(11): 1670-6. 

Blair A, Saracci R, Vineis P, Cocco P, Forastiere F, Grandjean P, Kogevinas M, Kriebel D, McMichael 

A, Pearce N, Porta M, Samet J, Sandler DP, Costantini AS, Vainio H. 2009. Epidemiology, public 

health, and the rhetoric offalse positives. Environmental Health Perspectives 117(12): 1809-13. 

Boyd DR, Genuis SJ. 2008. The environmental burden of disease in Canada: respiratory disease, 

cardiovascular disease, cancer, and congenital affliction. Environ Res 106(2): 240-9. 

Braun 1M, Yolton K, Dietrich KN, Hornung R, Ye X, Calafat AM, Lanphear BP. 2009. Prenatal 

Bisphenol A exposure and early childbood behavior. Environmental Health Perspectives 117( 12): 1945-

52. 

EPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency). 2009. Office of the Chief Financial Officer: Budget- FY 

2009 Budget-in-Brief. Accessed Sept 30 2009 at http://www.epa.govlbudgetl. 

Etzel RA. 2004. Environmental risks in childbood. Pediatr Ann 33(7): 431-6. 

EPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency). 2009a. Office of the Chief Financial Officer: Budget- FY 

2009 Budget-in-Brief. Accessed Sept 30 2009 at http://www.epa.govlbudgetl. 

Environmental Working Group. 2000. Does a cornmon chemical in nail polish pose risks to human 

health? Available online at: http://www.ewg.org/reportslbeautysecrets 

Environmental Working Group. 2003a. Thyroid toxin taints water supplies for millions in Calif. And 

Nationwide. Available online at: http://www.ewg.orgfnodelI9544 

Environmental Working Group. 2003b. Suspect salads. Available online at: 

http://www.ewg.orgfreports/suspectsalad 

Environmental Working Group. 2004. Rocket fuel in cows' milk- perchlorate. Available online at: 

http://www.ewg.orgfreportslrocketmilk 

EWG (Environmental Working Group). 2005a. Body Burden: the pollution in newborns. Available 

online at: http://www.ewg.orgfreportslbodyburden2/execsurnm.php 

Environmental Working Group. 2005b. Chrome-plated fraud. Available online at: 

http://www.ewg.org/erinbrockovichchromium6Iawsuitloverview 

Environmental Working Group. 2006. 44 million women at risk of thyroid deficiency from rocket fuel 

chemical. Available online at: http://www.ewg.org/node/20902 

EWG: THE POWER OF INFORMATION 
74 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 81 here 78128A.049

Testimony - Kenneth A. Cook, Environmental Working Group 

Subcommittee on Commerce, Trade and Consumer Protection 

Committee on Energy and Commerce (July 29,2010) 

Page 18 0/22 

Environmental Working Group. 2007. A survey of Bisphenol A in U.S. canned foods. Available online 

at: http://www.ewg.org/reportsibisphenola 

Environmental Working Group. 2008. Teen girls' body burden ofhonnone-altering cosmetics 

chemicals. Available online at: http://www.ewg.org/reportsiteens 

EWG (Environmental Working Group). 2009a. Pollution in minority newborns. Available online at: 

http://www.ewg.org/minoritycordbloodlhome 

Environmental Working Group. 2009b. Over 300 pollutants in U.S. tap water. Available online at: 

http://www.ewg.org/tap-waterlhome 

Environmental Working Group. 2009c. Campaign for safe cosmetics report: toxic chemicals found in 

kid's bath products. Available online at: http://www.ewg.org/reportltoxic-tub/31209 

Environmental Working Group. 2009d. Bottled water quality investigation: 10 major brands, 38 

pollutants. Available online at: http://www.ewg.orglBottledWaterlBottled-Water-OualityInvestigationIBottled-Water-Ouality-Investigation-Test-Results 

Environmental Working Group. 200ge. Pollution in Five Extraordinary Women. Available online at: 

http://www.ewg.orgireportlPollution-in-5-Extraordinary-Women 

EWG (Environmental Working Group). 2010a. Off the Books: Industry'S Secret Chemicals. Available 

online at: http://www.ewg.org/chemicalindustryexposeditopsecretchemicals. 

Environmental Working Group. 201Ob. Synthetic estrogen BPA coats cash register receipts. Available 

online at: http://www.ewg.orglbpa-in-store-receipts 

Environmental Working Group Testimony. 2010. Submitted Testimony for the Record to the 

Subcommittee on Commerce, Trade and Consumer Protection Hearing on TSCA and Persistent, 

Bioaccumulative, and Toxic Chemicals: Examining Domestic and International Actions. March 3, 2010 

Grandjean P, Landrigan PJ. 2006. Developmental neurotoxicity of industrial chemicals. Lancet 

368(9553): 2167-78. 

Gump BB, Stewart P, Reihman J, Lonky E, Darvill T, Parsons PJ, Granger DA. 2008. Low-level 

prenatal and postnatal blood lead expo- sure and adrenocortical responses to acute stress in children. 

Environ Health Perspect. Feb; 116(2):249-55. 

Gurney JG, Davis S, Severson RK, Fang JY, Ross JA, Robison LL. 1996. Trends in cancer incidence 

among children in the U.S. Cancer 78(3): 532-41. 

Harley KG, Marks AR, Chevrier J, Bradman A, Sjodin A, Eskenazi B. 2010. PBDE concentrations in 

women's serum and fecundability. Environmental Health Perspectives Jan 26 [epub ahead ofprintJ. 

Hazardous Substances Data Bank (HSDB). 2003. Summary for tetrachloroethylene (CASRN 127-18-4). 

EWG: THE POWER OF INFORMATION 
75 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 82 here 78128A.050

Testimony - Kenneth A. Cook. Environmental Working Group 

Subcommittee on Commerce, Trade and Consumer Protection 

Committee on Energy and Commerce (July 29, 2010) 

Page 190/22 

Herbstman JB, Sjodin A, Apelberg BJ, Witter FR, Halden RU, Patterson DG, Panny SR, Needham LL, 

Goldman LR. 2008. Birth delivery mode modifies the associations between prenatal polychlorinated 

biphenol (PCB) and polybrominated dipehnol ether (PBDE) and neonatal thyroid hormone levels. 

Environmental Health Perspectives 116(10): 1376-82. 

Herbstman JB, Sjodin A, Apelberg BJ, Witter FR, Halden RU, Patterson DG, Panny SR, Needham LL, 

Goldman LR. 2008. Birth delivery mode modifies the associations between prenatal polychlorinated 

biphenyl (PCB) and polybrominated diphenyl ether (PBDE) and neo- natal thyroid hormone levels. 

Environmental Helath Perspectives 116(10): 1376-82. 

Herbstman JB, Sjodin A, Apelberg BJ, Witter FR, Patterson DG, Halden RU. 2007. Determinants of 

prenatal exposure to polychlorinat- ed biphenyls (PCBs) and polybrominated diphenyl ethers (PBDEs) 

in an urban population. Environ Health Perspect 115(12): 1794-800. 

Janssen S, Solomon G, Schettler T. 2009. CHE Toxicant and Disease Database. The Collaborative on 

Health and the Environment. Accessed April 2 2009 at 

http://database.healthandenvironment.org/index.cfin. 

Landrigan PJ, Schechter CB, Lipton 1M, Fahs MC, Schwartz J. 2002. Environmental pollutants and 

disease in American children: estimates of morbidity, mortality, and costs for lead poisoning, asthma, 

cancer, and developmental disabilities. Environ Health Perspect 110(7): 721-8. 

Landrigan PI. 2001. Children's environmental health. Lessons from the past and prospects for the future. 

Pediatr Clin North Am 48(5): 1319-30. 

Lederman SA, Jones RL, Caldwell KL, Rauh V, Sheets SE, Tang D, Viswanathan S, Becker M, Stein 

JL, Wang RY, Perem FP. 2008. Relation between cord blood mercury levels and early child 

development in a World Tmde Center Cohort. Environmental Health Per- spectives 116(8): 1084-91. 

Linabery AM, Ross JA. 2008. Trends in childhood cancer incidence in the U.S. (1992-2004). Cancer 

112(2): 416-32. 

Mazdai A, Dodder NG, Abernathy MP, Hites RA, Bigsby RM. 2003. Polybrominated diphenyl ethers in 

maternal and fetal blood samples. Environmental Health Perspectives 111 (9): 1249-52. 

McClure Susan. 2009. Personal communication, Susan McClure (CDCICCEHIP/NCEH). September 30, 

2009. 

Medco. 2008. Chronic Medication Nation: Research Finds Chronic Health Problems Now Amict More 

Than Half of All Americans. First Time a Majority of Americans Take Medications to Treat Chronic 

Health Conditions. Younger Adults Show Steepest Rise in Chronic Medication Use. News Release. May 

142008. Accessed April I 2009 at http://medco.mediaroom.comlindex.php?s=43&item=317 and 

http://medco.mediaroom.comlindex.php?s=64&cat=23. 

Melzer D, Rice N, Depledge MH, Henley WE, Galloway TS. 2010b. Associations between serum 

Perfluoroctanoic Acid (PFOA) and thyroid disease in the NHANES study. Environmental Health 

Perspectives Jan 7 [epub ahead of print]. 

EWG: THE POWER OF INFORMATION 
76 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 83 here 78128A.051

Testimony - Kenneth A. Cook, Environmentul Working Group 

Subcommittee on Commerce, Trade and Consumer Protection 

Committee on Energy and Commerce (July 29. 2010) 

Page 10 ofll 

Melzer D, Rice NE, Lewis C, Henley WE, Galloway TS. 2010a. Association of urinary Bisphenol A 

concentration with heart disease: evidence from NHANES 2003/2006. PLoS One 5(1): e8673. 

Mendola P, Selevan SG, Gutter S, Rice D. 2002. Environmental factors associated with a spectrum of 

neurodevelopmental deficits. Ment Retard Dev Disabil Res Rev 8(3): 188-97. 

Moorman JE, Rudd RA, Johnson CA, King M, Minor P, Bailey C, Scalia MR, Akinbami LJ; Centers for 

Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). 2007. National surveillance for asthma--United States, 1980-

2004. Morb Mortal Wkly Rep Surveil! Summ. 56 (8): I-54. 

Muir T, Zegarac M. 2001. Societal costs of exposure to toxic substances: economic and health costs of 

four case studies that are candidates for environmental causation. Environ Health Perspect 109 Suppl 6: 

885-903. 

NRC. 1993. National Research Council report. Pesticides in the Diets of Infants and Children. 

Available: http://www.nap.edulcataewg.org/kidsafelog.php?record_id=2126 [accessed February 28, 

2009]. 

NRC. 2000. National Research Council Committee on Developmental Toxicology, Board on 

Environmental Studies and Toxicology. Scientific Frontiers in Developmental Toxicology and Risk 

Assessment. Available: http://www.nap.edulcatalog.php?record_id=9871 [accessed February 28, 2009]. 

OECD. 2006. Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development. Economic Valuation of 

Environmental Health Risks to Children. Available: 

http://www.oecd.org/documentl52/0.3343.en_2649_32495306_36095668_1_1_1_1.00.html[accessed 

February 28, 2009]. 

President's Caner Panel. 2010. Reducing Environmental Cancer Risk. 

http://deainfo.nci.nih.gov/advisory/pcplpcp08-09rptIPCP ReJlOrt 08-09 508.pdf [accessed July 27, 

2010]. 

PA (Paris Appeal). 2005. Paris Appeal: International Declaration of Diseases Due to Chemical 

Pollution. Paris conference on Cancer, Environment and Society on 7 May 2004 at the United Nations 

Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO). Accessed April 2 2009 at 

http://www.artac.info/static.php?op=personnalitesfr.txt&npds=l. 

Perera FP, Tang D, Rauh V, Lester K, Tsai WY, Tu YH, Weiss L, Hoepner L, King J, Del Priore G, 

Lederman SA. 2005. Relationships among polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbon-DNA adducts, proximity to 

the World Trade Center, and effects on fetal growth. Environmental Health Perspectives 113(8): 1062-

67. 

Qiu X, Bigsby RM, Hites RA. 2009. Hydroxylated metabolites ofpolybrominated diphenyl ethers in 

human blood samples from the United States. Environ Health Perspect. Jan;117( 1):93-8. Epub 2008 Aug 

I 

EWG: THE POWER OF INFORMATION 
77 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 84 here 78128A.052

Testimony - Kenneth A. Cook, ElflIironmentai Working Group 

Subcommittee on Commerce, Trade and Consumer Protection 

Committee on Energy and Commerce (July 29, 2010) 

Page 21 of22 

Rabinowith M, Finch H. 1984. Cadmium content of umbilical cord blood. Environmental Research 

34(1): 120-2. 

Ramirez J, Cosme Y, Perera RP. 2003. Contemporary-use pesticides in personal air samples during 

pregnancy and blood samples at delivery among urban minority mothers and newborns. Environmental 

Health Perspectives 111(5): 749-56. 

Sagiv SK, Nugent JK, Brazelton TB, Choi AL, Tolbert PE, Altshul LM, Korrick SA. 2008. Prenatal 

organochlorine exposure and measures of behavior in infancy using the Neonatal Behavioral 

Assessment Scale (NBAS). Environ Health Perspect. 2008 May; 116( 5):666-73. 

Sly PO, Flack F. 2008. Susceptibility of children to environmental pollutants. Ann N Y Acad Sci 1140: 

163-83. 

Stewart P, Fitzgerald S, Reihman J, Gump B, Lonky E, Darvill T, Pagano J, Hauser P. 2003. Prenatal 

PCB exposure, the corpus cal- losum, and response inhibiton. Environmental Health Perspectives 

11(13): 1670-77. 

Stapelton, Healther; Meeker, John. "House Dust Concentrations of Organophosphate Flame Retardants 

in Relation to Hormone Levels and Semen Quality Parameters" EHP. 118(3) Mar 20 I 0 

Swan SH, Main KM, Liu F, Stewart SL, Kruse RL, Calafat AM, Mao CS, Redmon m, Ternand CL, 

Sullivan S, Teague JL. 2005. Decrease in anogenital distance among male infants with prenatal 

phthalate exposure .. Environmental Health Perspectives 113(8): 1056-61. 

Trasande L, Landrigan PJ, Schechter C. 2005. Public health and economic consequences of methyl 

mercury toxicity to the developing brain. Environ Health Perspect 113(5): 590-6. 

U.S. EPA. 1998. The EPA's Children's Environmental Health Yearbook. Available: 

yosemite.epa.gov/OCHP/OCHPWEB.nsf/contentlpdf5.html$File/ochpyearbook.pdf [accessed February 

28,2009]. 

U.S. EPA. 2002. National Centre for Environmental Economics. Existing literature and recommended 

strategies for valuation of children's health effects. Working Paper 02-07. Available: 

http://yosemite.epa.gov/ee/epaleed.nsflWPNumberNewI2002-07?OpenDocument [accessed February 28 

2009]. 

U.S. EPA. (2009a). 2006 Inventory Update Reporting: Data Summary. Retrieved from 

http://www.epa.gov/iur/pubs/2006 data summarv.pdf. 

U.S. EPA. 2002. Consumer factsheet on trichloroethylene. Available: 

http://www.epa.gov/safewaterlhfacts.html 

U.S. EPA. 2008. Inventory Update Reporting (lUR). Non-confidential 2006 IUR Records by Chemical, 

including Manufacturing, Processing and Use Information. Available: 

http://cfpub.epa.gov/iursearchlindex.cfin?s=chem 

EWG: THE POWER OF INFORMATION 
78 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 85 here 78128A.053

Testimony- Kenneth A. Cook, Environmental Working Group 

Subcommittee on Commerce, Trade and Consume,. p,.otection 

Committee on Energy and Commerce (July 29, 2010) 

Page 22 0/22 

U.S. EPA. 2009b. Drinking Water Contaminants. List of Contaminants & their MCLs. Available: 

http://www.epa.gov/safewater/contaminantslindex.html 

USFWS (US Fish and Wildlife Service). 2009. Division of Budget: FY 2010 FWS Budget Proposal. 

Accessed October I 2009 at http://www.fws.govlbudgetl. 

USGS (U.S. Geological Survey). 2009 President's Budget - Green Book. Accessed Oct 1 2009 at 

http://www.usgs.govlbudgetl200912009index.asp. 

USGS (U.S. Geological Survey). FY 2009 Budget Funding Tables. Accessed Oct 1 2009 at 

http://www.usgs.govlbudgetl2009/09funding_tables.asp. 

Weiss B, Landrigan Pl. 2000. The developing brain and the environment: an introduction. Environ 

Health Perspect 108 SuppI3:373-4. 

Whyatt RM, Barr DB, Camann DE, Kinney PL, Barr JR, Andrews HF, Hoepner LA, Garfinkel R, Hazi 

Y, Reyes A, Ramirez I, Cosme Y, Perera RP. 2003. Contemporary use pesticides in personal air samples 

during pregnancy and blood samples at delivery among urban minority mothers and newborns. 

Environmental Health Perspectives 111(5}: 749-56. 

Wigle DT, Arbuckle TE, Turner MC, Berube A, Yang Q, Liu S, et al. 2008. Epidemiologic evidence of 

relationships between reproductive and child health outcomes and environmental chemical 

contaminants. I Toxicol Environ Health B Crit Rev 11(5-6): 373-517. 

EWG: THE POWER OF INFORMATION 
79 

Mr. RUSH. We want to suspend just for a moment while the technicians attempt to work with the sound system. We will suspend 

just for a moment while they are—— 

[Recess.] 

Mr. RUSH. Let us continue now. The Chair now recognizes Mr. 

Williams for 5 minutes for the purposes of an opening statement. 

STATEMENT OF HOWARD WILLIAMS 

Mr. WILLIAMS. Thank you, Chairman Rush, Mr. Waxman, Mr. 

Whitfield, Subcommittee, and staff for inviting me to give a business perspective on TSC 5820. I am Howard Williams, I am Vice 

President, General Manager of a company that makes building 

products and we are—my division is in Central Pennsylvania. We 

have about 360 employees at our facilities and when we add corporate marketing and R and D into that mix we have added about 

another 100 people. So Central Pennsylvania is where we are located. We are part of a small multi-national. We have—we are privately held; we are U.S. owned. We operate from 25 sites in 19 

countries, and we make our contextual building products in the 

non-residential end of things. Domestic construction amounts for 

about 14 percent of our gross domestic product here and this bill 

has an opportunity to really help and to inform, and to grow that 

level of construction not just here in the U.S., but also I could not 

find the figures for what we export relative to architectural design 

and relative to building products as a nation as a whole. But I am 

certain of great multipliers upon the 14 million. 

In the areas that we are particularly interested in and think that 

actually could help to create jobs, and we will talk a bit more about 

that later, are the minimum data sets, the prioritization, access to 

disclosure, and restricting the PBT’s. Chemicals and the elimination of PBT’s are at the forefront of all of our building standards. 

I have referenced in my written testimony the federal standards 

that require environmentally preferable purchasing require that 

buildings are built in accordance with lead U.S. green building 

standards. They are very clear. They are wonderfully explicit. Get 

the PBT’s out of here. We interact—people interact with the building products, we interact with the furnishings within the spaces 

that we live and enjoy and we also have an opportunity periodically 

to interact with the PBT’s that are off-gassing from those materials 

from within products. 

Globally we add 78 million people to planet. Ninety percent of 

what we do as people is inside of a building, so it is within buildings and building materials that there is a great opportunity to 

make a very real difference in chemical exposure and product exposure. As a company we now seek to know the chemistry of our 

building materials down to 100 parts per million. We want to know 

what 99.99 percent of our building products contain because that 

is the first step for us to be able to eliminate PBT’s, chemicals of 

concern, carcinogens. But identifying that chemical composition is 

a costly and time consuming process. We have to almost literally 

reach through layer upon layer within the supply chain and pull 

that information forward because disclosure is not a subject that 

endears a researcher to many other suppliers. 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
80 

But it is essential, however that work needlessly adds cost and 

delay to the process. There is a great business case for what we are 

doing. We as a company are growing. We as a company are adding 

jobs and again we are located in Central Pennsylvania. The construction sectors have been hit hard, but we are growing and adding jobs because of what we are doing because of the market reception. So there is a great business case for doing what we are doing. 

There is also a case though to be made for this is a profitable and 

a responsible thing to do. The result of that though is access to this 

change and to greater improvements is something that the general 

population doesn’t always have access to. More disclosure, better 

understanding, or I would even say access to disclosure. It is really 

going to help manufacturers of our products that are wanted by 

other countries that we are going to be able to export and grown 

in our businesses. Access to that disclosure is critical. And again 

environmentally preferable purchases are required on the basic 

premises of an act though is that you use recycled material. Today, 

tomorrow, and for generations we will be recycling materials that 

contain carcinogen materials, components, that contain PBT’s, so in 

all of this in this great dynamic of growth of population, in the 

growth of proliferation of green products and Acts standards, we 

are going to be multiplying some of these PBT’s over, and over, and 

over again. And the result of that is going to be exposing more people. We strongly support data sets, prioritization of chemicals, disclosure, restricting the PBT’s, and I fully recognize that this disclosure end of things is a very, very difficult subject. We are in business. We don’t like competition to know what we are doing. We 

don’t want them to know what we are doing, so disclosure’s going 

to be the toughest point that you as a group have to deal with and 

build into this legislation. But it is a time for innovation, it is a 

great time for people environmentalism. The market wants these 

products. We are tied to it. It is just chemistry and what is going 

on in this world as we heard, 90 percent of everything has chemistry involved in it. So what a marvelous, marvelous time where 

environmentalism, consumerism, and these changes can come together and make a strong America, make job growth, redefine 

green jobs, and the result of that is to take care of some of the unintended consequences that we face with on a day to day basis. So 

thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Howard Williams follows:] 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
81 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 89 here 78128A.054
82 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 90 here 78128A.055

Congress of the United States 

House of Reltlr.S6ll1Ita1t1v~I$ 

Committee 01'1 Commerce 

Subcommittee on am:! Consumer Protectiol'l 

on H.R. 5820, the Toxic Chemicals of 201 0 

Thank you Chalrman Rush, I(el~resel'lltatlvl! Waxman am:! Membel'$ ohhe Subcommittee 

for inviting 100 to gill4!t perspec'l:iII4!t 011 this matter. 

We're III small multl-natlollal, ",i'",m .. 1v 

$300MM l1.li0 a staff of 1700. 

IIl!1'EI~~Il~lrhneCllnleb;mon, NJ am:I 25 sites 11119 coolltrles where we 

manmllCtllre architectural for nOl'lresldl!lntial construction. 

DUIIICllng,s, lI,osll,ltalls, schoolii, <,.,' ...... Imm." .. tbuilldlng' .. ) Our facilities 

f'611l1m;v!v'anlla have oyel 

Domestic construction accOOl'lts for oye, 14% of 001 GOP, and HS 5820 has the D011ell'tiai 

10 inform Mci economy. 

Chemicals and the elimillatioll of PST 5 from oor built el'lvln:lIIm<111nt _e at the forefront of 

materials Mel stMdards for private programs. 

Emfir<lnl'llMllltallly I"lr .. fII§fI"~!d F.~n:, ........ <.l standards address PBTs, l!IIl do the tEED, 

are added to our 

takes piKe IlIsld. a and it is III 

8ulldilrngs Better. 

OOIIKlI'"9S are COl'i3trud<!id. 

on average, 90% of all 

<'IS a company, IICt 011 

ch<i,milltryof oor materials down to 100 ppm, or 99.99% of 

prc,duc:ts. the chemicals ill is the first step to 

detcumllnin,Q whether II. chemical of coneernlike PST 5 01' cllldnogens.. 

IdellltlfvillQ the c~!mlcal COI'llDC)sil:ion 

reqUires felllCllmq 

Informatloll th<rt Is unknown at certaill IElvels, Mel be, 01" Is, confidential 
83 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 91 here 78128A.056

at other levels. It needlessly delays product development and places an Indirect cost 

burden on the consumer. 

There Is a busln_ case for doing what we're doing. We're fortunate to have the financial 

and social commitment to this form of product development and dlfferentladon. From 

being able to act on our mission,. to creating a strong competitive advantage In an ever 

increasing grHn building product muket, we gain on .-rallwafs. 

But the beneftts to a population larger than we can ever reach will come only when 

Chemicals Policy Reform Is enacted and access to chemical dlsdoaur.1s commonplace. 

Environmentally preferable end grMfl bUIlding Jtandards ..... ard those whose ma~rJals 

have high amounts of recycled content. But th. unintentional consequence Is that PBTs 

will be rec;ycIed from one generation to another, and today. material composition will 

have lasting Impacts on future generations. 

Given the economic end population multlphers, coupled with America's global reach. H R 

5820 becomes one of the more &en.fldally Impactful pl_ of legislation of our 

generation. 

Minimum data sets become uniform templatlts for materlal.lactlon at many levels within 

the deslgn-to-commerclallzatlon proc .... 

PrlorltlDng the safety determinations g ...... business a vt.w Into the future and aBOWI early 

deciSions while _altlng outcomes. 

Disclosure to commercial purchasers sends .... ntlal information down the supply chain to 

the product developer. 

Restricting the use of end exposure to chemicals of concern like PBT .. and promoting .. far 

~matlves to them creates markets that are sustainable to businesses. consumers and the 

environment. 

Our experience In trying to get Ingredient Information confirms that Disclosure Is a highly 

charged Issue, but wonhy of the work required to reach a solution. Using a 3'" party 

Intermediary was the only way __ re able to learn whether a supplier's material met our 

requirements. 

When will we flnd another time when people-centered environmentalism, consumerism 

and busln_lnteresu are so well aligned? 

It's « time for Innovation and product development. 

And a time for domestk and In~matlonal business growth. 

MeetIng customer's needs and acting upon society's higher values has always been 

rewarded. and In today. terms that's a $10 billion annual reward. 

Ii 
84 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 92 here 78128A.057

Our economy and our health are Inextricably Joined. and fundamental to a strong America. 

Cancer, Parkinson's. Leukemia. Autism. Alzheimer's. and Endometriosis are non-partisan. 

and wtthout prejudice or respect of status,. affiliation or age. kJl~ destroy lives and pose a 

constant threat. 

Close one door and It seems th .. dIs_ wtll come In through another. but It'l vitally 

Important that _ close doors .. _ ftnd them open. 

YOUr through TSCA Reform. and _. through responsible product development and 

delivery, have an opportunity to close this door. 

Let'l loin with othen and close thll door. 

Thank you. 

iii 
85 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 93 here 78128A.058

Co ....... 011 EDII'IY ad ComIIl~ 

U.s. Bo .. olRep ....... dveI 

w.. ........ ......-........... T......,.. ......... 1wU-.. XJ,a...~ 

YovNule: Howard Williams 

1. An yoa ~ OII·Walfoi. Peden!, State, or local Gcw_IIIt YII No 

eattY? ' X 

2.' An you -tittIIIc o. fIeIuIII of .. __ .. .-11 DOt. GlmnuIIeat YII 'No 

eattY? X 

3. PltMe 11It1lll)'1' ........ or~(iIIeIIIdIJI& ........ or .... tradI) .. t 

DI! ""!9pa11y "'" I'!Ffi:n4 .. or derOdober 1. 21116: 

!lONE 

4. OtIIer1lum yoanelt; ....... lIItwldela..clty or ...... YO. 11ft npIWOtIDc: 

PA Division of Construction Specialties, Inc. 

S. If,", _ ..... q1ItIIioa bl ifeII1 bl dill ........ ..,..,· .......... Of ..... or 

elected (IOIIdeIII .... or bIWI:r deIca1h )'OV.....-..douI capaelty .... tile IIItIIIII 

dIIeleIed bl tile ...... 1-..... 4: 

I am.the Vice' President/General Kanag~r, Pennsylvania' Division, 

Construction Specialties, Inc. 

6. lfyov_ .............. bl .. 11l..,..,·douyof ... YII No ..... cUHJo.d bl .... 4 ..... puaat ............... 1IIIJIIdIarieI, 

.r pu1aenldpa "'ty01l are .. t ......... bl)' .... feItIaaon)'t X 

7. Iftlle...wer to til. qaIICIoD III .... 111 . ., ... • ,....1fIt..., l'edInI ....... or CIIDCncIiI 

(IaeIadIIla ........... or .... IItnetI) a.t_ ........ by tile atlllellIIc.d ader tile 

qIIIIIIIoa 1m "-4 •• or .... 0eteIIer 1, l806, dud ..... 10 paraIlt at ... __ ., .... 

eatltlel bl ... )'ear~-....-tbelO_ ... UioaDt ............ or ....... et .. 

"1iIhd: 

NONE 

~ 

aNJ .. ~/1 JPk. Date: 7-Z.:Z-JO 

"'--" I 

iv 
86 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 94 here 78128A.059

July 27, 2010 

Howard J. Wdllams 

V.P. General Manqer, ConstructIon Specialties, Inc. 

P.O. Box 380 

Muncy, PA 17756 

570.549.5941 

Pennsylvania Division: 

362 full time staff 

3 fadlltles totaling 284,000 SF of manufacturing and offices 

Start date: 02.22.77 

Education background: 

BuIlding Construction 

Architedl.lre 

BusIness Administration 

Professional CertifIcation: 

LEEDAP+ID&C 

v 
87 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 95 here 78128A.060

GSAandLEED 

Section 1 

Federal Standards 

EPA's Environmentally Preferable Purchasing 

TIps for Buying Green 

Excerpts from'1nstructions for Implementing Executive Order 13423' 

pagel 

page 2 

page 18 

page 22 
88 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 96 here 78128A.061
89 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 97 here 78128A.062

FiD81 Guidam:e 011 EPP I Environmentally Preferable Purchasing I US EPA Page 1 ofl6 

htIP:llwww.epa.gov/epp/pubs/guldance/finalguldance.htm 

L!.St up<\ated on ThUJS,9!1)1: ~anuary 2B. 2010 Environmentally Preferable purcnasing l EPP) 

YQU are here: IPAJ:tSmt f'nntIntIOn. pwicIdas a TOXIC St'.........,... f?oIIuIIon preywtIon 

EnyIn!r!mIntally I'nIrIn!I!Ie Purd!as!ng I'!!bc;y a Gy!clanc!! EPA's Final Guidance on 

Environmentally Preferable Purchasing 

EPA's Final Guidance on Environmentally Preferable Purchasina 

As published by the EPA on August 20, 1999. 

I. Introduction 

II. Intended AUdience of This Guidance 

Dr. averaD Approocb fbr Implementing ExecutIve Qrder 

.llill! 

IV. Guiding Pr/fIdples 

V. Executjye Agency Implementation 

VI. LIst of Resources 

VII. ApjIIlndlces 

I. Introcluclion 

Qn September 14, 1998, former President Clinton signed 

executive Qrder (EO)13101, entitled "Greening the 

Key Policy, Guidance 

Documents 

B>Ns flMI Guldlnce on EPP 

ExecutIve Orders 

federal AcquISition AegullltlOn 

Green PurdllllllnG Guides 

information 011 Stanclllrds for 

Green ProducIs, ServIces 

Versions of EPA's Final 

EPP Guidance 

PDf Version (46pp. 132 KB). 

federal Reol!llrlr (PDF) (50PP. 

3.3~MB). 

Government through Waste Prevention, Recycling and Federal EPP Rnal Guidance BrodIUre 

AcquISItion." Executive Qrder 13101 (EO 13101) SlIpersedes You will n •• d tho frio Adobe R •• dor 

EO 12873, Federal AcqulSlUon, Recydlng and Waste to view some of t ... fd ••• bove. So. 

Prevention, Issued on October 20, 1993, but retains a similar _ .. PDF pogo to '.orn mor •. 

requirement for the U.S. environmental Protec:tIon Agency 

(EPA) to develop guidance to "address environmentally prefarable purchasing." (Section 503, 

EO 13101) The Final Gllidance thllt follows Is based on EPA's September 1995 Proposed 

Guidance on the Atqulsltlon of Environmentally Prel'enlble Products and Services (60 FR 

50721, September 29, 1995) and comments reQBlYed on that Proposed Guidance as well as 

lessons learned from pilot projects conducted to date. 

The Final GIIldance below Is designed to help Executive agencies meet their obligations under 

EO 13101 to identify and purdlae environmentally prefaRlbie products and services. Sec;tton 

503 (c) of EO 13101 directs Execut:MI agencIeS to "use the prlnc~1es and concepts In the EPA 

Guidance on Acquisition of Environmentally PnlfeRlble Products and Services, In addition to 

the lessons from the pilot and demonstration projects to the maximum extent praCllclllble, In 

identifying and purchasing environmentally preferable products and services" and "modify 

their procurament programs as appropriate." Furthermora, SectIon 23.704 of the FecleRlI 

AcquisItiOn Regulation requires agencies to "affInnIItIyeIy Implement" the objective of 

"obtaining products and services amsldered to be environmentally preleRlble (based on EPAIssued guidance)." 

"Environmentally preferable" Is defined in SectIon 201 of EO 13101 to mean products Or 

services that "have a lesser or reduced efI'ect on human health and the environment when 

compared with competing products or services that serve the same purpose. Tbls comparison, 2. 

http://www.epa.gov/epplpubslguiducelfinalguidmce.blm 3/3/2010 
90 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 98 here 78128A.063

Final Guidance 011 EPP I Eoviromneotally Pmaable Purcbasing I US EPA Page 2 of 16 

may consider raw materlllis acquisition, production, manufacturing, packaging, dlstrtbutlon, 

reuse, operation, maintenance or dispOsal of the product or servICe." 

Implementation of the final Guidance will draw on the procurement experience of the 

executive agencies and on the environmental expertise of EPA and other organizations both 

wtthin and outside of the Federal government. This guidance provides a broad framewor1c: 01 

issues to consider In environmentally ~ble purchasing and wHI help executive agencies 

systematlCany Integrate environmental preferabllty principles Into their buying decisions. 

The guidance IS not, however, a step-by-step, "how to" guide and It Is not intended to 

answer many of the specific questions that might arise In the acquisition 01 a particular 

product category or service. The Ust of resources in Section VI provides more specific 

guidance and Information about various product and service categories, environmental 

attributes that have been Identified for them, and the approaches used to consider those 

attributes In acquisition declslons. For the latest information on other resou rces and tools 

under development, executive agency personnel and others are directed to EPA's 

EnvlronmentaHy Preferable Purchasing Program Web site. 

The Final Guidance strtves to meet the National Performance Review and procurement reform 

goals 01 simplifying and streamHnlng Federal purchasing while recognizing that the definition 

of "environmentally preferable" wiD likely require the consideration of dllferent environmental 

factors as appropriate for dllferent situations. In sum, the guidance: 

• Applies to all acquisition types, from supplies and services to buildings and systems. 

• Provides a set of guiding principles. 

• Requests executive agencies to select and Implement pilot acquisitions or 

demonstration projects. 

• ProvIdes a framewonc for executive agendes to Implement the environmentally 

preferable purchasing provisions of E013101. 

D.lntencIH Audience for ..... fiulca._ 

The target audlence of this guidance Includes all Executive agency employees Involved In the 

acquISition of supplies, services, systems, and/or facilities. The general guidance and the 

information generated by the pilot proJects also wPi be usefUl to executive agency employees 

who request, maintain, or use the supplies, services, systems and facilities. In addition, both 

the general guidance and the pilot project Information should provide pragmatic direction for 

private sector bUSinesses who wish to manufacture, martcet, or provide environmentally 

preferable products and servlC8S for use by the Federal government. 

m. 0ftnI1I ApproadI for lm ........ nIIng Ixeadlve Order 13101 

Section 503 of EO 13101 has two key components: (1) development 01 this guidance; and 

(2) Implementation of the guidance through pilot and demonstration projects. This guidance 

sets a broad policy framewor1c for Implementing env\ronmentaHy preferable purchasing within 

the context of Federal government. For the second component, SectIon 503 (b) of the EO 

states "[A)gencles are encouraged to Immediately test lind evaluate the principles and 

concepts contained In the EPA's Guidance ... through pilot proJects ... ". These pilots may be 

undertaken using the In-house expertise of EPA lind other executiVe agencies, as well as the 

technical expertise of nongovemmental entities, Including, but not limited to, voluntary 3 

bUp:/Iwww.epa.gov/eppipubslguidaDcelfinalguidance.hIm 31312010 
91 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 99 here 78128A.064

Final Guidance on EPP I Environmentally Preferable Pun:basing I US FJ>A Paselof16 

consensus standartls bodies (see§ 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and 

Advancement Act (Pub. L 104-113, §12(d), 15 U.S.C. 272 note), environmental standard 

setting Olll8nlzatlons, third party certificatiOn programs, envtronmentallabellng or 

environmental "report card" programs, and other environmental consulting organizations. 

Section V fA this Final Guidance provides more detail about how these pilot projects might 

_rt. These pilots are expected to yield more specific and practlcallntOrmation about 

applYing this FInal Guidance to purchases of particular products and services. 

In addition to promoting envtronmentally prel'el1lble purchasing, EO 13101 encoul1lges 

executive agendes to purchase bIO-based products. (Section S04 (b». Under the EO, 

"btObased prodUct" means "a commercial or industrial product (other than fuod or feed) that 

utilizes biological products or renewable domestIC agricultural (plant, animal and marine) or 

forestry matenals." 

BIo-bilsed products may also be environmentally prel'el1lble. Made from renewable resources 

by definition, these products have many positive environmental aspects and should be 

considered by agencies looking to make envlronmentaHy prel'el1lble purchases. However, 

Federal purchasers should not assume all bto-based products are automatically 

environmentallY prel'el1lble. As with other products, executive agencies should consider a 

range of environmental tmpacts associated with blo-based products when making purchasing 

decisions. In some cases, factors such as pesticide use or hlg h water consumption might 

make a bto-based product less environmentally preferable. The Hst of bIO-bIlsed products 

which the U.S. Department of Agriculture will Issue under SectIon 504 t:I EO 13101 wHi be a 

good starting point tOr executive agenctes looking to identify environmentally prel'erable 

purchasing. During the develOpment of pilots under SectIon 503 (b) of the EO, EPA will look 

tOr opportunities involving bIO-based products. 

IV. Guiding Prlndpl .. 

EPA has developed five guiding principles to provide broad guidance tOr applying 

environmentally prel'el1lble purchasing In the Federal government setting. Applicability of 

these principles In spedflc aCXIulsitions will vary depending on a variety of factors, such as: 

the type and complexity of the product or service being purchased; whether or not the 

product or service IS commercially-available; the type of procurement method used (e.g., 

negotiated contract,. sealed btd, eb:.); the time frame tOr the requirement: and the donar 

a mou nt of the requirement. 

In a/l lCXIulsltiOns, ExeaitlYe agency personnel use their professiOnal judgement and common 

sense, whether assessing a product or service's performance, cost, or availability. SimHarly, 

In applYing these environmentally prel'el1lble prindples ExecutIYe agency personnel should 

use reasonabte discretion about the level of analysis needed to determine environ mental 

prel'el1lbillty. For example, an extensive life cycle assessment might not be conducted to 

purchase rubber bands. On the other hand, tOr large-wlume or systems acquisitions, or tOr 

complex products, such assessments may be appropriate, and might already be required. Or, 

In some cases, much of the Information upon which to buDd such an analysIS might have 

already been COllected. 

_ Guidi"" flWltdpIe 1: ~+ Prb + ~ = 

EtrAl'OftIfMIIIIIIIY ",.,.,.",. l'ul"fll#l-'"" 

environmental COMIder .......... 1II become ... rt of nomutI pun:M"ng 

pI'IICtIQI. ~nt wHIt IIUdI tndltlOIIIII facto ..... product Mfety, prtoe, 

performenm, and .VII,abillty. 4 

http://www.epa.govlepp'pubwgWdanceIfiDalgWdmce.btm l1312010 
92 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 100 here 78128A.065

Final Guidance 011 EPP I Eovit'omnentally Preferable Pun:basiDg I US EPA Page4af16 

The manufacture, use, and disposal of certain products might have adverse Impacts on 

human health and the environment. These Impacts Impose costs that the purchasing entity, 

and ultimately, society as a whole, end up paying for In one way or another. For the Federal 

government, the hazardous or toxic nature of a product or servICe can result in significant 

cleanup or liability costs, as well as in less directly quantifiable, but cumulative and persistent 

environmental damage. Even non-hazardous waste Is associated with ever-Increasing 

disposal costs that can be avoided or reduced. Responsible management, beginning with the 

Initial purchase of products and serviceS that minimize environmental burdens, can diminish 

the Federal government's raw matertal, operating, malnmnance, and disposal costs. In 

addition, a product or service's environmental preferability can often have positive Impacts 

on Its overall performance. 

For these reasons, the Federal government's purchasing decisions are no longer confined to 

considerations of price and functional performance but should Indude conSIderations of 

environmental performance as well Today agendes can obtain Improved environmental 

attributeS not at the expense of, but Instead may operate in concert with, other traditional 

factors like price and functional performance. Those product or servia! providers who can 

optimize all these factors wll capture and maintain the largest maritet-share of government 

customers. 

lust like price, performance, and health and safety, environmental factors should be a 

subject of competltlon among vendors Meklng government contracts. In tum, this increased 

competition among vendors should stimulate CClntlnuous envlronmentallmpruvement and 

increase the avaHabillty of environmentally preferable products and servICes. The purpose of 

this guidance Is to erKDUrage Executive agencies to award contracts to companies that take 

environmental concerns Into account. TIlls process, consequently I wID lead to the 

development of environmentally preferable products and servICes that perform better and 

cost less because they reduce waste and negative environmental Impacts. As stated, this 

principle reflects the spirit of a number of reinvention Initiatives at EPA and aaoss the 

Federal govemment aimed at testing cleaner, cheaper, and smarter approaches to 

environmental protection. 

Agenctes have considerable dISCretIon In Incorporating environmental pret-=rabHIty Into 

procurement decisions, especially wtthln the context of "best value" CClntractlng. For 

example, environmental considerations that result In payment of a price premium for goods 

or servICes may be reasonably related to an agency's c:tefinltJon of Its "minimum needs" and, 

therefore, may be permISsible. ThiS Is not much different than paying a higher price for 

better performance or quality. Federal personnel may consider paying a reasonable premium 

for environmentaHy preferable products on a number of grounds. For example, a reasonable 

price premium may be Justified because the environmental attributeS of a product orservlCe 

provide of'fsettlng reductions In operating and disposal costs. 

c:-ideratIon of ... Ylronment.aI ........ blllty .... d .,....n urty In the 

KqUI.ttIon ~ .nd ... rooted In the lithic of pollution .,....,..... .... 

whIdt 1IIrt_ 10 .. I ........ or .-...-, up-fnlnt. potJentI.1 ....... 10 hum •• 

.... Ith 8nd the envlronrn.nt. 

It Is never too earty In the acquisition process to begin considering environmental 

pret-=rabllity. PoIIutfon prevention, the reduction or elimination of waste at the source, can 

not only reduce pollution, but It can save money for agencies as weil. Defense and dvilian 5 

bIIp:/Iwww.epa.gov/eppipubsiguidancelfinalguidance.htm 313t2010 
93 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 101 here 78128A.066

Final Guidance on EPP I Environmentally Preferable Purcbasing I US EPA PageS of 16 

Federal agendes have ongoing programs for pollution prewntlon under EO 12856 and other 

authorities that can result In cost saYIngs throughout the product or service life cyde. 

Furthermore, pollution preventIOn measures can lead to a higher degree of environmental 

protection by reducing subsequent costs for dISposal or cleanup of hazardous wastes and 

matertals. A key reason for environmentally preferable purchasing IS to protect the 

environment by reducing waste and pollution at the source with the resulting benefit of 

reduced overall cost to the government and the public (taxpayers and sodety as a whole). 

Under thIS guiding prtnclple, pollution prwentiOn should be the pr1mary motivation and 

strategy for the Federal government's Implementation of envtronmentally preferable 

purdlasing. There are many ways to apply pollution prevention to the acquISItIOn process: 

II. Customized purchases or projects In which program managers, ardlltects, engineers, 

systems destgners, or others haw Input Into the design phase afl'ord agencies an early 

opportunity to apply environmentally preferable concepts. In additIOn, early InYOlYement 

offers agencies a unique point of leverage from which to address enYironmentallmpacts. 

Although these types of purdlases are not the bulk of Federal acquisition requirements, the 

early stage of customized product or project design Is the time when decisions about 

dlfl'erent approaches, materialS, and manufacturing processes are made. EstImates show that 

70 percent or more of the costs associated with product develOpment, manufacture, and use 

are determined durtng the initial design stages.1 By InCXll'JlOl'8t1ng environmental factors 

durtng product or service design, Federal agendes can minimize environmental problems and 

. their assodated costs. For example, early environmental consideration helPS agencies avoid 

potential liabilities due to fines as well as the costs of record keeping and reporting. 

b. During the early stages of acquisition, executive agency personnel can also apply a 

systems analysis approach for certain products or services (such as computers, buildings, 

and transportation systems) In which a number of components have Interdependent 

functIOns. A systems analysis approach takes Into consideration the full set of product 

elements, focusing on how they Interact from a life cycle perspective and helping to Identity 

the most efflclent optIOns for meeting the government's needs. 

e. executive agency personnel might also appropr1ately ask whether a product or a servICe Is 

ewn necessary or can be replaced by a less damaging process. For Instance, In degreaslng 

operations, questions arise as to whether an efflclent cleaner using halogenated solvents Is 

better or worse for the environment than an aqueous-bllsed cleaner. A more appropr1ate 

questIOn may be whether the cIeIInlngldegreasing step can be eliminated without affecting 

the overall performamle of the product or system. this might be accomplished, for example, 

by consolidating cleaning and degreaslng In a later stage of the manufacturing process or 

changing the process Itself. As this example IAustrates, environmental preferability does not 

just Involve substituting a "green" product for another. It also inYOlves questioning whether a 

functIOn needs to be performed and how It can best be performed to minimize negative 

environmental Impacts. 

e Department of Defense Integrates pollution prevention Into aU of 

Its major weapons system acquisition programs. For example, the 

New Attack Submarine (NSSN) Program has worked to Include 

enVIronmental considerations In aU phases of the submarine's life 

cycle, from initial design to aventuBl dISposal some 30 or more years 

later. & 

bttp:/Iwww.epa.gov/epplpublV.guidancelfinalguidance.htm 31312010 
94 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 102 here 78128A.067

Final Guidance on EPP I Environmenta1ly PrfIerable Pun:buing I US EPA 

By considering an viable environmental alternatives during the design 

phase, the NSSN Progl11m identified a number fA options that will 

result In benefits. Just a few examples are listed below: 

• A redesigned nuclear reactor core will eliminate the need for 

refueling and disposal fA spent nuclear fuel, while achieving a 

multi-million dollar cost avoidance. 

• 31 percent reduction In the number fA paints and coatings 

used in manufllcturlng the NSSN while ensuring that 1111 of the 

selected paints satisfy applicable performance and 

environmental requirements. 

" 61 percent reduction In the number fA adhesive products to be 

used on the NSSN compared to the number required fOr 

prevtous submarine classes. 

" 80 percent reduction In the number fA solvents and cleaners. 

• Researdl and development effort to ldentlfy and test a 

bIodegl11dable hydreullc fluid for submarines to replace the 

current toxic mlnel11l oil-based ftuld. 

By recognizing early on that the key to reducing environ mental 

Impact throughout the shlp's life cycle Is pollution prevention and 

hilzardous material control and management, the NSSN Progl11m was 

b1e to design a submarine thilt meets strict safety and performance 

ulrements, achieves significant cost savings, and mln'mlzes riSk to 

he environment. 

A produCt or NIVI.,.' ..... vIronmentlll .. afwllblllty Is • function of 

multiple ettrtbutM from • life c:yc:Ie penpec:tIve. 

FedeI11I agencies should consider the following concepts In applying thIS prfndpIB: 

Page 6 of 16 

•• LIfe cycle perspective - A product or service hils environmental impacts long befOre and 

after the FadeI11' government purdlases and uses It. The manufacture, use, distribution, and 

disposal fA products create a variety fA burdens on the environment. Fedel11lagendes should 

strive to pun:hilse products or servICes with lIS ~ negative environmental impacts in as 

many life cycle stages as possible. In other words, FedeI11I agencies should determine the 

"environmental prel'eI11b111ty" fA a product or service by comparing the severity fA 

environmental damage It causes throughout Its life cycle with that caused by competing 

products-from the point fA I11W materials acqulsltloll, product manufllcturlng, packaging, and 

tl11nsportatlon to Its use and ultimate disposal. By doing so, the Fedel11l government can 

minimize the ovel11l1 environmental Impacts fA products and services. In addition, by actively 

seeking and considering ore cycle InfOrmation to infOrm buying decisions, executive agency 

personnel can send a dear signal that government business wlU go to those who consider the 

effect of their product's life cyde on the environment. 

LIfe Cycle Stages of If TypIcal Product 

Although most people would agree that considering lire cycle Impacts In purchlfsing dedslons 

Is desinlble, there are disagreements on how to make pun:hllSing decisions that best reflect a 

6re cycle perspective. Even the term "life cycle" Is interpreted differently by different people. '1 

ht!p:llwww.epa.govIeppIpubsI(lllidancelfinal(lllidance.btm 31312010 
95 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 103 here 78128A.068

Final Guidance on EPP 1 Environmentally PIefelable Purcbasing I US EPA Page 7 af16 

To some, It connotes an exhaustive, extremely time-amsumlng, and very expensive analysis. 

To others, a life cycle perspective Is possible In an abbreviated process, In which a long list of 

potential envlronmentalattrtbutes and/or Impacts Is narrowed to a few, alowlng for 

comparison across a partk:ular product category. In addition, the ability of Federal purchasers 

to make buying decisions from a life cycle perspective depends on a variety of factors 

Including: the type of product or service being purchased; the availability of life cycle 

Infunnatlon and/or wllnngness by the provider to give the information; and the availability of 

easy-tD-use tools that can translatll this Information to support purchasing decisions by the 

Federal government. EPA recognizes that agencies may find It easier to apply a life cycle 

perspective when the result wIn be Internal agency environmental benefits and/or cost 

savings rather than external benefits. Nevertheless, EPA encourages agencies to CXIIlSlder 

reducing Impacts along all stages of the product or service life cycle. 

This guidance promotes the use of a range of practices, from life cycle considerations to a 

more rtgorous, sdentiftcaRy defensible life cycle assessment methodology. EPA encourages 

Executive agencies to use curTently IlVllllabie tools as _0 lIS help refine and address the 

needs of Federal purchasers. Examples of IlVllllabie tools and references are listed In SectIon 

VI. For the most current list of IlVllllabie tools, Executive agency personnel are referred to 

EPA's EPP Program Web site. EPA also encourages experts both within and outside of the 

Federal community to develop addItIOnal life cycle tools to support environmental 

preferablHty decisions. 

b. Muftlple environmental attributes - Environmental preferability should reflect the 

consideration of multiple envlronmentalattr1butes such lIS Increased energy efficiency, 

reduced toxicity, or reduced impacts on fragile ecosystems. In addition, these attributes 

should be considered from a life cycle perspective. Focusing on one environmental attribute 

of a product or a service, without CXIIlSldertng others, might Inadvertently exclude Important 

Impacts on the detennlnatlon of environmental preferability. For example, improving one 

attrfbute (e.g., Increased energy efflclency or reduced toxtcJty) may result In other 

unintended environmental life cycle Impacts. It Is also possible that focusing on a single 

aspect of the product or service will cause Executive agency personnei to overtook 

Improvements that the wndor hils or can make In other aspectS of tile product or service. In 

short, It Is difficult to be confident that an alternative product Is environmentally preferable 

without some consideration of multiple attributes from a life cycle perspective. Analytical 

tools such as life cycle _essment can help Federal agencies ensure the product or service 

they purchase does not create new problems for some other aspect of the environment by 

identIfYIng other POtential negative Impacts that shoUld be alleviated. 

Although the detVmJMtton of environmental preferability should be based on multiple 

environmental attributes, Federal agencies may at times make purdllurlng ...... _ based 

on a single attribute when that attribute distinguishes the product or service In a category. In 

its environmentally preferable purchasing effOrt, EPA aims to build upon those attributes that 

are weU-deflned, measurable and familiar to 'federal purchasers (e.g., recycled content and 

energy effidency). EPA also seeks to support the development of similar definitions and 

measures for other attributes that are less under.Jtood and to advance consideration of 

multiple environmental attributes In purchasing decisions. 

The menu of environmental attributes descrtbed In Appendix B ofI'ers a preliminary look at 

what should be considered in environmentally preferable purchasing decisions. Many of the 

attributes are relevant to a number of d\fl'erent product life cycle stages, while others are 

more pertinent to one particular stage. The menu should serve as a means to lnfonn 

Executive agency personnel about the different types of attrtbutes that can make a product 

or service environmentally preferable. Each and every element In the menu Is not meant to S 

bUp:lIwww.epa.gavlepvlpubslguidancelfinalguidance.htm 31312010 
96 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 104 here 78128A.069

Final Guidance 011 EPP I EnvironmanaJly PrBfaable Purchasing I US EPA Page 8 of 16 

be applicable to all products and services nor Is the menu ali-Inclusive 

GIIldlnfll'rlndple 4: CDmplll'ltlon of 8rvlro-al 1m".. 

Detierminlng enVIronmental ,...,......Uty might InvohM comPliring 

environ..-talllllpltCtll. In CD~ng environmental I..,.,.., Federal 

.... d_ MOUld CDniIIderr tha ,..".....,1Ity and geographic KIIIa of tha 

anvironIMntal Impacta, tha ..... of dI""-- among competing 

producta or _me., end the overriding Im~ of protI8C:tIng ltuman 

"'Ith. 

In detennlnlng environmental preferability, executive agency personnel might need to 

compare the various environmental Impacts among competing products orservtces. For 

example, would the reduc:ed energy requirements of one product be more Important than the 

water pollution reductions associated with the use of a competing product? The Ideal option 

would be a product that optimized energy eftIdency end minimized water pollution. When 

this Is not possible, however, executive agency personnel wID have to choose between the 

two attributes. [t Is Important to consider both the nature of the environmental Impact and 

the degree of difference among competing products. 

There is no widely accepted hIerarchy that ranks the attributes or environmental Impacts that 

are most Important. The following three factors are Intended to help executive agency 

personnel analyze the environmental Impacts of competing products and services and make 

decisions about environmental preferability when fac:ed with tnldlHlft's among environmental 

attributes. These factors are not listed In order of Importance. 

a. Recovery time anti geofJl8Ph/C SCIIIe - Federal agencies should consider recovery time and 

geographIC scale In compartng environmental Impacts. To what extent is an environmental 

Impact reversible? An Impact Is less accepblble If the recovery time Is Ionoer.l. The 

geographic scale of the problem and the Importance of the afIec:ted ecosystems are also 

slgnlftcant. Global environmental Impacts are more slgnlftcant, therefore, than ecological 

stressors that have a local or regional ecosystem Impact.) 

The table shown below provides a basIC framework for consldertng the reversibUlty and 

geographlall scale of environmental Impacts and Includes some examples of how certain 

Impacts might fit Into the matrbc. 

While some environmental standards or other sources of comparative Information on 

products are nallonal or International In SCOpe, Federal agencies should also be prepared to 

consider unique IDeal Impacts and Slte-speciftc uses. Infonnatlon based on an assessment of 

nallonal or global needs, by Its nature, rarely allows for the consldel1lllon of local Impacts 

associated with how prodUcts are used, recycled, and/or discarded. Executive agency 

personnel are encouraged to consider local factors, when! they are relevant, and not rely 

exclusively on national or globallnfomlation. For example, although It may be generally 

accepted that an aqueous-based degreaser Is prefelTed over a halogenated solvent 

degreaser, the enylronmentally preferable purchasIng decision may depend on whether there 

Is Sufficient local wastewater treatment capacity to deal with the aqueous waste. 

There may be rare occasions where the goal of minimizing a IocaIlmpaet, such as smog, Is In 

conflICt with the goal of minImizing a OIoba/lmpact, such lIS ozone depletion and global 

dlmate change. In these Instances, EPA encourages purchasers to engage lIS much as 

possIble In applying Prtndple #2 and aiming to prevent pollution, thereby aVOiding such 

trade-offs. Where there are unique local circumstances, the purchaser can make the q 

http://www.epa.goy/epplpubalguidmcelfinalguidauce.btm 31312010 
97 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 105 here 78128A.070

Final Guidance en EPP I FlIviromnenta1ly Preferable Purehasing I US EPA 

Judgment that the local conditions and impacts should be given priority. 

&'OLOGl'CAL PIUD#UTY IllPACfS NA7JUK 

Rever8ibllJty 

I YArs DecIIdea c.nturt_1 

IndefInllll 

LoQII Erosion 

RegIonal Conventional 

Ponutants 

Hazardous 

Air Pollutants 

BloaccumUlativE ~.ptIlC National 

Scale Chemical Mutants 

Releases 

loss of 

BIodlverslty 

Ozone 

Global Depleting 

Chemicals 

Giobal 

Warming 

Gases 

Page 9 of 16 

++ This matrtx proVides a few examples of how certain enVironmental stressors and Impacts 

might fall into the dlllll!rent categories of reverslbiUty and geographic scale OOIIslderatlons and 

Is not meant to be comprehensive. 

b. DIfferences BtnOIIfI aunpetfng produds - In some situations, a purchaser may determine 

preferability by looking at the differences of envllOnmental performance among competing 

products, rather than by comparing environmental problems. Guiding Prindple 3 addresses 

the Importance of identifying relevant atb1butes Ibr a product. There might be slgnlftcant 

differences among competing products for some of these attr1butes, while for others, the 

dlfl'erences could be minimal. In pun:hIJse comparisons, Executlw agencies might prefer the 

product or service that provides a significant Improvement over competing products, without 

making a determination that one environmental problem Is more significant than another. For 

eo m pie, a product that sign Iftcantly reduces toxicity might be preferable to one that makes 

a minimal reduction in waste reduction. 

c:. Human health - A product or a service should be at least equivalent to comparable 

products/services In protecting human health to be considered enVironmentally preferable. 

EPA's ScIence AdVisory Board listed the environmental factors listed to the right as Significant 

OOIItributors to human health risks. 

1 .... ", __ ",-- Stressors 

http://www.epa.gov/epplpubWguidancc1fina1guidance.htm 

I '0 

11112010 
98 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 106 here 78128A.071

Final Guidance on EPP I Eovironmen1lJlly Preferable PurdIaains I US EPA Page IOofl6 

(not In any order of Importance): 

• Ambient air pollutants 

• Hazardous air pollutants 

• Indoor air pollution 

• OQ:upatlonal exposure to chemicals 

• BIoaccumulative lutants 

EPA recognizes that executive agencies aHlSldering these three factors (remvery time and 

geographic scale; differences among products; and human health) must rely on providers of 

products and services to supply practical environmental Information on products. EPA 

encourages organizations that provide environmental standards or other types of 

romparative product Information to ronsider these factors In evaluating and reporting 

environmental Information for purchasers. 

ComPNhen.w., _me, .nd _lngfuIlnformatIon ebout the 

envIro"""""" perfomuInc:e of produc:ta or ~_ .. _ry In order 

tit dUumlne _"'ronmem.1 prefenbliity • 

•• Impot11lnce of Envfronmentallnformatlon - executive agency personnel will need 

romprehenslve, accurate and meaningful life cycle-based Information about the 

environmental characteristics of products and servlces In order to evaluate whether one 

product or service Is more or less damaging than another. Even with this thorough 

informatIOn, however, maldng these evaluations can be dlftlcult. yet, without such 

Information, determinatIOns of environmental preferabiUty are even more challenging. 

executive agency personnel are encouraged to seek, and product and service providers are 

enrouraged to provide, Ille cycle-based information about the environmental performance of 

products and servtces. TIlls Information should be sought and provided In all appropriate 

stages of the acquisitiOn process Indudlng, but not limited to mar1cet surveys, request for 

proposals, etc. (See Federal Acquisition Regulation, (FAR) 48 C.F.R. Subpart 23.7, which 

includes a mandate for the aequlsltlon of environmentally preferable and energy-emclent 

products and services. 

Executive agency purchaserll may enrourage product and service providers to desalbe their 

product or service's perfOrmance aa:ardlng to the menu of environmental attributes included 

In Appendix B (1). 

Product and service providers' disclosure of environmental Information about their products 

and services will also foster competition and enrourage a market~ven approach to 

environmental Improvement. TIle accessibility of the Information to the public (both 

executive agency personnel and the general public) will help ensure Its accuracy and 

credibility. 

b. What/How InfOrmation Is Conveyed - A number of resources about the environmental 

performance of products or services are cuIT'I!ntly available. Two general categOries of 

Information sources can be dl5tlngulshed: (1) manufacturers who provide environmental 

InformatIOn (e.g., environmental claims. product profiles. etc.) about their products either on 

the label or through product litentture, Including advertisements; and (2) envIrOnmental 

information romplled, evaluated. and reported b¥ non-govemmental entities. Induded in this 

second category are third-party certiflcatIon programs that evaluate the environmental II 

bttp:/lwww.epa.gov/epplpubal.guidanct/finIIlguidance.htm 31312010 
99 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 107 here 78128A.072

Final Guidance on EPP I Enviroommtally Preferable PurdIasins I US EPA Page II of 16 

aspects of products and award symbols (e.g., "seals-of-approval") or compile "report cards" 

of envlronmentallnfOnnatlon. Non-govemmental entities may also verify specific dalms 

made by manufacturers (e.g., paper contains 30 percent recycled content). 

informatIOn conveyed through claims and seals can help Executive agency personnel identify 

environmentally preferable products, depending on the types of products being purchased 

and the legal acquisition requirements Involved. A more detaUed discussIOn of how Executive 

agendes can use technical expertise and research of non-govemmental entities in their 

environmentally preferable purchasing practices Is Included In SectIon V and Appendix D. In 

evaluating the environmental attribute claims made by anyone, whether they are 

manufacturers, vendors, or other non-goyemmental entities, Executive agency personnel 

should refer to the Federal Trade Commission's (FTC's) "Guides for the Use of Environmental 

Martcetlng Terms.' (Green Guides.) 

ThiS sectlon recommendS steps that each agency can take to Implement the environmentally 

preferable purchasing provisIOns of EO 13101. 

A. PDllcy dlrectiYtI end IIfIIrmllllve procurement pI_ 

Recognizing that elfectfve Implementation of envlronmentaHy preferable purchasing win 

reqliire clear directIOn and support !'rom the top levels (# each agency, this Rnal Guidance 

recommends that each Executive agency Issue a Policy Directive promoting the practice. A 

sample IS Included in Appendix C. The policy directive should Indude the elements listed 

below: 

An ovens" stzJtement of policy: 

• Agency personnel should seek to reduce the environmental damages IlSSOdIIted with 

their purchases by Increasing their acquiSItIon of environmentally preferable products 

and services to the extent feasible, consistent with price, performance, availability, 

and safety conSiderations. 

• environmental factors should be taken Into acxount as early as possible In the 

acquisition planning and decision-making process. (See EO 13101, SectIon 401.) 

• Responsibility for environmentally preferable purchasing should be shared among the 

program, acquisition, and procurement personnel. 

A commitment to the fo/bwlng: 

• Increasing the acquisition (# environmentally preferable products and services. (See 

EO 13101, Sections 102, 503 (e), and 602.) 

• Under sectlon 6002 of the Resoura! Conservation and Recovery Act of 1976 and FAR 

Subpart 23.4, procuring agencies are required to establish aftirmativeprocurement 

programs for purchasing EPA-cleslgnated recycled products. EPA recommends that 

agencies expand the scope of their aftirmatlve procurement programs to include 

environmentally preferable products and services. EO 13101, SectIOn 302, (a)(l)(a) 

calls for a Strategic Plan to Indude the "direction and InitiatIVes for acquisition of 

recycled and recyclable products and environmentally preferable products and 

services.' Furthermore, Sectton 302 (b) (1) requires Agency Environmental 12, 

http://www.epa.gov/epplpubwguidanco'fiDalguidanceJdm 31312010 
100 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 108 here 78128A.073

Final Guidance on EPP I Environmentally PRlfaable Pun:basing I US EPA Page 120£16 

executives to "translate [ttlls] Government-wide Strategic Plan InlD specific agency 

and service plans.· 

• Identifying and Implementing pilot projects (See SectIOn V (8) belOw). 

• Establishing Internal agency Incentive and award programs to recognize those people. 

teams, and interagency work groups who are most sua:essfulat promoting the 

purchase of environmentllily preferable pun:haSing (see Executive Order 13101, 

Sectton 802). Collaboration among agencIeS ID provide education and training Is 

highly encouraged. 

In order to minimize the burden on Executive agencies, EPA recommends that each agency 

Incorporate In Its POlicy Dlrecttve to promote environmentally preferable pun:hasing inlD ItS 

Affirmative Procurement and Strategic Plans. This Incorporation can transptre as agencies 

revise their ptans. Agencies should ensure that their PolIcy Olrectlve is made available ID the 

field-level procurement and environmental personnel. 

B. Pilot Projecta 

Section 503 (b) of EO 13101 states "[A]gencles are encouraged ID Immediately test and 

evaluate the prlndples and conceptS contained In the EPA's Guidance on the Acquisition of 

EnvlronmentaUy Preferable Products and Services through ptlot projects ID provide praCtIcal 

Information ID the EPA for funher updating of the guidance." Furthennore, Section 704 states 

"Each executive agency shall estabUsh a model demonstration program ••• ID demonstrate 

and test new and innovative approaches such as Incorporating environmentally preferable ... 

products .... " InID model facility programs. To help Executive agendes Implement these 

provisions of the EO. this Final Guidance Indudes some suggested steps for initiating and 

implementing ptlot acquisitions. 

The suggestions that follow are based on lessons from early pilots undertaken by the General 

Services Admlnistl'lltlon and the Oepanment of Defense In pannership with EPA. case studies 

from these and other pilot projects are avaUable from the PollutIOn PreventIOn Information 

Clearinghouse (202 260-1023) or they can be ac:cessed through EPA's EPP Program Web s!te. 

Additional ptlot acquisitions will be Important testing grounds for applying the guiding 

principles and testing their applicability. The pilots wlQ also provide valuable Information for 

the development of IOOIs and resoun:es ID fadlltate widespread adoption of environmentally 

preferable purchaslng practices. 

EPA wlH track pilots that are ptanned or already underway on the EPP Web site, providing a 

clearfnghouse for information on govemment-Wide aCtIvIties related to environmentally 

preferable pun:haslng. (See EO 13101, SeCtIon 503 (b)(4).) EPA wi. disseminate Information 

about different pilots among the agenctes through the EPP Web site, updates, and fact sheets 

ID ensure that lessons learned are shared and used ID inform other pilot projects. 

The discussion below further desaibes how ttlese ptlotS and demonstration projects might 

proceed. EPA encourages Executive agenCIes ID undertake pilots and use all existing soun:es 

of Information and technical expertise ID carry them out. EPA Is committed ID supponlng 

these pilots and providing overall coordination and technical assistance, as resoun:es aHow. 

1. SelectIon of pilots. Selection of pilot acquisitions Is at the discretion of the Individual 

executIVe agencies. Then! are at least two options for hOW agencIeS can approach ttlis 

selection process. First. lin agency may want ID identify an environmental problem that It 13 

!rttp:/Iwww.epa.gov/epplpubwguidanc:elfinalguidance.htm 313/2011) 
101 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 109 here 78128A.074

Final Guidance 011 EPP I &vironmen1lllly Preferable Putcbasing I us F.P A Page 13 of 16 

wants or needs to address. Once the problem has been identified, the agency can develOp a 

list of products and services that contribute to that specific erwtronmenta. problem. 

Alternatively, an agency may start out with a product or service category for which it wants 

to find alternattves. In either case, criteria that agendes might wish to consider in selectln g 

pilot acquisitions Indude: 

• Potential for a reductlon In rISk to human health and the envkonment. 

• Status on EPA's prioritized list. Pursuant to EO 13101, SectIOn 503 (a), and in order 

to assist executive agendes fOcus their efforts on minimizing serious environmental 

Impacts, EPA has developed a prIOritized nst of the top 20 product categories. The 

complete list, alOng with a discussion of the methodology used In Its development can 

be found In EPA's EPP Web site. 

• existence of less harmful product or service alternatives. Alternatives could vary 

anywhere along the product or services' life cycle, for example, different ways of 

manufacturing or disposing. Alternattves might also Include different ways of getting 

the same result. even If It means ac:qulring a completely different type of product or 

service. 

• feasibility/degree of flexlblHty In the ac:qulsitiOn. 

• Products or services that are widely used within the federal government and are 

representative Or typical of the procurement system. This maximizes the pilot's 

potential value to others by providing lessons about the eIfectIveness of the guidance 

and Increasing the likelihood that the pilot could be repilCilte<l. (See EO 13101, 

5ec:tIOn 503 (b) (1).) -

2. ImplementlltJon of pilot projects. In Implementing the pilot projects, executive agencies 

can look to the process and results of projects others have completed or develop a different 

approach for environmentally preferable purchasing. In undertaldng the pilOts, agencies are 

encounlQed to: 

• Ensure the participatIOn Of environmental and procurement experts. 

Use all Of the options available to them to determine the environmentally preferable 

attributes of products and servfces In their pilot projects, Including the teChnical 

expertise of non-govemmentlll entities. This Is pursuant to EO 13101, SectIOn 503 (b) 

(2). More specific guidance on the use of non-govemmentlll entities Is Included In 

Appendix D. 

Once a product or service has been chosen, Pilots typically Involve: 

a. Delenn'nlng envtronmentally prefa'able products and services. This can -be 

accomplished by executive agencies: 

• Identifying product attributes that can serve as Indicators of envtronmental 

preferablBty. Agencies can look to Appendix B for a menu of attributes. 

Selectlon of attributes should be tied to the most significant envtronmental 

problems or Impacts. 

• Collecting Information from product and servICe provtders. This may require the 

development of contract language to ensure that vendors provide 

envtronmentallnformatton. ILl 

Ihttp://www.epa.gov/epplpubslguidancelfinalguidance.htm 31312010 
102 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 110 here 78128A.075

Final Guidance on EPP I Environmentally Pmerable Purdwing I us EPA Page 14ofl6 

• With the recent changes to the FAR and the trend toward best value 

contracting, agencies can now more easily consider environmental factors wilen 

making purchasing decisions. HoWever, envlronmentallnl'ormatlon is often not 

provided by vendors. 11Ius, It may be necessary for Executive agency pe~nnel 

to clearly request or require relevant environmental Information from vendors In 

market surveys and proposals whenever appropflate. 

• Evaluating the environmental Information • 

b. Incorporating results of the environmentallnformatlon research into the acquisition 

process to purchase environmentally preferable products and servICes. While the 

acquisition strategy and method are determined by the purchasing agency, EPA asks 

that agencies select a strategy that: 

• Maximizes the number of environmentally preferable product or service choices 

available to the purchasing agency. 

Promotes competition aQ'OSS products and services In terms of environmental 

performance. 

• Stimulates product and servICe process innovation and continuous 

Improvement. 

• Allows for the consideration of local environmental conditions. 

Promotes a definition of environmentally preferable products and services that 

can improve over time. 

c. Documenting the pilot effort, Including a description of how the project was initiated 

and Implemented and the lessons learned. A sample case study template Is attached 

In Appendix E and is also available on EPA's EI'P Web site. 11Ie results of pilot prqlects 

will be shared among Executive agencies through EPA's EPP Web site. 

More specific Information about pilot Implementation wiN be made available through a variety 

of tools that EPA currently Is developing including: an Interactive tllllning module; a "best 

practices guide" with examples of specIfiC contract language that have been used by 

purchasing agencies; and a database of existing environmental standards that have been 

developed by governmental and non-governmental entitles. 

SectIon 12(d) of 11Ie National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (NTTM) 

(Pub. L 104-113, § 12(d), 15 U.S.C. 272 note) and OMS Circular A-119 (63 FR 8546, 

February 19, 1998) direct Federal agencies to use both domestic and International \/Oluntary 

consensus standards In lieu of government-unique standards in their procurement and 

regulatory activities, except where It would be inconsistent with applicable law or otherwise 

Implllctical. 11Ie Act's purpose Is to reduce the cost of procurement and regulation by 

requiring a Fedellll agency to draw upon any suitable technical standard already used In 

commerce or Industry IlIther than Inventing a n_ standard. Some of those standards might 

relate to evaluating enVironmental performance and measuring the environmental attributes 

of products or services. In establIShing environmental Preferable Purchasing pilot projects or 

planning other environmentally-sensitive activities, agenCIes should first determine whether 

there Is lin applicable voluntary consensus standard that would meet Its needs. 

11Ie NTTM also requires a Fedel'ill agency, when It IS consistent with the agency's mission, 

authorities, priOrIties, and budget resources, to partJdpate In the standards-settlng activities 10 

htip:/Iwww.epa.gov/epp/pub&lguidancetfinalguidance.hIm 3(312010 
103 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 111 here 78128A.076

FID8i Guidance em EPP I Environmenta1ly Preferable Purehuing I US EPA Page IS of 16 

of voluntary consensus standards bodies. Such participation helps ensure the development of 

standards that meet the agency's ~, Indudlng those related to Environmental Preferable 

PurchaSing cona!rns. This collabol1ltlon can also promote national goals and objectives. OMB 

Circular A-119 spedflcally mentions the need to promote the use of environmentally sound 

and energy-effldent materials, Products, systems, services, or practices as well as the 

Improvement of public health and safety. (See OMB A-119, SectIon 7a.) 

In the long run, institutionalizing the purchase of environmentally preferable products and 

services requires that executive agendeS continue their efI'orts after the pilot's are 

completed. Given that environmental information about products and services Is stili scarce, 

agendes should rely on all sources of Information and technical expertlse in making 

determinations about environmental preferability. To foster agencies continue acquisition of 

"green" products, EPA wnl coordinate the development and standard'lZlItion of environmental 

Information about potential product and service categories for future pOols. This effort will 

consist of Identifying environmental performance characteristics and measurement methods 

and will involve technical experts both Inside and outside the FedeI1lI gGIIernment. executive 

agencies should examine all Information genel1lted through these types of efI'orts. The 

agendes, and not the nongovernmental entities, must make all final determinations 

regarding environmental preferability. 

The experience gained from executive agency pilots wiD be key In determining the scope and 

nature of EPA's long-term IICtIvItIeS to advance Fedel1ll environmentally preferable 

purchasing. The lessons learned and partnerships furmed from these pilots will help establish 

a broader infrastructure to support this initiative. EPA might use existing mechanISms or help 

develop new resources such as guidance, networks, and databases in su pport of the Federal 

purchaSIng communlty- to build this Infrastructure. The infrastructure wUI help bridge the 

gap between the environmental and procurement expertise within the executive agendes. 

All executive agency personnel will have a role In mmlng a demand fur environmentaUy 

prefel1lbie products and services. ThUS, the Infrastructure wOI also have to support the 

development of tools that are easy and convenient fur genel1ll and dlvelse use. 

In light of the evolving acquisition landscape and the dynamic nature of the marketplace, the 

Infrastructure will have to be flexible. In the Increased globalization of the economy and 

trends toward com men:lallzatlon of the Federal marketplace, will also require agencies to 

coordinate this initiative with new International tI1Ide and standardization developments. 

Ultimately, the mellSUre of thls Initiative's success will be in the Increased availability and 

purchase of products and services that pose fewer advelse Impacts on human health and the 

environment. 

1. U.S. Congress, 0Iftce of Technology Assessment, Green products by Design: Choices fur a 

Cleaner environment, OTA-E-541 (Washington, D.C. U.S. Government Printing Offtce, 

October 1992) [Back to text] 

2. This Is based on the findings of the Science Advisory Board, pubUshed In Its 1990 report 

entitled "Redudng RIsk: Setting PrIorItIes and StI1iItegies for environmental ProtectIon,· a 

statement of polley on priority pollutants affecting environmental and public health. In thIS 

report, environmental stressors were Judged to be significant based on two primary crtter\athe geographic scale and degree of reversibility of the Impact. 

The Science AdvIsory Board Is a public advisory group providing extramul1ll SCIentific 

lto 

btJp:/Iwww.epa.gov/epp'pubsfguidanceltinalguidaDce.btm 31312010 
104 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 112 here 78128A.077

Fmal Guidmce 00 EPP , Enviromnell.Ullly Preferable Purdwing , US EPA Page 16ofl6 

information and advice to the Admfnlstrator and other oIftcIals d the environmental 

Protection Agency. The 80IIrd Is structured to provide balanced, expert assessment of 

SCIentific matters related to problems facing the Agency. [Back to textl 

3. Refer to above footnote. [Back to text] 

Continue to Resources for the Boal Guidance 

Continue to AOl!elldbc fOr the Boa! Guidance 

htIp:/fwww.epa.gov/epplpubslguidmcclfiDalguidance.htm. 31312010 I' 
105 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 113 here 78128A.078

Tips for Buying "Green· with the Government Credit Card I Environmentally Preferable '" Page I m 4 

http://www.epa.gov/epp/toolSj.creditcard.htm 

Last upqated on ThUJ19i!.\' ~anu.rv 28, 2010 Environmentally Preferable I"urcnasing ll:I"P) 

You are here: EI'AlI!ImI PrIyJOIIOD. PIIIIIc/das a. Toxic sul>!!tancM f!!llullpn PnnIlIOIIO!! 

EmtIror!mIntIIIy PrtI'IrIbIIl'urdlaIIng Pub!iqItions Od!er Ra!atad PubI!cat!ons Tips for 

BWlng "Green" with the Government Credit Card 

Tips for _;;ring "Green" with the Government 

Credit ca 

As published by the EPA In January 2000. 

Assuring that your purchases CDtrJp/y with enwronmenl1llllJws and EPA's poIlcJes. 

You have the opportunity to help the environment while buying products that meet your 

program's needs. President alntDn has directed federal agencies to buy products that are 

made with recycled content, have less packaging, are energy ef'IIclent, don't aeete 

hazardous waste, and incorporate other environmentally prefaable attributes. As you use the 

government credit card, you can help EPA meet this commitment. 

Here's how: 

" Buy products with recycled content 

" Buy products with reduced packagtng 

" Look fur the Energy Star label _. Ask IUhe product contains haDrdouS materials or toxic chemicals 

" Look for other Information on the environmental features Of products 

EPA designates recycled content products that government agencies must buy. For products 

which have been designated by EPA, you must buy those which contain recycled content as 

long as they are available, meet your performance needs, and are cost-competitive. EPA 

recommends the required minimum percentage of recycled content that the products you 

buy should contain. A table or recycled content pen:entages as of 1/19/00 Is included In this 

manual as an appendix. 

Whatever your job, It Is likely that you will be asked to order a product which has been 

designated by EPA. Supply Clerics, Secretaries and Administrative Offtatrs order copy paper, 

"Ie folders, remanufactured toner cartrtdges, writing tablets, envelopes, plastic office 

supplies, shipping and mailing products, awards and plaques, and other products _ typicaHy 

use every day. Fleet managers and users of neat vehicles purchase automotive products like 

motor 01, tires, and engine coolant. On-Scene Coordinators may buy SpiH containment 

products. Employees In Facilities or Safety and Environmental Compliance may buy signs, 

pallets, parking stops, tnIfflc cones and barrels to control tratnc flow In our parking lOts, park 

benches and picnic tables, and certain other building and landscaping products. All of these 

products can be made with recycled contant and you can find most of them In the ~ 

Sery!ces Administration's (GSA) "Enylronmenta! Products Guide" I'''IT 1ijSij§llriilil, 

Manufacturers, suppliers, and helpful national spedflcatlons can also be Identified at ~ 

eomprebenstve Procurement Guidelines Web site, 

lea 

http11www.epa.gov/eppItooIslcreditcard.btm 31312010 
106 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 114 here 78128A.079

TIps for Buying .~. with the Government Credit Cud I EnviroomeolBlly Preferable ... Page 2 of 4 

Tennlnology ••• 

Recyded content products contain "recovered materials" or 

'postconsumer materials" or both. "Recovered materials" means 

materials that have been removed or diverted from solid waste -

in other words, trash - Including soUd waste created by 

manufacturers. ·Postconsumer materials" are materials that we 

discard at home and at work that are separated or diverted for 

recycling Instead of going to a landfill. 

In the case of paper products, President Clinton requires Federal 

agencies to purd'lase products containing 30'111 postconsumer 

material beginning January I, 1999. Paper products containing 

30'1b postconsumer materials wIH be available from GSA's 

schedule and stock programs. 

Packaging Is a significant solid waste problem. EPA estimates that packaging alone accounted 

for 23.7 'III of the volume and 19.4'111 of the welght of the material that went to municipal 

landfills In 1996. We can reduce the amount of trash we generate by buying products with 

reduced packaging. For example, If you can purchase pads d paper that are not wrapped In 

plastic shrink ¥mIP, you wdl not have to throw away the plastic. Also consider buying a larger 

quantity packaged in a single box rather than smaller quantities in multiple boxes. 

When buying products that use energy (computers, copiers, faX machines, multitasking 

devices, document scanners, lV/VCRS, rerrtgerators, etc.), look for the Energy Star label, 

which tells you that the product is energy eI'IIcIent. Check EPA's Energy Star Products web 

site at or call the Department of Energy's Federal Energy Management Program for the latest 

recommended levels of energy efficiency for different products - 1-800-DOE-EREC or 1-800-

363-3632. Fedcenter.com, an e-commerce site that you can purchase a variety of goods and 

services through, will Identify and allow you to purchase the EnergyStar product options 

available to you. indicate that you want to see Energy$tar products via their Search section, 

or look at the "EnergyStar compUaAt" column In the "Compare Products" section of their site. 

Ask If the product contains hazardous materials or toxic chemicals. Examples Indude deanlng 

products containing petroleum-based SOlvents or acids, and paints (some contain chromate 

or volatile organic compounds). GSA's "Environmental Products Guide" indudes Information 

provided by vendors to help you choose a more environmentaHy preferable alternative to 

many of these products. 

Battery-operated portable electronic devices such as cell phones, laptop computers, walkletalkies, and tools often use rechargeable NI-<:d batteries which contain cadmium, a 

hazardous material. If you buy products with Ni-<:d battl!rIes, ask for batteries with the 

Battery RecyCling Seal (see graphic). 

Advtse the person who wHI be using the product that NKd batteries must be recycled at the 

end of their useful life so they don't end up in a landfill. They should contact their 

hup:/Iwww.epa.gov/epp/tooIsIcreditcard.htm \'l 31312010 
107 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 115 here 78128A.080

Tips fur Buying "Green" with the Government Credit Card I EnvironmentaUy Preferable ... Page 3 of 4 

safety/environmental compliance manager for assistance. Information for consumers on how 

and where to recycle their used NI-cd battertes Is also avaHable through a toll-free number: 

1-800-822 -8837. 

There are other situations where you may have to buy products with hazardous materials, 

such as laboratory chemicals. NotIfy your faQlity safety or environmental compHance 

manager before you purdlase the Item. If this Is a new chemical at the facUlty, they may 

require you to get a Material Safety Data Sheet. Or there may be special wor1cer safety, 

recycling or disposal procedures that you will need to follow. 

In summary, when buying products, consider the following environmental criteria: 

Minimize • HAvy""'" ( ......... ~ry, 

Cldmklm) 

- Oza ........ oIInv ""--... ............,u 

( • .g.0Q) • DrganIo __ II1II ( •• g. "" __ ond 

• P...dMty, .........-,.. COI'1'CtIt¥InMI, .... -fllmmllbllty, 

~poIio_1 

• c.~ """"'-.......... 

. _.""--.ar - ____ Iota 

• v __ nIc __ (\lOCI) 

.-........... 

Favor ·_...,-_nt • 1Io--,,_nIIIIlty 

• Rod_In"-''''' 

• Energy EIIIcIoncy • UMfII ......... en.., ........ • _pradllCb • BIodoa_1ty __ d ........ 

A good source for this Information Is EPA's EnyIronmentally !>referable Purd!as!ng Prog@m's 

DIIiIt!IH. of environmental Information on products and serYk:es .. In addition, vendors are 

often happy to provide this information on their products. 

___ to help you mtIk. more .nwlramn ..... Uy prefel'llltle purchll8lng choIcea: 

Usted below are some _bslte addresses and telephone numbers of selected vendors that 

offer products with good environmental features. The following also references resouralS 

containing general green purdlas/ng and product information. (Of course, this is not an 

exhaustive list of companies and EPA in no way endorses their products.) 

Buy GrMn Hom ..... lexlT DliiliiliiMiiI 

Provides Rnlcs to numerous resources. 

binbow £CO Sped ...... -- carriers ofttle National Recycling Coalition Recyded Content 

Product Une 

1-800-842-0527 

omce and school supplies Indudlng recycled-content products, agricultural-based products, 

solar products, and less toxic products 

Green Earth OffIce Supply lexlT D!soIaim!' I 

1-800-327-8449 

Its product offerings Include recyded-content products, agricultural based produ cts, solar 

products, less toxic products and cruelty-free products. 

20 

hUp:/Iwww.epa.gov/epp/toolsiaedittardbtm 31312010 
108 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 116 here 78128A.081

TIps for Buying ~. with the GoYemment Cmlit Cant I Enviromncnllllly Prefinble ... Pase" of .. 

Ecomall contains Unks to sttes that sell traditional oIIice products with recycled content, high 

quality recycled diskettes, energy-elftclent lighting products, etc. 

Full Circle roper OUtlet I."IT .......,...rI 

(919) 309-0811 

WorIdnq Your WIlY 110 • CinMm omea '."" DlSCIiiiiiiirl 

General product infOrmation, product list, as well as green buytng InfOrmation 

Green Seal 

(202) 331-7337 

0f'I'Ice Green Buying Guide 

GJoeen 0fIIca Mapzlne 

1-800-709-0012 

E-mail: greenofflceOmsn.com 

0f'I'Ice Fumlture InfDnnatlOn. 

***Product attribute claims should be carefully examined to make sure they are consiStent 

with the Federal Trade Commission's (FTC) Guides far the Use of Environmental Mamtlng 

Claims. In general, be skeptkal of broad claims that the product is "environmentally safe,· 

"environmentally friendly" or "non-toxic" unless the manufacturer can back up the claim with 

actual documentation. The EPP Web site has a helpful brochure describing the FTC gu!do!lnes. 

There you will lliso ftnd many examples of advertising langUllge to help you understand how 

tD evaluate adverttslng claims. 

Comp"""""" ProaaI'WMllt GuI"'n. 

(fills section was updatslln AprIl 2008.) 

EPA's CPG program provides rec:ycled-content recommendatIDM fOr lists of designated 

products. EPA has already designated or Is proposing tD designate praducts grouped IntD the 

following eight categOrIes: 

• Construction Products • landscaping Products • NonPaDet 0fIlce Products • PAper and Paper Products • PAm and Recreation Products • TraMoortation Products • Vehicular Products • Mlsa!llaneous Products 

1.1 

bttp:/Iwww.epa.gov/eppltoolslmditcard.htm 31J12010 
109 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 117 here 78128A.082

INSTRUCTIONS FOR IMPLEMENTING BXECUTIVE 

ORDER 13423 

"Strengtheuing Federal Environmental. Energy. and 

Transportation Management" 

March 29. 2007 

o 
110 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 118 here 78128A.083

L Introduction 

The Federal govenmmt has IIIIIde sigoificn progteSS in improving envirOllllllllltal and 

energy performance 1broush a series of executive orden, Memoranda ofUndentanding, 

and odIerguidante. ExeculiveOrder 13423 (RO.), StrengthmIngFederal 

EnvIronmtmllll, &Ngy. and 'l'ivmIportQIttHI~gement, iDtends to build on that body 

of work and success by integnItiDg IIIIl updating prior practices and requiremen1s into a 

cohesive, stnJIegic approach to furIber easure enbanc:ed perfOllllllllCe and compliance 

widi statutoJ:y and either legal IeqlIiremen1B. 

Section 2 of the E. O. dillICIs Fedeni agencies to implemrot sustainable practices for: 

• Energy efficiency IIIIl ndudioos in gRleDhouse PI emissions. 

• Use of~e CIIIIlIIY. 

• lteductioo in wiler c:onsumpIioo intlmSity. 

• Acquisitioo of green products and services. 

~ • PoUutioo prvventioo. including ndudioo or eliminaaimt ofdle use of toxic IIIIl 

hazardous chemicals and materials. 

• Cost-effective waste prvventioo and recycling programs. 

• Increased diversion of solid waste. 

• Sus1aiuable desisP&igh pelfOl1ll8llCe buildings. 

• Veilicle tleelllllmllgellllll including dle use of altemaIive fuel vehicles and 

alternative fuels and dle furIber nlduetion of petroleum COIISUIDption. 

• Flectrooics stewlrdsbip. 

The purpose oltbis document is to define aaencY RlQuiremen1s for impl_ting E.O. 

13423 and to define broad strItegies tor acbieviDg Ibcm This doeument is the first of 

suclJ. E.O. implementing insIructioos. In Older to easure dec:tive and efficient 

implemen1ali.on. and to _ dID goaJs IIKI oI!jeclives of dID E. 0., it is mandatoIy 1hIIt 

executive departmlllts aod l18eDCies implement the aahities described in dlese 

instIUctions in accordance widi Sections 1,2, 3, and 4(b) oldie E.O. 

These instIUctions are issued under the IIdbority olSeclion 4(b) of the E.O. This section 

authorizes die CbaiI1Dll1 oldie Co...aI 00 EDviroomeatal Quality (CEQ) to issue 

instIUctioos ooimplemeoting die E.O. after COIIS1IIIaIioo widi!be Direetor of !be Office 

ofManasement IIIIl Budget (OMB) lIId !be intenJaency Steering Commiuee. 

The orgllDizaliooal S1rucIure of die entities established to c:oordimde and oversee 

implementalioD olE.O. 13423 is shOIVII in Figure 1. The organizatiooai structure as well 

as die roles and respoosibilities of IIICb entity are described below. 
111 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 119 here 78128A.084

• Recycled COIl1eIIt products designated in EPA's COlIIpI\'.beIIsive Procurement 

Guidelines. 

• Fncqy Stallf) products identified by DOE and EPA. as we1I as FEMP-designated 

eoergy-effieiem products. 

• Water-effieiem ~ including those meeting EPA's WaterSeose stDIanfs. 

• Enorgy from renewable sources. 

• Biobased products designated by the U.S. Department of Asriculture in 1I1e 

BioPrefemd program. 

• EnviromnentaUy prefembIe products and services, including EPBA T-registered 

electroDic producls. 

• AlUlmali ve fuel vehicles and aIternalive fuels RlqUired by EP Act 

-. Products wi1ll low or no toxic or hazardous cmstituems. oonsisUlDt wi1ll section 

VDI.A oCthese instructions. 

• Non-ozone dIlpleting substalI:es, as identified in EPA's Sisnificmt New 

AlUlmalives Program. 

C. Grw ProdpctI Steter4e. fetrI,."., ... Bmm 

0) Mjpjrmm Cgpm; S!pndmI for PripJjpg pi Writipg Paper. Each IJ8IIIIty shall 

continue to use 1110 following minimum COIl1eIIt sIIndards when purdJasing printing and 

writiDa papen, including office paper ~ or support services !bat include the 

supply ofwritteD doc"m ... ts: 

• 30 percent posfi:aIsUDIer fiber. 

• 20 pen:mt posiI:onS\ID.W fiber, IF papers COIIIaining 30 percent postconsumer 

fiber are not masonabJy lIVlIiIable, do not mefit reasooable performance 

requirements, or are only lmIiIable at an unreasonable price. 

EPA shall review 1IIe l1lCOIIIIIIII1ded COIl1eIIt levels for printing and writing papers in the 

existing Paper Products Recovered Malerials AdYismy Notice and adjlllt the 

recommendations, where appropriate. EPA sbaIll1!pOrt its decisions to the FEE. 

l For EPA's guicIaoce, IJD 10 httn:ltwww.wa.govJepp!pubsigujdancelguidancepage.htm.GuidIDce em 

apeci& producCa or psocblt CIdejJoriIIII is fuuoLt II httn·ltwww.epa.govlepplpubslproducWproducts.htm. 

16 
112 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 120 here 78128A.085

vm. Pollution Prevention and MMacement ofToxie and Bazmlous 

Materials 

E.O. 13423. &C. 2(e): In implementing thepoilCY setjOrth tnssctton 1 of this 

order, the 1reod of each agf!IfC)' .6: 

(e) e1ISfII'e that the agency (I) retIuca the qrMIIIIUy oftaDC and hozardous 

chemicals and matmals acqrtlred, wed, or dJaposed ofby the agency. (It) 

11IC1'tIQUS diYerslon of solid waste as tlJIPf'OIIrltlte. and (lit) maintDiIJs costeffecttve waste prevent/OIl and recycltng programs in lis jQcilltles. 

Sec. 3(a). -pled, (e). and (j): In ImplfRIJIRIttng the policy set forth tn sectllRll 

ofthts order. the heod of each agency shall: 

(a) implementWlthbJ the agmcyllBtainable praaicesfor ... MpoiluttlRland 

waste preverttlOII and recycling, (vi) redw;tion or elimi1lQtitRI of acqrtlsttlOll and 

lISe ofto~c 01' hozmdow chemicals ... 

(e) eJUl/Te that C1JIfIrQcI$ entered blto after the date of this orriN for contractor 

OpuatiOll of govemmBnt-owned focIlIties or vehicles reqvil'e the contract01' to 

CompIywlth the prOl1l8tons ofthts order with respect to Slidljilctlitles or vehicles 

to the same exteIII as the agmcywould be required to comply if the agency 

ope1'ated the facilities or vehicles; 

(j) emure that agrtJellfelllS. pemtits. leases. ltcemes. or other legally-btndbtg 

obltgaliOltS between the agency and a teItant or OOIICUsio1lQ1re entered into after 

the date ofthts artier requiTe. to the estent the head of the opllCJ' dBtenn/nes 

app1'O[JI1Ilte, that the te1ItJ1Il or conce.utonalre tah! actions reloling to matters 

wlthbJ the scope of the COItITact that jJcilttate the agency's compIk1nce with this 

artier. 

Tech1llcaJLeod: EPA 

JYarkgroup: 1nte1'agency Envi1'OItme1ItoI LeodenhIp JYcrigf'otq1 

As CuII-.... forT •• lid B .. ,.,.,... 

No lIII8r Ibm J8IIUIII)' 24,2008, eKb 1IpICY, at III appropriate OIpIIizatic:ualleveis 

including approprillle filciJitia, orprigljons, and acquisi1i0ll acliYities, sbaIl develop 

writtm goals IDI support 1ICIi0lll to ideDtifY and nduce 1he release aDd use oflOXic aDd 

hazardous chemicals IDI materials, includio& tadc chemicals, hazardous substaDces, 

ozone.depIe1ing substaDces (OOSs). and adler poIlullDls 1bat may result in sigDificant 

harm to hUD81 hadtb or !be enviromnent. 

In ideotifYiog the list of IOXic chemicals, hazardous substances, and OIher pollutants, eKb 

qmcy shaU coosidm': 

• QwDtity of the chemical or JJl8Ierial in use by the f8tIIIC)'. 

• Human and/or enviromDeatallOXicity rL 1be chemical. 

• Potmtial for hUD8I fJDIJ/oc envirmmeIl1al exposure to the chemical oc material. 

19 
113 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 121 here 78128A.086

• Polllntial harm to tile CIlviroDmel1t associaIed with tile use or release of tile 

dlemic:al or malllrial, incIudiDg impacIs to air quality, surtiIee WIlIer, gromdwater, 

soiIaIIaDd, md climate systems. 

• Persistence of the dlemic:al in tile CIlWooment 

• AvailalJility of controls to IIIIIIIIP icIen1ifiabIe risks. 

• Impacts on mission capahiJily 8Dd bllliness costs. 

• Existing envirorm8ltaI bazard lilll such • priority dIemic:aIs identified by EPA's 

Resoun:e CooservaIiOll ChaIlcoge, 8IId my lIfI'IIKlY-specific toJric or hazardous 

dtemicaIs JisII. 

• TheavaiIable subs1itI$Is for ODSs ideatifiod by EPA's Significant New 

Altematives Policy Program. 

• Comanrinants identified by die U.s. Geo1ogic:al Survey. part ofilS NatiODal 

Rec:omIaissaIK: ofEmlqiJlg Contamimm1s. • 

• Where appropriate, regionai- and WIIIeIlIhed-bas eDviroDmeI1taI improvemeDt 

efforts such • !he Chesapeake Bay Prioritized Chemic:aIs of Concern Program, 

the Oreal Lakes Bi-national Strategy or local watershed effons. 

m Alt!!matjyes. Each IIBency shall CIlSlft that it maximizes tile use of safe 

alternati.ves to ODSs. • approved by tile EPA's SigDificmt New AltemativllS Policy 

(SNAP) program. 

(2) AP0' pin AIfID.C'J pbms to repIac:e ODSs should 1arget cost effective 

reduc:tion of eDviroDmeI1taI risk by eliminating 1he use of ODSs in new equipnart md 

ticilities and by pbasiDa out ODS applicati.ODs • the exisIiDs equipment using those 

substances reacbes its CIIlJl8Cled service life. In deveIopiDa ODS-related actions, agencies 

shall consider (1) maintaining equipnart to prevo or fix leaks and (2) ruplacina llllllciog 

equipment whCll repair is no longer cost-effective or where it is life.c:ycle cost-«rective 

to reJi.:e tile equipment. 

(3) Rcyision ofnnnnl JMP!WlY menae .... t !!!lUcies. Each agency shall amend 

its persODal property ~ policies md procedures to preclude the disposal of 

ODSs removed or reclaimed from its ticilities or equipmcot, incIudiDg disposal. part of 

a CODtnICt. trade, or dODatiOll, without prior coordiDation with 1he Department ofDefease 

(DoD). 

(4) Irapsferto DoD. Where &be mcovered ODS is a critic:al requiremeDt for DoD 

missiOllS, the agency shall transfer the materials to DoD. DoD will bear the costs of such 

transfer. 

• The IIIticmII nw:mnajsMnce is ID m-goiDa iPiIioIive to tmct ...... inants --my darived ftom 

............ _1DIl ra..l to bep!-.l in Ibo ~CIII.!!IobaI1CIIe. A JiJtoftBrpt 

COJIlpOUDIiI idIIdified. -sms "''' ...... ;11111 .. OlD be ftluDd at 

httpsil\2Xics.usgs.gov/regionallcontaminants.html 

20 
114 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 122 here 78128A.087

t, 'W • """ Act .......... ·'FM'heAct 

en EPCRA repqtjng. As part of DmDI8inIJ toxic: .... baanIous dlenic:als as required by aec:li0llS 2(e)(i) .... 3(a)(vi) of die RO .• meeting die reporting 

requiremems of aec:li0ll 3(g) of die RO., 0ICb epru:y sIuIIl COD1inue to comply wi1h the 

provisiOllS set forth in sec:tioas 301 throu&h 313 ofdle IlmIqeDcy PIamiDa .... COIIIIIIUDity Rigbt-to-Know ACl (EPCRA), sec:tioo 6fm of die PoIluIion Prevention Act 

(PPA), all implOlllCllJling reguildiOllS, .... fUture _dments to these authorities, in light 

of applic:ahle EPA pidanoe md without reprd to die StaDdant Judustrial C1assifiCllliOll 

(SIC) or NOIth Americ:m IDdustrial ClassifiCllliOD System (NAlCS) delinemons. Each 

agency reporting UDder EPCRA sec:ti0ll313 sIuIIl do so using IDlemet reponing as 

provided in EPA's EPCRA sec:ti0ll313 guidlmc:e. 

(2) Contractor reporting.lnadditiOD, as required in sec:tiOll3(e) of the E.O., in 

CODtracIs providing for contnIctor perfOl'll8lCe at Fedcnl feciJities, each 8pIc:y shall 

indude a requiremeDt that die CODtnICtor provide die infonnaliOll needed by the Federal 

facility to comply wi1h EPCRA, PPA, mel the E.O. 

21 

Z7 
115 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 123 here 78128A.088

Section 2 

Building Industry Market Expectations 

Government Buildings 

USGBC LEED Pilot Credit 2: PST Source Reduction 

Buildings & Economic Growth 

Top Architectural Firm Introduces1t1dical Transpareni:;fto the Building Martcet 

Collaborative for High Performance Schools Materials Standards 

Testimony from Healthcare Fadllty and Designer 

Email from US Army Center for Health Promotion and PreventatiVe Medicine 

Green Buildings Rise In a Flat Economy 

louisville Charter for Safer Chemicals (adopted by many within the healthcare sector) 

New York TImes, Energy & Environment Products That Are Earth-and-Proflt Friendly 

page 28 

page 29 

page 31 

page 35 

page 38 

page 40 

page 42 

page 43 

page 44 

page 45 

Insert offset folio 124 here 78128A.089jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARING

e. u.s. GREEN ..•. B .. UllDING ...CO .. U ... N. Cil \11 £<Iv<:,,"(tl'I 

-

-

--

N 

oQ 

Featured 

GREEN IlDINGS 

FOR 

I> 

fP 

N 

GREeN ECONOMY 

DEveLOP A Or.en Bulldmg Program 

IMPLEMENT t"e LEeO Ral'"q sytlem 

!ONNECTto the Government Cammumty 

DISCOVER InnovatIve POlICY $olubons 

MEASURE S"statnab.Hty 
117 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 125 here 78128A.090

a LEED Pilot Credit Library 

Pilot Credit 2: PBT Source Reduction: DIolIIns and Halogenated Organic 

Compounda 

ThIs cred~ is available for pilot I88Ifng by the following LEED pttIjecI types: 

• New ConetrucIion 

• Core and Shell 

• Schools 

• Comrnen:iallnlerlon! 

InIIInt 

To I1I\tJce !he ""- d per8I8\Iint bIaaccUmUIatIve tmdc chamlcaIs (PSTa)1III8OCialed 

WIth !he IIfII cycle d buildrtg ma\IarIaIs. 

RequlI'IIIMIIIlII 

• Ute ma\IarIaIs II1IIIlUfacIunI wfthout added haIogenIlIed organic ~ 1 for at leaat 75% (by COlI) d !he maI8IIaI totaIe In • rnIninun d three d !he ItIIkMIng foil" 

groupe: 

• Exterior oomponenls (IncUllng at a rnInInnm. roof memm--, wateqIroofing 

r.-nbrarla. wtndow and doorframel, aicIng). 

• lnilrior IInishee (lncUIng at a minimum, 1IOoring, bale, OIIIlilg tiIe8, wall r:t1V8Iings, end window treatmenIII). 

• PIpIng, conduK and aleclrical bOxeII. 

• BUldr9-insIIIIIed aleclrical cable and wtnI jackallng. 

• HatoganaI1ed organic ~CIa c:ov&IWd In thla cradKInciJde Ihe fDIkMIng: 

• All pIaIIIca conIaInIng chIoItIe or 1IuorfAe IncIullng: o Chlorlnalad poI,.chyIene (CPS) 

o ~CIIlIaIed polyvinyl dIIoride (CPVC) o CIioroNfDnated poIyeII1ytene (CSPE) 

o Po/yd'IIon)pnIII8 (CR or ~ Nbber, also brand name N~) 

o PaIyvInyt chloride (P\IC) 

o Fluortnaled eIttyIana propylene (FEP) 

• All bromInatad or halogenated flame ratardaIII8 (BFRa and HFRa) coniaIning 

bromine, chlorine, or IIuorIne lncIullng: o PBDEs (poIy\lrominaled dipIwlyi ether), Including Deca-BOE (Decabtomod!-

p/IenyI eIher). 

o T~{TBBPA) 

o ~(H!CD) 

o TrIs(2-c:h1oroisoprop phoapI'8I8 (TCpp), 

o Trls(2-d1Ioro811ly1)phoapheIe (TCEP) 

o DechIorane Plus 

1011 
118 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 126 here 78128A.091

_ LEED Pilot Credit Library 

II8me re\8rdanIa (HFAll, including, but not IImiIIId 10, PoIybrom/IIafBd 0iphanyI ~ 

era (PBDEa) WIIIch r- no minimum IhreahokI. 

........ , Teclln ....... & SIratIIg_ 

W'lile compounda ~ ,_ than 5'110 oi tIwi pnxU:t WIIighI _ not Alqlired to 

comply willi tIwi cnICIil requiretMnIs (willi tIwi excepIIon qf HFAI), apecIfication and PIOQI'8IIIeI'1t of haIogen-fnIe minor parta is encouraged when meeI or exceed performance 

requI ..... 

ConaIder mlllallais ",. of added c:hIorfne or otIwir haIogena In all appIlcatIona which _ 

or exceed performance requiRImenIa. Options of rnaIIIriaII with I1ICb:ed PST, include, 

but are not HmiIIId 10, TPO, FPO, EPOM, and AS8 or S8S rnodIIiad bIIuInen for roof 

II1IIIIIbfm-. 

naturallIbin, 

naIInI 

poIyeIhyIene, 

linoleum, 

poIyeater 

1IIbber, 

and 

or aIIemate 

pIIint for wall 

poIymn 

CCMIIIng; 

for 

poIyeIhyIene 

IIooI1ng and ~ 

for win! & 

cabIe~; ~.IIbergIat8, HOPE, and aIuriVnum with lhannaI brWlI for windows; 

and 

1IIa8I, 

HOPE 

HOPE 

for 

and 

piping. 

IIbeIgIaee 

Cell 

for 

IrOn 

conckIlI; 

pipe 8hcUd 

and copper, 

be avaIded 

1IaeI, 

be8ad 

COIICI8Iia, 

on at 

day, 

qually 

~ 

c:oncems IIIIIOCIaIIId with manufIIcIuing pracIicee (_ TSAC PVC report). 

Conftnn Iha1I1aIogenIIed lame reIardanIlI 818 not lidded 10 aIIarnaIive pIIIIiIIc prodl£lll. 

The lin! retnant.aributea of halogellllted c:ompc:uIdI8hcUd be ~ willi Inhen!ntIy ftrel8taRllnl deaIgn or IIII8rnaIIve materiaIe appmpllate 10 tIwi fire ~ of tIwi 

producI. 

-_ ' __ ......... «<~_ ...... _ .. _ .. riI. __ (~ 

_ ....... .. ______ 

_ ... _-_ .. _ .. _ .... __ ..... -_ ril ____ ... _ __ .. - .................. ~ ..... 1'ICII1I'IdIr ... ~d .. CNdL 

2012 
119 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 127 here 78128A.092

USGBC UPDATE - March 2009 Pagelof4 

USGBC UPDATE 18,805 Members • 81,155 LEED APs 

LEED Com~1 (11 ..... Regi&1er1Id - 2,H4 Certified) Residenl;;" (&,IN R ...... nod -1,5IM Cettifiod) 

SilntJp gwW 

March 2009 

Implementing the Economic Recovery 

Plan uSGac I •• raaoun:e In the work 10 ensure green buHcllng 

Is • cornerstone of the new economy 

As federal, state and local goyernments work together to 

rebuild end re-energize our economy through the economic 

recovery paCkage, the U.S. Green Building Council is focused 

on supporting the implementation of the federal investment In 

green and energy-ellicient building. Green buikllng is among 

the comerstones of a clean energy economy. The buDdIng ____ 

Industry makes up 14.7% of U.S. GOP and uses 40% of our 

nation's energy. Greening our existing buildings would resuH in 

an eatimated savings of $160 billion in energy costs, while 

creating green jobs that can't be exported, And that's good 

news for our nation's economy. state and local government 

budgets, business bottom lines and the financial weH-belng of 

American families. 

\/\/hlle USGBC was frOnt and center in advocatlng for an 

unprecedented comm.ment to green solutions in the economic 

stimulus package recently signed by President Obama. the 

next challenge is even more welcome: serving as a resourca 

for USGBC members as they help their states and local 

communities realize the full economic and environment benefit 

of the AmeriCan Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009. 

We aU have a stake in the new green economy, and 

professionals In every sedor of the green building industry are 

well-posHioned to play a pari in the ImplementaUon of the 

federal stimulus plan. Some $9 billion is deSignated to address 

public safety and other govemment services, which may 

include school modernization, renovation and repair consistent 

with a recognized green buikling ra1ing system. For homes 

professionals, the Act provides $5 billion for the federal 

Weatherization Assistance Program, which provides 

USGBC Community 

Green _I build Updates wort.1IDpIIG.-__ 

USGBC'. Education PrcMder Prcgtam is currenlly _king _'" forg .... n 

=~nwort<ahoptoatGtMnbuWd 

!;l!>wnl.Oi!!!Jb!! call t9L~iIta!UE'DF) .. 

Education Updates 

=.!~~lss~':p~~~m:.... -pra_. _lodge of USGBC, LEED and green building 

l'!e!I.ist.r lodaJ' 

leamroolJl .. 

Industry Events 

Or-. IrtetIgonl BIAIdit!gs ConIarence, 

=;,.,V:;;!':t.""'a:'..:'iEarty-bird 

ReJli.!t!@r.to~ay .. 

3r 

]1312010 
120 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 128 here 78128A.093

assistance to low-Income families in weatherizing and 

improving the energy efflClency of their homes. " provides 

another $4 billion for the Public Housing CapHal Fund, whiCh 

provides funds to public housing agencies I)ationwlde for the 

development, funding and modemizatlon of public housing 

developments. And firms and professionals wortting wHh 

commercial and in5lRulional bUildings can look to become 

involved wHh projecls under the $5.55 bllllon granted to the 

federal General Services AdminIStration for federal buildings, 

including $4.5 billion for measures to make GSA faclilies 

"high-performance green buildings,' as defined by the 2007 

energy law. 

USGBC Is a resource for you to leam how to be a part of our 

nation's recov8f)'. 

» For IndividualS and finn.: Find Information on finding a 

graen job, using LEED Professional Accradnatlon and 

USGBC's educational ol'/erings to pos.1on yourself as an in· 

demand green wortter, and the latest news and research on a 

green-buiK economy at Y.§GBC 's g~en jOb! page . 

• For local and ataIegovammente: Leam hOW to Implement 

the economic stimulus plan at the Green~con"I!1jj;BeC:!>Y!l-'y 

Re~urces page. USGac hes created toots for exploring the 

possibilllles created by the stimulus plan and an upcoming 

stimulus Plan Implementation webcast seneB. 

_ The potential for green buHdlng to create new jobs is 

astounding: As many as 2 milHon jobs could be created under 

a green economic recovery plan envisioned by the Center for 

American Progress. In feci, according to an october 2008 

report frOm the U.S. Conference of Mayors & Mayors CHmate 

Protection Center, there were 750,000 green jobS in the U.S. 

economy In 2006 - a number projected to grow to 4.2 million 

o_the next 30 years. Ifwe all play our part, 4.2 miltion can 

be an understatement, and green jobs win lie at the heart of 

Amertca's economic revtval. 

In facl, rasearch from diverse sources examining the Interest in 

green buildings among a wide range of Amertcsns paints the 

same piclure: The Mure of our built environment clearlY 

centers on energy efficiency. water reduction. systems thet 

encourage cleaner indoor air. the usa of recyCled and more 

Page2of4 

_ .. _--_._----_. 

32-

31312010 
121 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 129 here 78128A.094

USGBC UPDA 1E - March 2009 

sustalnably developed materials, and communities that coexist 

with their environments. Across Ihe country, Americans are __ 

recognizing that sustalnabHfty is key to a prosperous Mure, 

and the trfple bottom line - environmental responsibU.y, 

economic prospertty and soCIal equHy -Is imperative as we 

move foIward. 

-- • According 10 Turner Construction Company's 'Green 

Building Barometer," 75% of commercial real estate 

executives - inCluding developers, rental building 

owners, brokers, architects, engineers and others - say 

Ihe credH crunch wUI not discourage them from building 

green. In fact, 83% said they would be 'extremely' or 

'very' Hkely to saek LEED certification for buildings they 

are planning to build within the next three years. 

• 70% of homebuyers ere more or much more inClined to 

buy a green home over a conventional home in a down 

housing market, according 10 McGrew-HiD 

Construction's 2008 SmariMarkel Report, 'The Green 

Home Consumer.' That number is 78% for Ihose 

eaming less than $50,000 a year, showing the 

Increasing accessibility of green buildings 10 atl 

members of our SOCiety. In fact. 56% of respondents 

who bOught grean homes in 2008 eam less than 

$75,000 per year; 29% eam less than $50,000. 

• More than 80% of commercial building owners have 

atlOcated fUnds to green initiatives this year, according 

10 "2008 Green Survey: ExIsting Buildings: a survey 

joinlly fUnded by Incisive Media's Real Estate Forum 

and GlobeSt.com, the BuIlding Owners and Managers 

Association (BOMA) International and USGBC. Some 

45% plan 10 increase sustainabUity Investments In 2009. 

- • LEED-certllled projects are directly lied 10 more than 

$10 biOion of green matenals, according 10 a Greaner 

World Media study on green building. That could reach 

more than $100 billion by 2020, contr1buting 10 a vibrant 

industry that could drive an economic recovery. 

• The Center for American Progress and \he Political 

Economy Research Institute at Ihe University of 

Massachusatls Amherst, in a September 2008 study, 

found that a national green economic racovery program 

investing $100 billion over to years in six infrastructure 

areas would create 2 mlttion new Jobs. The Investments 

Page3of'4 

33 

31.)12010 
122 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 130 here 78128A.095

USGBC UPDAlE - Ma1d12009 

would include retrotlHing existing buildings to Improve 

energy efficiency and Investing In wind power, solar 

power and next-generation blofuels. 

Page4of4 

To opt out of USGBC snnouncemems pltssfJupdale your USGBC person91 information by clicking IJ!!!!!.. f) U.S. Green Building Council 

1800 Massachusetts Avenue, NW Suite 30), Washington, DC 20036 

.3'1 

31312010 
123 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 131 here 78128A.096

Peddns+WiIl Launches FlI'St Chemical BlacJdist for Building Designen Pagelof2 

~ Published on GtMnBiz.oom (/itp:!lwww.greenbjz.com) 

Perkins+Wili Launches First Chemical 

Blacklist for Building Designers 

By ~ 8MftIIIIntJ C/eIIIad 2008-11-1012:50 

New York, NY - ArchitechnI design firm PerkilS+WilI has created a rlSt of 25 chemicals 

!hat we commonly used in 1he building Industry but also pose a number of health threats 

to humans IiW1d the envirorvnent. 

\MItt its new PerJ<jns+W!11 Precautionary List, the 1im is hoping to educate designers, 

8'Chitects and others in 1he WOI1d of buildilgs about 1he chemicals, their dangers IiW1d 

alternatives. Perkins+WU is also hoping !hat 1he Ii8t, which wli grow over time, wUIspu' 

1he creation of alternatives where they amII'ltly do not exist. 

"We realized that a 101 of this information is siIoed, aiIher intentionaly or not, 0 said Peter 

Syrett, associate principal at Perkina+WU IiW1d one of 1he creators of 1he list "This is .. 

attempt to take what we thought ... 1he most common questionable chemicals in our wo/t( 

as designers IiW1d identify them IiW1d a more cautious approach to using them." 

Related News & Blogs 

Mar;Png the Waste from Pizza WId Sa1dwIches tJ GreenerDesign.com Qbana's Nuclear Madness md the Fu!ure d 'Clean' Energy 

He Intel. Genera! Mills Top list of Best Cqporate CIIizens 

F'1I'lding the Gr8enest Companies in Silicon YaI!ey 

Eateries Move to Address MoUl!ans of Food end Water waste 

Each entry for a chemical on 1he fnIe, online list includes the chemleal name, its origin and 

source, a summay of its health impacts, a list of bulldng products where it's commonly 

found, altemalive materials, regulations, known IiW1d suspected health eIfects IiW1d links to 

government databases. 

Some of the chemicals on the list we arsenic, bisphenoI A, cadmium, copper, halogenated 

and brominated flame retardants, lead, mercuy, phIhaIates, polystyrene and PVC. 

"AU these chemicals have either been listed or classified on govemmant regulatory lists as 

cautionary chem leaIs, so we eat !hat as a lJ.Iidepost," Syrett said. 

Wlile government regulalions we the mininum !hat companies must comply with, more 

http://www.greenbiz.comIprint/28522 313/2010 ~ 
124 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 132 here 78128A.097

PerIrlna+Will Launc:hes First Chemical Bllddist for Building Designen 1'I8e2of2 

and more companies in vaious irO.tstries are going beyond what the law calls for by 

redesigring products to elimi'late 01' reduce cartan chemicals that have been Inset to 

health issues but are not yet regulated. One reason companies are taking that extra step 

is in anticipation of further regulation; the EPA is even calling fOr reform to the U.S.'s 

chemical law. Brand m8'l8g8l1l8nt is anoIher reason; using suspect chemical bisphenoI A, 

even in safe amounts, caused a I1.!ge badda!Ih agallst water bottle maker SIGG. 

Pressure from environmental ~ is anoIher impetuS; ~ have been l!Y!!bing 

for greerw e!actronics for some tine, and a recent report highlighted Innovations 

developed by Apple, Sony ErIc8son and oIhanI. 

The PeI1tins+VlftU list can be sean:hed by chemical name, building category (Ib flame 

retardants, heavy metals and wood additives), building clvisions and sections (ccncrete, 

masonry, finishes, etc.) and health effects. 

The list got slarted when Perkins+WII interior designer Chris Youssef was working on 

designing a cancer center end, since a cancer center would be the wonrt place to have 

unhealthy chemicals 1Inger1ng, wa1ted to avoid USing any known 01' suspected 

carcinogens. 

Now that Ihey have compiled their research on the chemicals, Pertdns+VWI hopes to make 

more designers aware of the chemical impacts end help open ~ dialogue abOI.t safer 

altematives between designers end suppliers. Youssef seid that diak9Je wiD hopefully 

lead to the creation of safer alternatives for chemicals that have no alternatives. 

"OI.r goal is a simple one, that we should not speciry products that are harmful to humans. 

animals and the environment," seid Syrett. 

Danger sign - hltD:lIwww.flickr.com/pIJtXos/a-I/ CC BY 2.0 

GreenSiz Gl'88nerBuikli.... GreanerDesjgn ArchItec:ture & Desigl G!:R'! 

Chami!l!ry & T0Xjc8 MItDIl Jgxg 

3Ca btIp:/lwww.greenbiz.com/printl28S22 31312010 
125 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 133 here 78128A.098
126 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 134 here 78128A.099

To 

a 

a 

a 

13 (',REENGUARD Csrliflt"J'illOn 

a 

or 
127 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 135 here 78128A.100
128 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 136 here 78128A.101
129 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 137 here 78128A.102
130 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 138 here 78128A.103
131 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 139 here 78128A.104
132 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 140 here 78128A.105
133 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 141 here 78128A.106

Companies Cut Costs With Sustainable Policies - NYTlmes.oom 

,ThiS ropy I~ for your personal, noncommardal use oriy. Ycu can O(de( ~ copies lor disnibuOOn to 'yourcoReagues, dient9 or OJSIOmers I'1IW8 or uaethe ·Reprlnts~ tDoIlhat appears next to any article, Visit 

www,nyfnIprintB.a:mrorsampietlandadcfrtionallnformatlon. Order 8 rapintofttQMiclenow. 

June 11,2010 

Products That Are Earth-and-Profit 

Friendly 

By SINDYA N. BHANOO 

Page lof4 

As the world's greatest soccer players take to the fields at the FIFA World Cup in South Africa, many 

are wearingjerseys made almost entirely from p1astic bottles rescued from landfills in Japan and 

Taiwan. 

It is, if nothing else, good publicity fur Nib, the maker of the jerseys and the official sponsor of nine 

teams, including the United States, Brazil and Portugal. 

Yet what many might view as a gimmick is also part of a broadening effort by the company to 

incorporate sustainability, or environmentally responsible practices, into its product design. Around 

the globe, a growing number of manufacturers are including more recyclable or biodegradable 

)mponents into products.' . 

Companies making changes run the gamut - there are furniture makers, carpet manufacturers, 

clothing retailers and makers of shampoos and household cleaners. And with big-box retailers \ike 

Wal-Martjoining in, industryana\ysts say the sustainable philosopby is no longer viewed as the 

province of high-end sellers \ike Nib or Herman Miller, the furniture maker. 

In 2008 alone, American consumers doubled their spending on sustainable products and services to 

an estimated $500 billion, according to a survey that polled more than a 1,000 people by Penn 

Schoen BerlandAssociates, a market research firm that studies the green economy. 

The movement can be confusing to navigate and goes by many monikers - ·cradle to cradle, • ecoefficiency, life cycle improvement, closed-loop production. In its most utopian furm, it enviSions a 

world in wbich all products are made from natural materials and are 100 percent reusable, 

recyclable or biodegradable, never ending up in landfill. 

At its most pragmatic, it is mainly about cutting costs - by reducing waste, se1Iing recyclable 

components and reusing byproducts \ike rubber or plastic to create a new product. For a large 

contpany, this can mean millions of dollars in annual ssvings. 

http://www.nytimes.oom/2010/06/12/buslnesstenergy-environrnent/12sustaln.html7pag... 7/27/2010 
134 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 142 here 78128A.107

Companies CUt Costs WIth SUstainable Pollcles - NYTlmes.com Page2of4 

"When sustalnabiJlty burst onto the scene, it was in the responsibility category, something that a 

company should do because it was the right thing to do,· said Beth Lester, a vice president at Penn 

Schoen Berland Associates. But noW It is equally about saving money, she said 

For example, WaI-Mart attributed more than $100 million of its 2009 revenue to a decision to 

switch to a recyclable variety of cardboard in shipments to its 4.300-Pb.1I\ stories in the United 

Stales. Now it sells the cardboard to a recycler rather than paying to ship the waste to a landfill. 

The company also sells photo frames made from its polystyrene waste and recycles plastic scraps 

leftover from producing WaI-Marl-brand diapers into material used in building newWaI-Mart 

stores. 

"It's coming from economics,· said Marc Stoiber, vice president for green innovation at the Chicagobased business consultancy Maddock Douglas. "If you look at the big guys like WaI-Mart, they 

embrace green because It's all about efficiency.· 

Matt Kistler, the senior vice president ofsustainability at WaI-Mart, agreed "Hthis was not 

financially viable, a company such as ours would not be doing it,' he said 

In its most ambitious project, WaI-Mart, after surveying more than 100,000 suppliers worldwide, 

has embarked on a yearlong effurtto tag every product it sells with information about its production 

and life cycle. 

Nike first dipped its toe into sustainability in 1993, when it began grinding up old shoes and 

donating the material and other manufacturing scraps to builders of sports surfaces, like tracks and 

basketball courts. That program continues, but the company has shifted gradually from one-of-akind initiatives to a long-term plan to "minimize or eliminate ~ substances known to be harmful to 

the health ofbiologica\ or ecologicaI systems.· 

In the last four years, the company's sustainable design group, known as Nike Considered Design, 

has brought shoes and athletic clothing to market that incorporate waste from the factory floor and a 

less toxic type of rubber. Some ofNike's clothing incorporales zippers and cords made from old 

shoes. 

The company has also reduceil. its use of solvents, the toxic glue used to cement soles to the bottom 

of shoes. 

·Our customers expect this from us,. said Lorrie Vogel, general manager ofNike's Considered 

group. "It's not about two or three green shoes - it's about changing the wsy our company dOes 

things in general." 

1:UO 

http://www.nytlmes.co111/2010/06/121buslness/energy-environment/12sustain.html?pag... 7/27/2010 
135 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 143 here 78128A.108

Companies Cut Costs With Sustainable Policies - NYTImes.com Page 3 of4 

As companies move to reduce waste and analyze the components of their products, many are 

turning to outside consultantS for help. Among the most prominent is William McDonough, coJauthor of a 2002 book called "Cradle to Cradle: Remaking the Way We Make Things.' 

He runs a COIISultancy that evaluates companies' policies in areas like toxicity, renewable energy, 

water stewardship and sustainability and awards corporations Cradle to Cradle Certification if they 

make the necessary changes. 

His firm, McDonough Braungart Design Chemistry, has worked with Nike, Herman Miller and 

Shaw, the world's largest carpet maker. Herman Miller says that 50 perrent of its revenue now 

comes from products that are Cradle to Cradle-complian1:; and it is aiming for 100 perrent. 

Shaw has collected 300 million pounds of used carpet in the last three years and reused 85 perrent 

of it. 

"I've never met one C.E.O. who said 'Give me a toxic product,' • Mr. McDonough said "But they 

need business models that are effective for them." 

Still, companies can be reluctant to make trade-offs when performance or aesthetics suffers. 

Method, a maker of household cleaning products, shuns chemicals like ammonia, bleach and 

~ates and maintains a list of earth-friendly ones. But when it C8D1e to the design of its bottles, 

'lbe company stood firm, declining to reduce the plastic content beyond a certain point because it 

believed that it would make them less visually attractive, according to a recent report in The 

McKinsey Quarterly, an onlfue business managementjoumal. 

Companies may also have to weigh a product's toxicity level against its longevity. The retailer 

Patagonia is viewed as environmentally conscious - 75 percent of the clothing it sells is recyclable -

but it has had difficulty finding nontoxic dyes. For now, Patagonia prefers to stick'with colorfast 

dyes, although not all are harmless to the earth. 

"It's super-easy to find an environmentally friendly dye that willfade in three washes,' said Jenn 

Rapp, a spokeswoman. "But a garment that lasts 20 years Is muclI more friendly than one that \ssts 

five months. " 

Even cl1ampions of sustainability say that consumers should be wary of giving companies too mucl1 

credit or accepting all of their claims. Makers of cleaning agents in particular may offer an expensive 

"green line" of offerings but leave the rest of their products untoucl1ed, some say. 

"I think the cradle-to-cradle concept is great," said Wood Turner, executive director ofClinlate 

p>unts, a nonprofit group that scores manufacturers of consumer products makers on their track 

i.l-1 ~:/twww.nytimes.oom/2010/06/12/buslness/energv~ronment/12susta1n.html7pag... 7/27/2010 
136 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 144 here 78128A.109

Companies Cut COsts With Sustainable Policies - NYnmes.com Page4of4 

records. "Th.e problem is that most companies are not as inclined to push that into all their products 

and all their brands. 

·1 have to ask, is this really just an example of green tokenism, or does it reflect deep thinking ona 

company's part?" 

~ http://www.nytfmes.COITl/20l0/06/l2/buslness!energy-environment/12sustaln.htrnl?pag... 7/27/2010 
137 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 145 here 78128A.110

Rightsllnk Printable Ucense 

THE NEW YORK nMES UCENSE 

TERMS AND CONDITIONS 

Jul27,2010 

This is a License Agreement between ChrIstIne M Morris ("You") and The New York 

TImes ("the New York nmes") provided by Copyright Oearance Center ("CCC"). 

The license consists of your order detailS, the terms and conditions provided by The 

New York nmes, and the payment terms and Conditions. 

Ucense Number 2477230897545 

Ucense date Jul 27, 2010 

Ucensed content publisher TIle New York Times 

Ucensed content publication TIle New York Times 

Ucensed content title Products That Are Eartf1-and-Proflt Fl1endly 

Ucensed content author By SINDYA N. BHANOO 

Ucensed content date 

Type or Use 

Requestor type 

geoRIghts 

Portion 

Door of copies 

~me of sponsor 

Presentation "date 

BiUingType 

Credit tard Info 

Credit Card Explratton 

Permissions priCe 

Total 

Terms and Conditions 

Jun 12, 2010 

Presentation 

For-profit 

Nortf1 American 

Full article 

3 

Howard Williams 

Jul2010 

Credit Card 

Amel1can Express ending in 1004 

09/2010 

17.25 USD 

17.25 USD 

TERMS AND CONDmONs 

PARS International Corp. (PARS), an authorized licensee to sell Copyrighted content 

on behalf of The New York TImes, grants User the non-exduslve right to reproduce 

named Content as limited to the uses listed on Page 1 of this Agreement only, 

subject to the following terms and conditions: 

1. The License is limited to the above license terms which the user has checked and 

paid for In full and does not extend to any other content from The New York TImes. 

No modiftcatlons to the permission5 on the original quote sent from PARS are ~Itted. ". . 

t( Unless specified otherwise, the Ucense extends to the text of the Content solely 

Page 10f2 

https:/Is100.copyrlghtconVApp/printableUcenseFrame.jsp?pubilsherID=7&HcenseID=20 ••• 7/27/2010 
138 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 146 here 78128A.111

Rlghtslink Printable Ucense 

and does not extend to the use of any photographs or IIlustratlons (graphics) 

included In the Content If not permitted, the user Is solely responsible fOr obtaining 

permission to reproduce any graphics 

~. The Ucense does extend to any edition publiShed speciflcally fOr the use of 

handicapped IndMduals. 

4. Payment for Ucense fees shaD be made In full at the time the order is placed. All 

sales are prepaid and flnal, there will be no refunds or aedlt Issued fOr any 

cancellatlon. 

S. User shall provide a consplOJous aedit notice as follows: "From The New York 

TImes, [date] © [year of publication] The New York TImes All rights reserved. Used 

by perrnI$Ion and protected by the Copyright Laws of the United States. The 

printing, copyfng, redisbibution, or retransmission of the Material without express 

written pennlSslon Is prohibited." The aedlt shaD accompany the flrst or last page 

of the Content and If the Content is reprinted In digital format on a Website,. user 

shall provide a link to [www.nytlmes.com]. 

6. User may not alter the Content. If licensed for a Press Release, no more than 5% 

of the Content may be omitted by ellipses provided the meaning of the Content is 

not affected. 

7. User may not use the Content to advertise products or services, sol1dt payment, 

pues, contributions, or applICatIons for membership, or endorse any individual or 

~roup for an elected office. No rights to pr1Vaty or publicity are granted and User 

must obtain any necessary permissions to publish anyone's likeness. 

8. TIle reprinted Content may not be sold, transferred, aSsIgned or rellcensed. 

9. PARS can and will revoke the Ucense If any of the terms of this agreement are 

not met in full. RevocatIon Is Immediate upon User's receipt of written cause. PARS 

also reserves the right to revoke the Ucense fOr any reason and shall reimburse the 

User a pro-rata amount of the license fee based on the period of use unless the . 

revocation Is based on User's breach of the Agreement, in which case no 

reimbursement of any license fee shall be due. 

10. User Shall Indemnify and hold PARS and The New York Times hannless for any 

third party claims arising out of or based on the use of the Content In viOlatIon of 

the limited license granted under this Agreement. 

Other Tenna and CondItIons 

vl.l 

Page 2 of2 

50 

https:/Is100.copyrlght.mm/App/PrintableUcenseFrame.jsp?publlsl1erID=7&IIcenseID=20... 7/27/2010 
139 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 147 here 78128A.112

Company Information 

Chemicals Polley 

ISO 9001:2008 Certified 

ISO 14001:2004 Certified 

Section 3 

Construction Specialties, Inc. 

2003 Governor's Award for Environmental Excellence 

Op Ed, The Hill, Green Buildings Need Safer Chemicals Policy Reform 

MBDC Cradle to Cradle Design 

Certification Overview 

Certiflcatlon CrHerla 

Material Health 

page 51 

page 54 

page 55 

page 56 

page 58 

page 59 

page 61 
140 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 148 here 78128A.113

Construction Specialties, Inc. 

Company Information 

Year the Company Started: 1948 

Ownership: privately owned 

Type of Business: manufacturing 

Products Manufactured: Interior wall protection, entrance flooring systems, expansion joint covers, sun 

controls, cubicle curtain tracks, Brilles, Acrovyn Doors, louvers, specialty 

venting, process air conditioning 

Total Number of Employees Worldwide: 1,620 

State of Corporation: New Jersey 

2009 Worldwide Sales Volume: $320 mllhon 

51 
141 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 149 here 78128A.114

Construction Specialties, Inc. 

Company Information 

Corporate Headquarters 

3 Werner Way 

Lebanon, NJ 08833 

LocatIDns 

Construction Specialties, Inc. 

49 Meeker Avenue 

Cranford, NJ 07016 

(Manufacturing and Sales) 

Construction Specialties, Inc. 

6696 Route 405 Highway 

Muncy, PA 17756 

(Manufacturing and Sales) 

Construction Specialties, International, Inc. 

3WemerWay 

Lebanon, NJ 08833 

(International Sales) 

Construction Specialties, Inc. 

CIS Eldercare Interiors 

225 Regency Court 

Brookfield, WI 53045 

(Sales) 

Data Alre, Inc. 

230 West Bluerfdge Allenue 

Orange, CA 92865 

(ManUfacturing) 

Grand Entrance 

4640 Wedgewood Blvd. 

Suite 108 

Frederick. MD 21703 

(Sales) 

CIS Construction Specialties Co. 

895 takefront Promenade 

Mississauga, Ontario L5E 20 

Canada 

(Manufacturing and Sales) 

Construction Specialties (UK) ltd. 

1010 Westcott Venture Park 

Westcott 

Buckinghamshire HP180XB 

(Manufacturing and Sales) 

C/SFrance 

135 Rue Edouard lsambard 

PACY SUR EURE CEDEX F-27UO 

France 

(Manufacturing and Sales) 

CIS Bauprofile GmbH 

Heerstrasse 74 

Heme 44653 

Germany 

(Sales) 

Cl5 Polska Sp. Z 0.0 

uf. Szczecinska 34 

Kobylanka, zachodnlopomorskle 73·108 

Poland 

(Manufacturing) 

CIS Group ltaila 

Via Carlo Cattaneo 1/3 

24030 Amblvere (BG) 

Italy 

(Sales) 

C.S. Steel SA 

CIIciana De Representaclon 

CI Alicante, SIN 

Albal, Valencia 

Spain 

(Sales) 

52.. 
142 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 150 here 78128A.115

Construction Specialties Middle East llC 

1705 Dubai World Trade center 

PO Box 9260 

Dubai 

U.A.E. 

(Sales) 

Conspec (Sinppore) Pte ltd 

298 Tlong Bahru Road 

#13~1 central Plaza 

Singapore 168730 

(Sales) 

Construction Specialties Australia Pty ltd 

Unit A7, 1-3 Endeavour Road 

caringbah, New South Wales 2229 

(Sales) 

Conspec International (HK) ltd 

Unit No. 1107 • 11th Floor TIns Centre 

n7 La! Chi Kok Rd 

Cheung Sha Wan, Kowloon 

Hong Kong 

(Sales) 

Construction Spec (Malaysia) Sdn Bhd 

39 Jalan U1!30 

Hicom Glenmarle Industrial Park 

Shah A1am, Selanger 40150 

(Sales) 

Conspec International 

22 Sol Am nuaywat, Suthisarn Road 

Samsennok, Huaykwang 

Bangkok, Thailand 10320 

(Sales) 

Constl1lction Specialties (UK) ltd 

Trident House 

175 Renfrew Rd 

Paisley, Renfrewshire PA3 4EF 

Scotland 

(Sales) 

Igor Shaykevich 

UI Noyolesnaya dom 11 kv 27 

Mosww, Russia 103055 

(Sales) 

Fabricas Elena SA. de C.V. 

K.M. 7.5 carr Presa La Amistad 

PQE Ind LA Paz 

Acuna,Coah 

Mexico 

(Manufacturing) 

C/5 Group Importadora Exportadora do Brasil 

ltda 

Rua Francisco Tapajos, 252 

04153-000 Vila Santo Estefano 

Sao Paulo -SP· Brazil 

(Sales) 

CS Bauprofile Handelsgmbh 

LAIN2ER STRASSE 11/5 

A-1130 VIENNA 

Austria 

Fabricas Elena . 

107 Johnson Blvd 

Del Rio, Texas 78840 

( Manufacturing) 

53 
143 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 151 here 78128A.116
144 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 152 here 78128A.117
145 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 153 here 78128A.118
146 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 154 here 78128A.119

Insert offset folio 155 here 78128A.120jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARING

Hr Hf HHfii tfr 

tf! LfHt: rt t 

, 

• •. f f. t{r • 1 

H lr 1 L [I f .. af ttJ rt [r f lft1Jl jJI fy; It In frtkh tH H; 

cl'-

\ 
148 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 156 here 78128A.121

Green buildings need safer chemicals policy reform • The Hill's Congress Bing Page I of2 

THE.aJ-IILL 

CTIlE:]r on ess BI 0 g 

Where Iawriiilkers oome to bIog 

Green buildings need safer chemicals policy reform 

By Howard Williams, vice president of Construction SpecIalties - 07/16/1001:39 PM ET 

We all take risks. It's a part of our everyday lives and a part of day-kHIay business. But accurately 

assessing risks and identifying safer pathe of action is not lIOIDetbing tbat ClOIlles naIurally to us. From 

consumer debt to the Gulf oil spi1I to the collapse of the 8Uto and financial sectors, we've taken risks 

wilbcut aceurately understanding the impact of our decisions. All 100 often optimism tIUmps caution. 

America faces another set of similarly impactful risks, and this time it gets really penonal-it affects 

human health. The issue is toxic chemicals in products, and the opportunity is chemicals policy reform. 

Businesses do not al\Vll}'S have me aod open access to die ioformiltion needed to make responsible 

decisions concerning chemical insredients in products. That places Americao business at a disadvantage 

because we lack the ability to economically assess the risks posed by many of the chemicals we use in 

our products. Current federa1 chemica1s policy does not requite companies to disclose chemical 

ingredients down the supply chain, forcing manufacturers to pe1form expensive chemical content 

analysis on tbar own. If nothing is done to give American manuillctunn the abi1ity to know the 

chemicals within the materials we use, we will be unable to advance !he market-driven opportunities 

presented by new, innovalive safer chemicals. America will lose this chaoce to build a stronger, more 

stable economy. 

Construction Special1ies is a privately held U.S. company tbat designs and manufactures specialty 

products fer buildings. Our enviroomenta1 conunitment is to create products that lower the 

environmental impact on the buildings !bey become part of and to -wct business in maoner tbat 

endeavOl1l to have minimal impact on our enviromnent Yet we 8R often challenged in meeting these 

goals by Ibe lack of toxicity data on chemicals and the lack of transPaRDcy on the chemicals in the 

materials we pun:base. ManufacIurers often tonftont the reality that !bey do not even know !he 

chemicals in their products, let alone whether those chemicals are safe fer human heal!h and the 

environment 

Our current regulltOIy system fer managing toxic chemicals - the 34-year-old Toxic Substaoces 

Control Act (l'SCA) bas filiied to promote !he use of safer altemalives to toxic chemicals. Fmunate1y, 

Congress is now moving to revise TSCA. Both the House and the Senllle are considering legislalion that 

would require comprehensive safety data on all chemicals in commerce. Wbile safety data is essential, 

two additional elements, Dow missing tram legislative proposals, 8R necessary to promote die use of 

safer chemicals in products. 

First, businesses need greater tnJn!lp8nlDcy on the chemicals in !he products !bey buy. Safer c:hemicals 

policy refmn should include a requirement that all products from chemical manutictureIs to final 

product manuf8ClUre1S include a chemical ingredient profile - a listing of the chemical ingredients in 5l 

http://tbebill.comIblogsicongress-bloglenergy-a.enviromnentll09279-green-buildiogs-need ... 7fl712010 
149 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 157 here 78128A.122

Gnleo buildiDl\ll need safer chemicals policy reform - The Hill's Congress Blog Page2of2 

the product. Legislatioo can be wriuen in B way to protect coofidenti.al business informatinn, yet provide 

critical information on cbemical content across Ihe business supply cbain. 

Second, Congress should also requite fiDal product manufacturers to provide consumers wilh 

iDformation on cbemicals of bigh concern in Iheir products. At B minimum, consumers should know if 

cbemicals of bigh concern to human beallh and the environman are in Ihe products Ihey purclIase. Such 

B requiJement will generate demand for safer, greener chemicals. 

We urge Ihe congressional ~ worldng on chanic:als policy reform to include business-tobusiness disclosure of chemicals and disclosure of chemicals ofbigh concern to consumers in Iheir 

proposals before the August recess. 

Chemicals policy reform, if done well, will suppm the market moveman to ssfer altemativa to toxic 

chemicals in products. Congress, aloog wilh the buildiog sector, has an opportunity to improve indoor 

air quality and Ihereby human hea11h and the environment through the greater use of inherently ssfer 

chemicals in building products. 

Howard Williams is vice presidenJ ofConstrvctlon SpecioltJe.s, a member of the &siness-NGO Worling 

GroItp (BaNGO). BaNGO Is a flTliqJIe collaboration ofbuaine&s and NGO kaders who are creating a roadmap to the widespread _ of safer dtemicals In COIfSfImer [J1'OthIcts. 

Sour\:e: 

http·llthehi1l.com/blogslcongress-bloglenergy-a-e!!Yir.oomentJl09279-green-buildings-need-saferchemica1s-poli0:-nil!m! 

The contents 0' tIIIis lite are ~ 2010 CapitDI HiI Publishing corp., ....... hI.., of N.,. CDftlmuaketlonl, Ilic. 

(Jj 

http://tbehi1l.COIIIIblogslcongresHlogIenergy-a-environmeatll09279-green-buildings-need... 7127/2010 
150 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 158 here 78128A.123

4 Material Health 

4.1 ..,."., T""..,.,."cy 

Required rri Bask;, Silver. Gold. and Platinum oertiIIcation levels. 

Applicant shalllclentlfy aU homogeneOus materials present In the nnlshed plOduct This ill 

typically done bot bnIaking the product dC7MI me .aembHee, then IlUb-awembles, then 

components, and hly into pure homogeneous matellalll. Any homogeneOus material present 

at 100 ppm or hVh« in the IInI8hed product ITU8t be reported. PVC present at ANY leYeIln the 

finished product muat be reported. 

For wood baaed producta. or for producta that use wood III a component. the souroe of that wood 

muat be ldentlfted and it should be noted _10 whether that 80Urce 1& an endangered forest 

ExaI11lle - 0ftI0e chair lab bIOken dC7Mllnto back .aembly, seat -.nIbly, tilt mechanlam, 

pneIITIatic cylnder. base, and caater8. Each -.nIbIy muat then be fUrther brobn dC7MlInlo 

.lJb.aseembIies or matel1alll. Casters would be broken clown into nylon wheel, steel axle, IteeI 

pinGe, etc. Painted 5 &tar base would be broken dC7Mllnto caat aluminum and pooMlerooal. 

Finally, each material mull be broken dC7MI into lIB COIlIItitUent ingredients. 

Sinoe material forrnIialiona are Often proprietary to the supplier. the certifying body wli enter into 

a Non-OiacIo8ure agreement and will alia<N the supplier 10 submit the ~Ient infonnallon 

directly 10 the cerIifyirQ body. Material formulations must be reported dC7MlIo !he 100 ppm level, 

howeYer the following aubltanoea millt be reported at any leye/: 

• Toxic heavy metalll auch 88 lead, men:ury. hexavalent chrome. and cadnium 

• Pigments, dyes. or other colorants 

• PhlhaIa188 

• Halogenated organlal 

For produc:ta that contain recycled content 88 an Input It Is often dftIaJIt. if not impoaslble, 10 

completely characteriZe the chemical content of the recyclate. In the case of meta .. \hils ill easier 

86 a baaic: elemental anaIyH will show what contaminants, If any. ara present. In the aBe of 

recycted plllllica. !he base reeln must be identified and a .. lytlcallesting must be done 10 

determine the preaenoe of any heaYy metalll or 0Ig8II0ha1agelWl. For paper products. rec;yclate 

millt be tested (on a qlateJly baaIII ata minimum) for !he preeenceofheaYy metalll. 

organohalogene. and chIofIneichlorlcfe. The reeutIB of ~ tIIIIIB win be UIIed In lieu of aclual 

chemical COITIpOIIIIIon. 

4.2 DetIneIIa. 8/oIof1ICM or TedInIt:M Nutrient 

Reqwed for Bask;, Silver, Gold, and PlatInum certlIIcatIon levels. 

Applicant ahaIl deftne the produc:I with ra.pec:t 10 the appropriate cycle (I. e., technical or 

biological) and all componenll shall be defined III either biological or technical nutrtenll. If the 

plOduc:t combines both technical and biological nutrients, they BhouId be dearfy martfed and 

easily separable. Thill ill more of a atrategk: criterion and therefore !hers ill 110 c:aIctI/atIon or 

mellic asaociated with it 

ElMBDC ~ .. CIiiIIIi""._"'IEDC.~",c:...&IiliiOCi'* ... __ alUIOC. 

COIIr'fIIM. 2008111' UCDoNouoH I!RAUNQAItT DeIGN CH~. LLC. AI rtgta --' 
151 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 159 here 78128A.124

Required for BasIc. Silver, Gold, and Platinum certHlcatioo level$. 

All materIaIB &haD be dlalacterlzad _ad on their ~ on Human and Envltonmental Health. 

The c:ertifying body will perform thIB evaluation once alllngredienlll ra al materIaI8 have been 

identified. The a1terIa listed on !he next page are used In the IIYBwation or th_ two Impact 

categories. 

Basad on !he ImB1pIetatton or the data for al crtterla, chemlca18 and matarlall are '8corad" fa" 

their impact upon human and environmental health. A kay fador in tta IIYBUstion is the rtak 

pre&ented by !he compollel1tfd1emlc:al, which is a camblnad meatlUl1I or ldenllfted ha%ard8 and 

routeB or IIIqI08Ure for specIIIc chemlc:ala and materials, and thalr Wended use In !he ftrishad 

product. The "aeon!" II IIIu8Iratad by !he following color echeme: 

For bath the human and enVirOnmental health crIterta, theI1I are ftrmIy eetabIIshad cutoff vak1e8 

for determining hEardII. For exBII1lIe. In the caae or Acute Toxicity (human health) any 

subltance with an oral LDso valueleea than 200 nv/kg (rat, mOUlle, guraea pig. etc) wi. be 

conaiderad acutely toxic. 

N the Balle and Sliver IeveI8, 5'16 by -Gilt or Grey -.-ad materials are slowed. Howewr, 

thoee GIay materiall must be fully ..-ad wllhln six (6) monlhe 01 certmcate r.uance or they 

will be consldlnd Red. 

4.3.1 Hu ...... tt.ItII CrIIIIrIa 

DMBDC 

The 1oI1oM1g II a list or the human health criteria used fa" subatance evaluation 

by the MBDC Cradle to Cradlew Design PrttocoL The criteria are subdlYldad Into 

PrIorIty Criteria (lII08I important I\'am a toxicological and public perception 

pIIItpIICtIve) and allier AddIIonaI CrlIBrta. Subltances thai do nat Ia8 the 

PrIorIty criteria are automatically 8OOI8d RED and I1ICOmmendad for phaseoutlreplacement. 

~ID Otod .. • "._IIfIB:lC. ~ ID OtodIoClltlilllt* ... __ IIfMIIDC. 

~. 2008 by MCDoNouGH !loA_AlIT _CHBoIsrRY, LLC. AI " ... _ 
152 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 160 here 78128A.125

ADDITIONAL 

Acute Toxicity 

Chronic Toxicity 

Irritation of Skin and 

Mucous Memblanes 

SensItIzation 

other 

Dascr1 n 

CnoIIo to C_·COrtft:alon 

Pogo 170130 

ct uctIve s em 

Potential to cause harm upon Initial. short term 

exlXlSU!'e 

Potential to cause harm upon repeated, long-term . exnoaUI88 

Potential 10 irritate eyes, skin. and respiratory system 

Potential 10 cause allergic reaction upon elCposure to 

skin or airways 

Any additional characterlatlc (e.g., llammability, skin 

penetration poIenlial, etc.) relevant 10 !he overal 

-wation 'b!.t not included In !he previous criteria 

0.2 Envlronlllllfttlll HeeItII CrIIarIa 

The following 18 a lilt of the environmental health cr'llerfa used for substance 

ewluation by the MBDC Cradle 10 Cradle- DesIgn Protocol. 

CrHiIrIa Desc:rtDtlon 

Fish Toxicity Measure of the acute tOXicity to fish (both saltwater 

and freshWater) 

Daphnia Toxicity Measure of the ac:e tCIKICity to Daphnia (Invertebrate I aauatic omanlsms 

I Alaae T oxicitv Measure of the acute toxicitv to aaUalic IlI8ntS 

DMBDC 

Persl8lencel Rate of degradation fOr a sub8tance in !he 

environment (air soU orwater) 

BIoaocumulation i Potential': a substance to aocumuiate In fatty tissue 

and maon' , uo!he food chain 

Climatic Relevance . ~easure oft~ a sublltance has on the climate 

e.o, ozone n. oloblll wmnlna. etc.) 

other Any additional characteristic (e.g., soil organism 

toxicity. WGK water clas8lllcalion. etc.) relevant to the 

owraU evaluation but not included in the previous 

criteria 

CnoIIo 

~ 

to~·Io. _daale. CnoIIotoCnollo &iiiId'* 10. _ .-ClMIIDC. 0 200II br McDoNOlJOl.i BllAlJNGART IleIGN CHeMsrR't, u.c. ,.",..,. __ 
153 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 161 here 78128A.126

CIodleto~· ee_. Poge 180130 

4.3.3 Matar\8I C'" CrIW\a 

The fottCMing maIIIriaI cIas8es are scored REO due to the coneem that at some 

pokIt in their Ire cycle they may have negative Impac18 on him .. and 

environmental health. In the case or organohaIogena, they tend to be peralatent, 

bIoaccumulat!Ye, and toxic, or can form toxic by..produc:ta if inmerallld. 

ernerta DucrfDtlon 

Organohalogen Presence or a carbon - halogen (I.e., c:hIorIne, 

Content bromine or ftllOnnel bond 

Heavy Metal Content Presence or a toxic heavy metal (e.g., Antimony, 

Anlenic, Beryllium. cadmhm, Chromium. Cobalt. 

Lead, Mercury, Nk:ke~ etc.) 

4.4 .1IfWIIII Avoidance 

The fOHowhg tabIee list etbItancea lI1at will imPact a proclIct'e abtllty to ~ certIIicaIIon: 

Substance Silver BuJc PnmIbIted for 

Name Level Level certification 

Halcgennod HaIOg ..... Halcgera1lod h~ PVC or other_""". 

hydrocarbana hJd.-bon __ nt rx-tat 1000 ppm or fium the PVC f1unIy ...... 

IM8 than 1000 ppm, or ~ ..... .nyooncenlnltion. 

...--ofnaoH>BOE 

baaad brominaIBd flame re1IIrdllnta that ... 

JIIIIIIbd III ITI8IIt currant llammabilily ....... ...t far which __ , .. 

NO.vdlbIa 

.lIBmatlwa 

L .. d, MeraR)I, Uninllmllonal or ToIallladqJound Talal t.c:IqpoWld 

Cacbium. "baCkgrourd __ mhIIIOn of .. 4 can __ mination of lUI)' 8IngIe 

Chrome VI ___ ton" a1lowBd .-100 ppm _ICIng •• ..... """ In ...... of 100 •• Iong _ toIaI 110 elngloo ..... """ ppm. (or 1000 ppm far 

~of"'4 ........ 100 ppm. (For -1.1 . ~doeanot ....... .no,.. 1Iia !mit • __ 100 ppm. No 1000 ppm). Any in1llntl ..... y .... 

~_"""can .mount 1h.t 18 not Meded __ 50 ppm. (For Imtnlianally IIddad b fllchriclll perbmanca. 

me". thill Hrril18100 .............. Iowad 

ppm) __ far_ ... , 

pertilflmnca and far wi*'" 

ImtnttonaUy eddod Ihent ia 110 readily .~nont 

............. doWed rauIa of.,....,.... • _neadedtor 1IIc:II1Ic8Iparfo __ 

and far which ..... Ioo. 8)'IIIIm In place III IoIep 

the ma1atIaIln • doad 

Iaop. 

NOTE - T eeting fOr heavy metals Win be required fOr all materials coming ftom n90ns of the 

work! ehooMl to have heavy metal conbWnlnation iaaues or coneema. 

DMBDC ~ .. a..·"._oI~~"QadIo&liiiiiMf*Io. __ oI-X:. 

CopyrtghI 0 20118 by McDoNoUGH IlRAIA«WIT DEllGN CIEMSTRY, Llc;. AI .............. 
154 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 162 here 78128A.127

4.5 

Required 10r BasIc and Sliver. 

Once all problematic components have been idenIifted (La thoee aub81ance8 ..-ed RED 

baaed on the aiterIa listed previously). the applicant rrIIIt cornmt to the eventual phaeeout/rep/acerralt of u-e IIUIletances. AppIcant wi. have Iix (6)--to develop a lllJategy (In 

conjundlon with the certifyi~ body or independently). complete with buCIget and timeline. for the 

ph_ out/optimization of "-Inpula The implementation of thll plan wi. be subject to an 

annual nwiew to judge whether or nat suftIcIent progreaa has been made to melt continued 

Cradle to Cradle certIIIcatIon. 

For producIB c:ontainl~ wood. if that Y«Iod llsoun:ed from an endangered forest there rrIIIt be a 

atrategy developed for 8OU'Cing that Y«Iod from a non-endangered foreat. 

.f.' Product FomIuIllflon 0pfIm1zed 

Required for Gold and Platinwn. 

ApplIcant must dernonSIrate that all Red -.d materialBlcherTicalB have been phaaed out of 

the formulatlOll. 

For produds containing Y«Iod this rMan8 that none of the Y«Iod can be aoun:ed fnlm an 

endqered fofllSl 

4.7 CnIdIe.., Ctat/le0 Emialon StiIIndlJI'rIs 

Required for Gold and PIatInwn. 

Applicant 8haH demonstrate co~nce with the Cradle to Cradle- erriaalon standada. ~Ich are 

defined • the folowfng: 

• TVOC <0.5 rrYiJIm" 

• IndMdual voCe < 0.01 TLVor MAl< VIIIua (whic/wver ill '-'I 

• No detectable voca that are conaldered tcnown or -.pec:ted ca-cinogtlll8, endocrine 

dllruptora. mlAagere. reproducllve toxlna. or teraIogena. Baaed on the lab ~n to . do the work what is coneIdeAld .1lOIHfetect" may vary. For the purposea of this 

certHIcaIIon. anything belcHi 2jJQ/m". However, In the CIB8 of formaldehyde, It ill 

Wtually l~bIe to achl_ thlalevel • arrtient air tenda to have concentratlone 

higher than th ... Therefore we have adopIed the CaIlfomIa 01350 standard of onehalf the REL of33jlglm"or 16.5jlglm".thethre8hold Iinit. 

• Time Po/nIB - 7 days for TVOCe and IVOCe 

• loadll'Cl Scenartoa - BIFMA M 7.1 fOr olllce fUrniture and CalIfomta Department of 

Health Services (eeclion 01350) for eYeIYIhfng else. 

laba approved for teeting Include Berkeley Analytk:al AasocIate8, MAS. AQS. ForinIek, and 

Sy~ lJnI¥eraIty. All tesll~ ladone accorllir'CI to ASTM 05116 for smaM dlamber. ASTM 

06670 for large chamber. and BlFMA M 7.1 for oIIIce furniture. 

aMBDC eo.a .. ClotiI"'·Io._dlBlC.~"eo.a&iiiOd'*Io. __ alMIIDC. 

CoP\'ItahI 0 20081>y McOcNouoH IIRAUNOART Del .... CHeMIstRY, u.c. All rlglllo .-.-I 
155 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 163 here 78128A.128
156 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 164 here 78128A.129
157 

Mr. RUSH. The Chair now recognizes Dr. Mitchell for 5 minutes. 

TESTIMONY OF MARK MITCHELL 

Dr. MITCHELL. Thank you, Chairman Rush, and members of the 

Committee. My name is Dr. Mark Mitchell, I am a public health 

physician and I became concerned about—when looking at the 

rates of disease, I became concerned about the increase in the number of diseases that are related to the environment as opposed to 

other diseases which were declining. We saw an increase in those 

related that are related to the environment. So that is why I have 

formed the Connecticut Coalition for Environmental Justice, and I 

am the President of that, and also I am a member of the National 

Work Group for Environmental Justice Policy. We work with environmental justice communities which are communities that are low 

income, communities of color that are just proportionally burdened 

with environmental hazards and also have increased rates of disease from these environmental hazards. 

I would like to talk a little bit about the exposure to these hazards throughout the chemical life cycle from extraction of chemicals, to production, to distribution, use, disposal, and legacy exposure to these chemicals. And I will talk a little bit more about what 

that is. H.R. 5820 goes a long way toward addressing the environmental justice concerns throughout the life cycle, the chemical life 

cycle. 

The first part of the chemical life cycle is the extraction. And 

these include mining communities, but also places like along the 

Gulf Coast where people are being exposed today to oil spills that 

are washing up on their shores, and being exposed to chemicals 

from the oil as well as the dispersants that are used to disperse 

that oil. There are also a number of production communities such 

as Mossville, Louisiana and Louisville, Kentucky that have many 

chemical plants as well as other industrial facilities that are exposing residents to chemicals on a daily basis. And in these communities they have exceptionally high pollution rates. Rates that I believe would not be allowed in more affluent communities other than 

Mossville and West Louisville. And we are seeing very sick people 

in these communities. For example, we have a 30 year old that has 

a heart attack in the community. We are seeing clusters of Lupus, 

large numbers of hysterectomies, depression even, and premature 

death. These are communities that I would consider to be hotspots. 

And hotspots is a provision that is a new provision in this bill that 

would require that these communities reduce their pollution. 

The next phase of use of chemicals of the life cycle of chemicals 

is the use phase. Low income communities are even more exposed 

than other communities to hazards in everyday products. For example in about a year ago in Connecticut we started testing toys 

for lead. And what we found is that toys from discount stores such 

as ‘‘dollar’’ stores were more likely to contain lead than other toys. 

And these are the things that are exposing low income people to 

these toxics in the toys. We are also concerned about legacy chemicals and legacy chemicals are chemicals that have out used—have 

gone past their useful life but are still—people are still being exposed to these kinds of chemicals. For example, PCB’s TSCA 

banned PCB’s in the late 1970’s. However, people are still being exVerDate Mar 15 2010 04:32 Apr 03, 2013 Jkt 078128 PO 00000 Frm 00163 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 E:\HR\OC\A128.XXX A128

jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
158 

posed to PCB’s in the Bedford, Massachusetts for example they 

have two schools that are built on an old dumps that are still contaminated with PCB’s. I am working with some of the housing developments that may also be built on this same dump. It is not 

clear right now, but the residents complained that when their children go out and play in the dirt that they get rashes, and rashes 

are one of the—are a potential issue that can be found with PCB’s. 

Also, H.B. 5820 requires a health based standard and includes 

aggregate exposure from all sources. And it consider—but it can 

consider the life cycle of chemical exposure and cumulative exposure. This is important to environmental justice communities since 

risk assessment has served environmental justice communities 

poorly. So in summary, we believe that this legislation goes far in 

addressing a number of environmental justice issues. We would 

like to see the bill passed out Committee this year, and I would 

like to thank you, Mr. Chairman for inviting me to this hearing. 

And I am certainly willing to answer questions later. 

[The prepared statement of Dr. Mitchell follows:] 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
159 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 167 here 78128A.130

Testimony by Mark A. Mitchell M.D., MPH 

before the 

Subcommittee on Commerce, Trade, and Consumer Protection 

House Committee on Energy and Commerce 

in SUPPORT ofH.R. 5820, 

The Toxic Chemicals Safety Act of2010 

July 29, 2010 

Good Morning Chainnan Rush and members of the Subcommittee. My name is Dr. 

Mark Mitchell. I am a public health physician who became concerned about the link 

between environmental factors and poor health outcomes in communities of color and 

low income communities of all races. I was previously the Director of Health for the 

City of Hartford, CT and before that, the Deputy Director of the Kansas City, Mo Health 

Department. I am appearing before you as the founder and President of the Connecticut 

Coalition for Environmental Justice and a founding member of the National Work Group 

for Environmental Justice Policy, a group of over a dozen environmental justice 

organizations concerned about chemical policy on the national, state and local levels. 

We define environmental justice (EJ) communities as low-income communities and 

communities of color that are disproportionately burdened with environmental hazards 

and suffer disproportionately from environmentally related diseases. Environmental 

justice strives to correct this imbalance while reducing hazards for everyone by changing 

environmental policies and practices. 

Environmental justice communities are deeply impacted by national chemical policies. 

We have higher rates of environmentally related diseases such as asthma, diabetes, 

learning disabilities, cardiovascular disease and premature death. This is due to 

disproportionate chemical exposure during the production, distribution, use, and disposal 

of chemicals, as well as from legacy exposure to chemicals. H.R. 5820, The Toxic 

Chemicals Safety Act of 201 0, goes a long way toward addressing environmental justice 

issues throughout the chemicallifecyc1e. 

Health protections are based on how people are actually exposed to toxic chemicals 

We are encouraged that the bill requires the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to 

set a standard for safety that takes into account aggregate exposure (exposure from all 

sources) as well as to consider the lifecyc1e of a chemical and cumulative exposure 

(exposure from chemicals that have similar health effects). This approach is critically 

important since the traditionally narrow use of risk assessment has often poorly served EJ 

communities. This is due to unpredicted exposures and false assumptions included in the 

assessments. A better approach is to use hazard assessment, which looks at toxicity of 

any chemical where there is human exposure and tries to reduce the hazard from the 

chemical rather than reduce the anticipated exposure to a toxic substance. 
160 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 168 here 78128A.131

H.R. 5820 offers new hope for "Hot Spot" communities of high chemical exposure 

When one looks at the beginning of the chemicallifecycle, chemical production, we find 

that some environmental justice communities such as Mossville, Louisiana and West 

Louisville, Kentucky are surrounded by large numbers of chemical plants, including 

plastic manufacturers. These facilities have needlessly released exceptionally high 

amounts of toxic chemicals into the air. We refer to exceptionally exposed communities 

such as these as "hotspots". These "hotspot" production communities have high rates of 

disease and premature deaths. Unlike Mossville, West Louisville residents have been 

able to get government to respond to their concerns and establish an area wide air toxic 

standards program, the Strategic Toxic Air Reduction (STAR) Program. This program 

has been able to get companies to reduce air toxics by more than 80% in some cases, 

through modernization and improved maintenance of the facilities. 

I believe that these facilities would not have been allowed to perform so poorly in the 

first place if they were located in more affluent communities. I also believe that these 

facilities should be converted to producing the safer plastics that the public is demanding 

by using green chemistry. This would put them in the forefront of plastics production, 

help preserve jobs, spur economic development and improve public health in these 

communities. 

In Connecticut, we also have a number of mostly small chemical production and 

formulation facilities. Public health officials are generally unaware of what is being 

produced at these facilities and what needs to be done to protect public health in the event 

of a chemical release. 

The "Hot Spots" provisions in the new bill are strong and require EPA to name at least 20 

communities in the first five years (with subsequent updates), and to develop "Action 

Plans" for EPA, state, tribal, and local governments to reduce specific chemical 

exposures from all sources by a date certain or report to Congress why it has failed to do 

so. 

In addition to production, environmental justice communities are also at risk due to 

distribution and storage of chemicals. This is true not necessarily because of increased 

number of accidents on urban highways and chemicals stored on stationary trains in 

cities, but because of the large number of people in close proximity who may be harmed 

when there is an accident. 

H.R. 5820 will reduce the unnecessary use of toxic chemicals in everyday products 

The next area of concern to EJ communities in the chemical life cycle is in use of 

chemicals. Although everyone is exposed to toxics during normal use of products 

containing toxic chemicals, urban low-income residents are more likely to be exposed to 

hazardous chemicals from these products. For instance, leaded wheel weights that are 

used to balance tires sometimes fall off the tires onto busy roadways where they are 

pulverized by other cars rolling over them. The lead dust gets into the air where it is 

2 
161 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 169 here 78128A.132

inhaled by local residents. This lead is in addition to lead from chipping and peeling 

paint in rental housing and the lead from lead containing toys that children may be 

exposed to. Last year, our organization conducted testing for lead in toys. We observed 

that toys from discount stores such as "dollar" stores were more likely to contain lead 

than toys from other stores. 

In my neighborhood, there are many small bodegas selling food. These stores do not sell 

fresh fruits or vegetables so residents are more exposed to Bisphenol A and other 

chemicals commonly found in canned and processed foods. Again, this is in addition to 

the BPA exposure that occurs from contact with polycarbonate plastics found in everyday 

use. 

H.R. 5820 will help detoxify waste disposal impacts by encouraging cleaner products 

Another area of environmental justice concern is the disposal of products containing toxic 

chemicals. The report, Toxic Waste and Race at Twenty, released in 2007, documented 

that EJ communities are still more likely to be located near hazardous waste disposal sites 

twenty years after the original report. In Connecticut, we bum a larger percentage of 

municipal solid waste than any other state in the nation. The two largest waste-to-energy 

facilities in the state, which are the fifth and eleventh largest incinerators in the country, 

are located in our two largest and poorest cities, Bridgeport and Hartford. The Hartford 

incinerator burns trash from 69 other communities brought to our city by 300 trucks per 

day. We believe that the toxic emissions from these facilities are responsible for the 20% 

asthma rates as well as high rates of diabetes and cancer in the city. Our organization has 

been involved in educating consumers to use less toxic alternatives in order to reduce our 

exposure to toxic chemicals. 

H.R. 5820 will assess safety across the entire chemical life cycle from all sources 

The final area of concern in the chemical life cycle that I would like point out is that of 

legacy chemicals. These chemicals are no longer in use, but are still accessible and 

poisoning people in environmental justice communities. These include persistent, 

bioaccurnulative, and toxic chemicals (PBTs), such as mercury and lead, as mentioned 

before, as well as other toxics that are commonly found in contaminated Brownfield 

properties, such as trichloroethylene (TCE), hexavalent chromium, and polychlorinated 

biphenyls (PCBs). New Bedford, Massachusetts has two schools built on an old dump 

contaminated with PCBs. In addition there are about one dozen other sites in the city 

contaminated with PCBs decades after the chemical was virtually banned under TSCA. 

Yet public housing residents still complain that their children get rashes after playing in 

the dirt, which is likely contaminated with PCBs. 

Persistent chemicals travel long distances on wind and ocean currents from lower latitudes 

and accumulate in the bodies of animals and peoples of the Arctic. Some Arctic Indigenous 

peoples have shown levels of chemicals such as PCBs in blood and breast milk at levels 

among the highest of any people on Earth. Arctic communities have high levels of PCBs and 

dioxins in their bodies, partially because of direct exposure from contaminated military and 

3 
162 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 170 here 78128A.133

industrial sites, but mostly because ofbioaccumulation of these toxics in their traditional 

diets offish, seal, whale and walrus fat carried into the north from hundreds and thousands 

of miles away-.Levels measured in the traditional foods on St. Lawrence Island, Alaska are 

exceptionally high. People on St. Lawrence Island are concerned about the high rates of 

cancer, thyroid disease, and reproductive health problems. 

H.R. 5820 properly prioritizes action on the worst of the worst toxic chemicals 

In H.R. 5820, chemicals of environmental justice concern are handled in two groups. 

Persistent, bioaccumulative and toxic chemicals (PBTs), such as lead and mercury are 

required to be reduced to the "greatest extent practical", and then to determine if further 

steps should be taken to reduce exposure. Other non-PBT chemicals ofEJ concern, such 

as TCE, formaldehyde, and Chromium VI are among the 19 named chemicals on the 

priority list for EPA to determine their safety and required restrictions. The naming of 

these chemicals is very important to EJ organizations. Other priority chemicals are BP A, 

vinyl chloride, phthalates, and perchlorate. 

Chemical standards must protect the public and vulnerable populations to a "reasonable 

certainty of no harm," which is a sufficiently protective standard. The definition of 

vulnerable popUlation includes disproportionately exposed or potential for 

disproportionate adverse effects from exposure. It includes infants, children, adolescents, 

pregnant women and their fetuses, elderly, those with preexisting medical conditions, and 

others identified by the administrator based on socioeconomic status, race, ethnicity, 

culturally influenced dietary or other practices. Biomonitoring studies of the public must 

be done by the federal Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) or of workers, 

by NIOSH rather than by the chemical company. 

Conclusion 

In summary, H.R. 5820, if adopted in its current state, will go far in addressing 

environmental justice issues with chemical policy. We would like to see the bill advance 

out of committee this year. Thank you for this opportunity to speak, Mr. Chairman. I am 

available to answer any questions that the committee may have. 

4 
163 

Mr. RUSH. The Chair now recognizes Ms. Bosley for 5 minutes. 

TESTIMONY OF BETH BOSLEY 

Ms. BOSLEY. Thank you, Chairman Rush, Ranking Member 

Whitfield, and members of the Subcommittee. 

Mr. RUSH. Would you pull it closer to you? 

Ms. BOSLEY. Certainly. I am pleased to testify before you today 

on behalf of the Society of Chemical Manufacturers and Associates. 

SOCMA has about 300 members and we make a $60 billion impact 

on the U.S. Economy. We also contribute to the chemical industry’s 

status as one of the nation’s leading exporters. We are very proud 

to say that we have an excellent track record with respect to health 

and safety of our colleagues, our workers, and our communities. We 

have testified before this Subcommittee before and we have also 

participated in the discussions that you have had recently on the 

discussion draft. We commend you for those discussions and believe 

they improved the draft bill. 

On balance, however, we are disappointed that the bill before us 

today still creates a burden which far—is far out of proportion with 

the benefit. The burden is not just a matter of profitability. It will 

deal a heavy blow to a strategic American industry that is already 

fighting recession and foreign competition. Among its goals for this 

legislation Congress seeks to and I am quoting here from the bill 

‘‘assist in renewing the manufacturing section of the United States 

and ensure that the products of the United States remain competitive in the global market.’’ 

Mr. Chairman, we believe that to the contrary this bill would 

face—this bill would in fact pose a great competitive disadvantage 

to the industry and would cause a reduction in manufacturing employment and a shift in our factories to foreign shores would accelerate. The chemical industry already fights hard to compete with 

countries that have cheaper resources, lower wage standards, and 

more lax regulation. We don’t have to look far to find examples of 

public health concerns about tainted food or lead in children’s toys 

as we have already heard about. That is the risk of encouraging 

manufacturing to migrate from our shores and far away from the 

protections of robust American regulation. Congress recognizes the 

importance of innovation and U.S. competitiveness as well as in 

achieving the aims of the bill through continual evolution towards 

safer and less toxic chemical substances. 

The U.S. chemical industry leads the world in research on approved manufacturing process and safety advancements to minimize the impacts of chemicals on human health and the environment. It is important, more important than ever that we maintain 

our lead on innovation. Chemistry as an enabling technology allows 

other industries such as aerospace, electronics, and advanced materials to be cleaner, greener, and more competitive, and it is not 

enough to do the product innovation in the United States. We need 

to do the manufacturing also. Here I am quoting Matt Miller of the 

Center of American Progress. Miller quotes former Intel CEO Andy 

Grove who says manufacturing is the only way to gain the handson experience with products that leads to all subsequent innovations. Surrender the manufacturing and you lose this virtuous 

cycle. 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
164 

Speaking for the members of SOCMA we are concerned that the 

burdens created in H.R. 5820 will indeed drive innovation and 

manufacturing from our shores. The following points highlight our 

major concerns and recommendations. For many industrial chemicals the safety standard in this bill creates a new burden without 

a benefit. The standards we use to regulate drugs which are intended to be bioactive, and food additives, which are intended to be 

consumed, should not be the model for how we regulate industrial 

chemicals. These chemicals often serve only as contained intermediates during the production of other products. The bill as written would impose unnecessary burdens and cost even on low risk, 

low volume chemicals. New chemicals and new uses would be subject to a yearlong review which would discourage the introduction 

of new chemicals and new applications of existing chemicals into 

the marketplace. The current new chemicals program which involves a 90 day review has generally received broad support. 

Through this program EPA has successfully reviewed 45,000 new 

chemicals protecting and informing the public without impeding 

the innovation that is crucial to American competitiveness. EPA’s 

use of models in the evaluation of new and existing chemicals 

should be encouraged since they have proven to be an accurate and 

efficient alternative to animal testing. An important—an improvement to the new—current new chemicals program would include 

modifying the approach to CBI such that the use of PMN data isn’t 

permitted within EPA to review other new chemicals and as well 

as existing chemicals. 

Based on yesterday’s revision that we received of the bill, it appears that Congress intends to eliminate mixtures from review 

under section five. We support this revised approach since the inclusion of mixtures would present an extremely high burden for the 

industry and for EPA for mixtures that may not even have a risk. 

But we need to study the implications of the narrow redaction of 

mixture language before commenting further. H.R. 5820 has no 

preemption of state regulation regarding chemicals on which EPA 

has already reached a safety determination. Congress should consider a preemption to avoid disruption of interstate Commerce from 

potentially conflicting state laws. Protection of American intellectual property is weakened by this bill. By disclosing chemical identity in all health and safety studies, we in effect hand our innovation to foreign competitors with a long history of low quality copycat products. It is possible to fully inform the product—the public 

about health and safety information without publicly disclosing 

proprietary aspects of a particular chemical. This reflects our 

broader recommendation that EPA should be made the agency 

charged with making unbiased science based safety determination 

regarding chemicals. Let me be clear. SOCMA members are passionately committed to the public health, the protection of public 

health and the environment. We believe its legitimate role of Congress to weigh economic impact such as potential job loss against 

policy objectives. However, we respectfully contend that the government must avoid creating an unnecessary burden as would be the 

case with H.R. 5820. We understand the complexities associated 

with modernization TSCA and believe our chemicals policy goals 

can be accomplished in a way that does not devastate a strategic 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
165 

American industry. Thank you for the opportunity here and I 

would be happy to answer any questions. 

[The prepared statement of Ms. Bosley follows:] 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
166 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 174 here 78128A.134
167 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 175 here 78128A.135

mOO 
168 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 176 here 78128A.136

1M tG§ I sa.a: 
169 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 177 here 78128A.137

TU? 

RR. 5820 has 110 stale prc'ClIlptioll for chemicals lor which EPA hos concluded the 

exhaustive reViC\V that bill envisions. \Vltl1001 some kind of preemption, a 

potential t(lf dismplion of interstate commerce will remain from a gro\\'ing patchwork of 

state la\1\"s. 

It Prott;ction of American intellectual 

\Ve understand the complexities associated with 1TI0dcrni;:ing TseA and believe our 

and 

and 

goals can be accomplished in a \Va)." that docs not devastate a strategic industry, 

enhance public confidence <lnd protection of human health and the environment. 

I thank you lor this on11mlur,itv tn share our perspective 011 this bill and some of its potential 

consequences, and be hllPPY to anS\Vef your questions. 
170 

Mr. RUSH. The Chair indeed thanks all the witnesses. And now 

it is time for the questioning of the witnesses by members of the 

Subcommittee. And for that purpose the Chair recognizes himself 

for 5 minutes for the purposes of questioning the witness. And I 

will begin with Dr. Denison and Mr. Williams. 

And my question to you is, Dr. Denison, you said in your testimony that H.R. 5820 will spur innovation and protect American 

jobs. Can you explain in light of your statement, and in light of 

some of the testimony we have heard today some of the exact feelings expressed—in your expounding in your statement in light of 

some of the anxiety that has been expressed about the bill’s potential impacts on job retention and creation. Can you express—expound on your position on the retention and creation of jobs in regard to this bill? 

Mr. DENISON. Yes, Mr. Chairman. Thank you. The U.S. has fallen well behind much of the rest of the world in its chemicals policies and practices. And I think that one of the things that this bill 

will do is to raise the standards in the U.S. to those of other areas 

of the world including the major markets of the chemicals industry. 

The motivation behind the improvement in those standards in 

other parts of the world has been as much to promote sustainability and create a more sustainable chemicals industry as it has 

to protect health and the environment. And I fear that the industry 

in this country right now is in a similar place to where the auto 

was a decade or more ago where it fails to recognized where the 

rest of the world is going and where its own markets are going. We 

need to have therefore, an industry that is driven toward innovation, yes, but innovation that includes safety as a critical, central 

element of that innovation. I couldn’t say it better than a member, 

a representative from DuPont, one of ACC’s companies that said in 

response to the REACH regulation in Europe that they would— 

they as a company that invested heavily in R and D and innovation 

saw REACH as a business opportunity to innovate the new chemicals that would be restricted under REACH, and be out ahead of 

the current in terms of creating the jobs, and creating the new 

products that will satisfy the growing demand globally for safer 

chemicals. 

Mr. WILLIAMS. Chairman Rush, to answer that question from my 

viewpoint, seven years ago when I began doing as much research 

as I could on this subject, I found in answer to a Google search how 

many people in America will buy environmentally preferable products. At the time and it is somewhat a smile to the face, it was approximately seven percent. And the person that put that information together said it is roughly equivalent to those who will vote 

for Ralph Nader is a Presidential Election. Today similar research 

says it is approaching 58 percent. Two years ago McGraw Hill did 

a smart reports survey where they said that environmentally preferable building products had reached the tipping point. We are an 

international company. We know that when we can put our products from here into the UK and into Europe where the buying preferences are to have environmentally responsible product and most 

especially the word you hear more often in Europe is PVC. You 

hear it, but you also note that they are not currently buying materials that are free of PVC. Our materials here that we are able to 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
171 

put together are preferable not just here in the United States, but 

also in Europe. And I think the definition of green jobs needs to 

change. I recently received a survey, fill this out; help me understand green jobs for Pennsylvania. I cannot answer that survey by 

answering the questions. I am going to have to footnote that survey 

because it talks about solar, it talks about renewable energy. That 

is such a limited view. We as a company are putting our products 

out into an architectural market that is asking for environmentally 

preferable products and responsible products. And they are reaching toward us and pulling that product almost literally off of our 

shelves. They are green jobs that we are adding every day to our 

business. And as the businesses in Michigan, and as the businesses 

in other states supply us with product, green jobs that are heretofore defined as different jobs, less defined as green jobs. These 

jobs are growing on a day to day basis here in the United States. 

Mr. RUSH. Thank you. Dr. Mitchell, your organization defines environmental justice communities as ‘‘low-income communities and 

communities of color that are disproportionately burdened with environmental hazards and suffer disproportionately from environmentally related diseases.’’ Do you agree that this legislation will 

mark a tremendous step forward in restoring public trust in the 

American chemical industry and in EPA’s ability to protect human 

health and the environment, and do you think that this bill will go 

a long way towards correcting some of the issues that are found in 

hotspots across the nation? 

Dr. MITCHELL. Absolutely, Mr. Chairman. I think that people expect that government is going to be protecting them. When they go 

into a store and buy things off the shelf they expect that they are 

going to be safe. And they don’t know that there is a safe product 

right next to a more dangerous product. For example, if you are 

looking at cleaning products. I think that this legislation will help 

to take more dangerous products off of the shelves, you know when 

there is a safer alternative. And also people will know what is in 

the products that they buy, and I think that that is very, very important. And environmental justice communities, you know we are 

very concerned about that and also we sort of put our members at 

risk. For example there are companies that are suing communities 

that are interested in finding out about the health effects of their 

violations, of their state violations of contracts specifically like in 

Mesquite, New Mexico. You know Helena Chemicals is suing the 

company. I think that that won’t be necessary under this new bill 

that if government really can protect the public, I think that that 

will be very helpful. 

Mr. RUSH. That concludes the Chairman’s time. Chair now recognizes Mr. Whitfield for 5 minutes. 

Mr. WHITFIELD. Thank you very much and thank you all for your 

testimony. I noticed that one of the findings in this legislation relates to creating jobs that this legislation can help create jobs. And 

Mr. Williams you eluded to that and I think Dr. Denison, you indicated that the chemical policies and practices in the U.S. were not 

as progressive as they were in the rest of the world. And the point 

that I would make is if we were creating all these green jobs, then 

why is our unemployment rate still at almost 10 percent? And why 

is the unemployment rate in most countries in Europe greater than 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
172 

in the U.S. if what you are saying is this kind of progressive legislation will be creating jobs? Now that is a little aside to the real 

purpose of this legislation, but I don’t think we should be trying 

to sell this legislation on the fact that we are going to create a lot 

of jobs with this legislation. Mr. Dooley, is this legislation, do you 

expect this legislation to create jobs in your—in the members of 

your association? 

Mr. DOOLEY. No, absolutely not. And we are absolutely convinced 

that it would result in a significant reduction and the ability of the 

U.S. manufacturers and the chemical industry to continue to be the 

international leader at bringing new innovations and new products 

and maintaining our manufacturing base here in the United 

States. And you know I find it remarkable that Mr. Denison would 

say that somehow the U.S. chemical industry is falling behind. In 

the United States last year one out of every 10 patents that was 

issued in this country was issued to the chemical and chemistry industry. We are by far the leader of any chemical industry internationally in terms of the new innovations that we are bringing to 

market. When we see a consumer demand for a safer alternative, 

it is going to be our industry that is going to be the forefront in 

meeting that consumer demand. And when you look at the provisions in this, when you look at the safety standard that would require somebody that might have a new, maybe it is an advanced 

solar cell that has a chemical that just might be on the—subject 

to a safety determination, before they could bring that, you know, 

green product that could increase our energy efficiency and energy 

security, they would have to go out and identify every other product in the marketplace that had that same chemical in it. They 

would also have to analyze every ambient exposure to it be in the 

air, water, and soil before they would even have the chance to demonstrate that they could meet that reasonable certainty of no harm. 

If you think that this is somehow going to create jobs in the United 

States, I would beg to you to come and visit the industry and understand how it works, let alone the new chemicals provisions 

which would also we thing would thwart and impede the development of new products and new jobs in this country. 

Mr. WHITFIELD. Ms. Bosley, do you think it would create new 

jobs in the—your members? 

Ms. BOSLEY. No, I can give you an example of—so in everybody’s 

car there is a piece that connects the roofing to the frame. It is a 

plastic piece that is not very long. There is about 19 chemicals that 

go into that singular piece. 13 of those chemicals are hazardous to 

some extent and they are all as you might imagine low margin 

chemicals. We live in the reality of a market economy, and you 

make what you can make for the price that the market is willing 

to pay for it. If those chemical companies are going to have to go 

back and do the increased burden of 5820, there will be no margin 

left for them. So now not only have you lost the jobs associated 

with the manufacture of those 19 chemicals, you have lost the polymerization jobs, the extrusion jobs, and now that piece is going 

to come into the country as an article which is beyond the reach 

of EPA. 

Mr. WHITFIELD. Well, you know this points out that we do have 

to have a balancing act here, because yes, we want safe products. 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
173 

We want to make sure the chemicals are safe, but we don’t want 

to damage our economy particularly at this point in our nation’s 

history where we are struggling to come out of a down economy. 

So and I noticed that in this legislation they abolished the unreasonable risk standard and least burdensome method to proceed, so 

that they consider—do not consider particularly the impact on jobs 

per say, which I think realistically at least have to think about. 

Well, I see my time has expired. 

Mr. DENISON. Congressman, maybe I could respond to Mr. 

Dooley? I do think there is a fundamental misunderstanding of the 

bill. He said in his oil statement and again just now that somehow 

company—an individual company would have to go out and assess 

the exposure not only to their use of the chemical but to everybody 

else on the market. That is a fundamental misunderstanding of 

the—that is a role for EPA under this legislation, not for an individual company to do those assessments. I just want to set that 

straight. 

Mr. DOOLEY. Mr. Chairman, if I can respond to that is our reading of the legislation it is a clear statement that the burden of 

proof lies with the manufacturer. When you look at the safety 

standard and the obligation to assess aggregate exposures to a 

chemical that is bringing into the market, in no way does it state 

clearly that that is the responsibility of EPA. Now if that is the intent of the authors, then that is something that we would be more 

than pleased to work with you. But as we read the legislation 

today, that is a burden, and an obligation, and a responsibility on 

the industry. 

Mr. RUSH. The Chair now recognizes Ms. DeGette for 5 minutes. 

Ms. DEGETTE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. You know, Mr. Dooley, 

when we served together in Congress I never disagreed with you. 

I think that is about to change I am sorry to say. I want to talk 

for a minute about this issue of the manufacturers’ burden. Because what you have been talking about is that you think that industry has the burden of showing with reasonable certainty that all 

aggregated exposures from the use of the chemical pose no harm. 

Right? Yes, OK, but take a look at—well I don’t know what section 

it is—it is, I will get you the exact reference. It is on page 44 of 

the draft legislation, a manufacturer is only responsible for showing reasonable certainty of no harm for a chemical’s intended use. 

And industry would not have to conduct studies considering all exposures to a chemical. So would you agree that a standard based 

on intended use would not require companies to prove that all uses 

and exposures are safe? You need to turn your microphone on, Mr. 

Dooley. 

Mr. DOOLEY. There are other sections of the bill when you get 

to the safety standard and what it would trigger. It was subject to 

that is that the intended use isn’t the trigger is that if you have 

the intended use that has that chemical in, as we have read and 

interpreted it will result in the obligation for the assessment of all 

other aggregate exposures. 

Ms. DEGETTE. Mr. Owens, do you—is that the intention with this 

legislation? 

Mr. OWENS. Representative DeGette, we didn’t draft the bill, so 

I can’t really speak on what the—— 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
174 

Ms. DEGETTE. OK, well, I mean is that your interpretation then 

of the draft legislation? 

Mr. OWENS. Well, I think that—let me put it this way. The way 

that that standard has worked for example it is a standard that 

is used as Dr. Denison said and others have said in our Food Quality Protection Act we evaluate pesticide potential exposures with 

reasonable certainty of no harm standard and we at EPA evaluate 

the aggregate exposures when we are making that safety determination. Now whether that is how this is written, I know our lawyers are still looking at it at our agencies, so I can’t really say right 

now what their conclusion will be. But that is how we have done 

it. 

Ms. DEGETTE. And Mr. Dooley, I will tell you that what I just 

said is our intention, too, so if we need to work together on fixing 

this language we are happy to do that, but that is our intention. 

I wanted to ask you, Ms. Bosley, in your written testimony and you 

referred to this also today in your oral testimony. You said the U.S. 

chemicals industries competitiveness has continued to decrease 

substantially in recent years due to competition from countries like 

China and India with lower resource costs, lower wage standards, 

and a less burdensome regulatory environment. I am going to assume that it is not your organization’s positions that we should decrease wage standards and decrease the regulatory environment in 

the United States. That is not your position, is it? 

Ms. BOSLEY. Certainly not. 

Ms. DEGETTE. And I would also ask you, I would think that your 

organization would also believe that we need to renovate TSCA for 

this new century. Correct? 

Ms. BOSLEY. We do. 

Ms. DEGETTE. And also, Mr. Dooley, your organization would 

think the same. It is not that you oppose re—you know fixing 

TSCA for this new environment that we have now. Right? 

Mr. DOOLEY. No, we have made this one of our highest priorities. 

Ms. DEGETTE. Right, you also, and in fact both or your organizations have been at the table during the negotiations, so I have a— 

I want to ask both of you this question. 

Mr. DOOLEY. I would—I would put negotiations in parenthesis. 

I wouldn’t necessarily characterize the discussions as negotiations. 

Ms. DEGETTE. OK, well, here is my question to you. Is—what 

safety standards does your organization recommend that we adopt? 

Mr. DOOLEY. We would think that we could learn some terrific 

lessons by looking at what Canada has done in the past couple of 

years and instituting a reform that their chemical management 

system which is very similar with the concepts that we have developed out where you would develop, you would prioritize the chemicals based on reason with those we should of greatest concern. 

Ms. DEGETTE. So you think the Canada standards would be appropriate standards for us to look at? 

Mr. DOOLEY. That the Canada scheme and their system would 

be much more I think appropriate in terms of prioritizing the 

chemicals based on the risk of exposures and then adopting a system where you would determine how you can manage those risks 

for those products as they are put into the marketplace for their 

intended use. 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
175 

Ms. DEGETTE. Thank you. Ms. Bosley, what standard would your 

organization at safety standard? 

Ms. BOSLEY. I would agree. We have—we are a proponent of 

Canada’s system also and I might say is the first thing Canada did 

was to put their arms around the exact number of chemicals in 

Commerce. Canada has a similar number of 75 or 85,000 chemicals 

that were on a list called the DSL. They through polling of industry 

they paired that list down to 23,000 chemicals that were actually 

in Commerce. Some of the chemicals were no longer manufactured, 

or imported into Canada. Many of the chemicals were no longer 

manufactured. When they had that list of 23,000 they were having 

a much better area in order to prioritize that list and require a different base set of testing depending on the highest priority chemicals. 

Ms. DEGETTE. Dr. Denison, could you just respond to these suggestions by Mr. Dooley and Ms. Bosley? 

Mr. DENISON. Certainly. I applaud what Canada did. As a very 

small country with a tiny percent of the global chemicals market 

and the vast majority of those chemicals being imported rather 

than produced there it made sense for them to do what they did. 

But it is far away from being a proper model for the United States 

of America. In fact, they—their process was hampered enormously 

by the enormous data gaps that led them not to be able to even 

classify thousands of chemicals against the criteria that they used 

to prioritize chemicals. Moreover, they found that many of the 

chemicals, in contrast to what Ms. Bosley said, they only actually 

started with 23,000 chemicals. They didn’t have 75,000 chemicals. 

We have a much bigger problem on our hands, and we need a 

much more systematic solution that speaks for the fact that we 

have a major part of the global chemicals market. 

Mr. RUSH. The Chair recognizes Dr. Gingrey for 5 minutes. 

Mr. GINGREY. Mr. Chairman, let me address my first couple of 

questions to Mr. Cook. Mr. Cook, industry witnesses have expressed concern that if this bill passes as it is written it will drive 

innovative manufacturing outside of the United States and indeed 

kill high paying American manufacturing jobs. Do you have any 

concerns that the global environment could suffer if we force this 

type of manufacturing to countries with much less robust or even 

indeed nonexistent environmental controls? 

Mr. COOK. I would be very concerned if that were to be the case, 

Congressman. There is no question. I was surprised to hear it 

brought up by my colleague at the table that the industry is already losing jobs. We are already shipping jobs overseas not because we have toughened our regulatory standards, of course we 

have not done anything for 30 years, but simply because it is 

cheaper to do business over there. That is where our chemical industry is going. 

Mr. GINGREY. Well, excuse me, Mr. Cook, but you say not because of regulatory standards. These regulatory standards that we 

are talking about in this bill are not inexpensive. Let me shift real 

quickly. I will come back to you because this issue of jobs is real 

important, certainly real important to our side of the aisle as you 

can tell from the questions. Mr. Williams, I think in your either response to a question or maybe your testimony, you said that green 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
176 

jobs would come out of the State of Michigan? Are you talking 

about Flint or Detroit? Where exactly in Michigan are you talking 

about that we are going to grow green jobs? 

Mr. WILLIAMS. OK, what I was talking about the growth of green 

jobs were as our product demand rises, our supplier in Michigan 

produces more product and hires more people to—— 

Mr. GINGREY. But Mr. Williams, how long do you expect that to 

take? The people in Michigan are suffering pretty badly right now, 

they are not—— 

Mr. WILLIAMS. I am sure they are and candidly I am on your side 

of the aisle. I was pleased as a conservative Republican Central 

Pennsylvania a county that goes Republican in every election to be 

able to come here and to be able to speak because I do think we 

share a tremendous number of same beliefs and values in job creation here in America. I don’t want to see that go—— 

Mr. GINGREY. Yes, sir, I understand. Of course, these are not political questions. We are just talking about what is good for the 

country, whether Republican or Democrat. But let me shift back to 

Mr. Cook, because I had another question for him. In the conclusion of your testimony you state and I quote, ‘‘The federal government must place a greater emphasis on biomonitoring of cord 

blood.’’ Then you also state that, and this is a quote, too, ‘‘detection 

of a chemical in umbilical cord blood does not prove that it will 

cause harm.’’ Well, last November the CDC stated on the record before this Subcommittee that our ability to detect chemicals through 

biomonitoring, and this is their quote ‘‘is exceeding the ability to 

actually determine whether health effects are occurring.’’ So, why 

then should the federal government devote more resources, a tremendous amount of resources to an enormously expensive procedure that you state isn’t an indication of health risk and the CDC 

states isn’t offering an increasing rate of return on health risk? 

This cord blood monitoring. 

Mr. COOK. That is an excellent question, Congressman, thank 

you, and a couple of points. First of all the CDC is continuing to 

do extensive monitoring precisely because they know that the raw 

material for the decision making process that you need to start figuring out some of these health effects and some of their impacts 

is biomonitoring information. In my case I don’t think anyone 

should argue that because you are exposed to a chemical means 

that you are going to come down with the disease or illness that 

might be indicated by animal studies. But we find that as the 

American people have waited, and waited, and waited some more 

for the government to do anything to protect them by modernizing 

this law, they want to know what they are being exposed to so that 

perhaps they can take some steps on their own while the government is making up its mind. 

Mr. GINGREY. Well, yes, and it is just like Dr. Mitchell was saying about the importance of designated areas across the country of 

hotspots. First thing you know these folks that are working, and 

living, and maybe employed at these companies that the manufacturing companies, chemical manufacturing companies they are 

going to think they are living a super fund neighborhood. And I— 

as I said in my opening remarks I think we are scaring the heck 

out of everybody. Let me make one last quick question, Mr. ChairVerDate Mar 15 2010 04:32 Apr 03, 2013 Jkt 078128 PO 00000 Frm 00182 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 E:\HR\OC\A128.XXX A128

jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
177 

man if you will bear with me because I did want to shift back to 

our former colleague Cal Dooley. You had some props there and 

you held them up and one of them was a Blackberry. How many 

of your props would meet safety standard under this bill? And for 

the sake of argument, assume that they don’t. Under this bill, how 

long would it take to get a comparable alternative pilot to the market? 

Mr. DOOLEY. Excuse me, thank you again. Based on our intent 

and interpretation if they were in fact subject to the safety determination is that we quite frankly don’t know if we could gather the 

information on the aggregate exposure that would allow EPA to 

make a determination whether or not we could bring that to market. We don’t think we could get there. And the problem is with 

a new chemical you are saying how long will it take us to develop 

a new chemical? Well, you have all the R and D that is going into 

that as well, but then you have to then before you can bring that 

chemical to market you are going to have to make the investment, 

too, on the data that is going to be required. We look at that as 

probably being in the ball park based on our experience with the 

data we have been providing on the HPV program at EPA to be 

probably in the million dollar range. Then you have to wait another 

year for EPA to make—maybe make a determination on whether 

or not that product is safe to bring to market. So you are, you 

know, you are probably looking at a minimum of two to three years 

before even an alternative could even be available to come into the 

market. 

Mr. GINGREY. Thank you, Mr. Dooley. Mr. Chairman, I yield 

back, thank you. 

Mr. DENISON. Can I reply briefly to that, Mr. Gingrey? I do think 

that this is not a standard that has come out of space, dropped out 

of space. We have had this standard in place in the pesticide arena 

for 14 years and 9,000 pesticide tolerances have been reviewed 

under that standard. The majority of which remain on the market 

today. They met the standard. And it required aggregate exposure 

assessment. Now I am not saying that standard gets moved over 

without any adjustment, but it is not as if we are starting out from 

scratch here. 

Mr. DOOLEY. You know I must say before I came to Congress I 

was a farmer. And I used a lot of pesticides. I was in Congress 

when we put forth these regulations that Richard just mentioned 

in that this is a standard. But people need to understand is that 

on a pesticide you have a limited set of uses. It has to be registered 

for a specific number of crops that it could be applied to. There is 

a defined universe of exposures that an individual is going to encounter. It is easy in those situations to identify the aggregate exposure. When you look at a chemical, like it might be polysilicon 

it could be used in a thousand different applications and products. 

It could have different pathways of entry into, you know, of 

through those exposures. And the difference between a pesticide 

and why you might want to have a different standard there is that 

they are meant to be consumed. You are all going to consume them 

in the vegetables and the products you eat. You are not going to 

be eating a solar cell. You are not going to be eating your Blackberry. It has a much less of a level of risk of exposure, and that 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
178 

is why it should have a different standard of safety than what we 

are using in the pesticide industry. 

Mr. RUSH. Mr. Cook, do you want to respond? 

Mr. COOK. We were heavily involved in the development of the 

Food Quality Protection Act idea. Point number one is this if I may 

borrow that, Cal. I prefer I Phones, but then again, your microphone works, so this ought to be as safe as a pesticide. That is all 

we are saying with no reasonable certainty of no harm, and when 

the agency determines that this product’s packaging is safe then it 

is very unlikely that the next manufacturer coming along is going 

to trigger the safety standard and require years of review. So I just 

think it is—I disagree with my friend, Cal on that particular point. 

I believe as Richard has suggested, Dr. Denison has suggested, 

some chemicals are not going to make it under your law. If—when 

it becomes law. A very large number, probably most are going to 

meet the safety standard with modest changes. If it is a chemical 

that ends up in this, Dr. Gingrey, then I think—and we know that 

because we have looked, then I think stepping back we will say, 

well, if it meets the safety standard is it likely that more 

exceedances, more products will cause it to exceed it. I think the 

agency will be in a good position to say yes, or no without having 

every company that is trying to use this same plastic going through 

an elaborate exercise. So I think it can be very workable. And I 

think if we set the standards so that we reward R and D, if as Dr. 

Denison said innovation comes to embrace safety, we will be creating jobs here that our competitors overseas who don’t invest in 

R and D won’t be able to meet. But if we don’t, if cost, and price, 

labor is the only consideration our jobs are going to keep going 

overseas. 

Mr. RUSH. The Chair now recognizes the gentleman from Maryland, Mr. Sarbanes for 5 minutes. 

Mr. SARBANES. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, thank you for your 

dogged determination to make sure we reform this statute and 

have the right kind of safety measures in place. I, as you know, I 

strongly support the legislation that has been introduced and was 

glad to be a co-sponsor of it. I think again as I have said every time 

I get the chance on this matter, the average American listening to 

this discussion would be amazed at how little we know about so 

many chemicals that are out there in the stream of Commerce. And 

frankly, must view it as an abdication of the responsibility of government to act on their behalf to protect them. So I would have like 

to have seen even stronger of provision perhaps in this. I am very 

happy with what is in it, and I am incredulous at industry’s insistence that this is going to compromise them, handicap them, whatever phrase you want to use. I have boundless confidence that the 

chemical industry will figure this out and keep right on going. And 

I also understand just on the last point that was made by Mr. 

Dooley about how long it would take for certain things to happen. 

My understanding is that there is a faster track that can be pursued for looking at safer alternatives in some instances and so 

forth. So I just believe you are going to be able to assimilate these 

new requirements and frankly there is two dimensions to this. 

There is the consumer protection piece which I think is the—my 

first motivation. But there is also I think the opportunity for the 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
179 

business community to profit from having these new regulations in 

place. We are hearing all this stuff about how it is going to undermine jobs and so forth. I actually think it is going to improve the 

prospects of businesses that manufacture products that have these 

chemicals in them and I will tell you why. The more the public becomes aware of the fact that there is a lot of these chemicals out 

there that nobody really has a handle on, I think the more—and 

I don’t think it is because of alarmism, I think it is just their own 

educated perspective. The more concerned they become about using 

these products whether it is because they are concerned about their 

children’s health or they are concerned about their own health. I 

mean frankly I have started to try to minimize my—I mean it may 

be having an impact on the way our house looks, but I am trying 

to minimize the use of cleaning products in my house because I 

don’t know, and that is what is really—what is in those products. 

So people are going to start reacting to the information that is out 

there that there not being enough oversight in place with respect 

to these chemicals. And I think it is going to harm the businesses 

and the industries that deliver those products to the public. And 

if we can restore confidence that these products have gotten the 

right kind of look and that the chemicals that go into them have 

been determined to be safe, et cetera, I think they are going to be 

more likely to want to purchase those products and it is going to 

be better for business. Now I just wanted to ask Mr. Denison getting back to this narrative about the bill hampering innovation, 

shifting production to developing countries, and so forth. When you 

look at regulation in the U.S., and Canada, and Europe, and so 

forth do you subscribe to the notion that having this TSCA reform 

in place is going to significantly undermine U.S. innovation and 

competitiveness? 

Mr. DENISON. Congressman, I do not. I think there is a very 

strong record of better regulation spurring innovation and providing industry with a certainty as to what its targets are for meeting those regulations, and for meeting consumer demand that is 

based on them. I think you are absolutely right to point to the consumer confidence issue. In fact, ACC’s decision to embrace modernization of TSCA was based on large part on their concern that 

the consumers were losing confidence in the safety of their products. We have to have real reform in order to restore that confidence. And that means we have got to have much better information, but we also have to have a government that is able to act on 

that information. And that doesn’t mean weakening the safety 

standard. If Ms. Bosley is right, then many of her—of SOCMA’s 

chemicals are intermediates with very limited exposure. Then they 

will pass the safety standard that much more easily. That is not 

a reason to lower the standard and to put U.S. companies at a disadvantage to other parts of the world that have those higher standards. So I totally reject the notion that a stronger regulatory program will impede innovation. It will spur it. 

Mr. SARBANES. I appreciate that and I just have run out of time. 

I will just close by saying I think industry can really step—the government and industry can partner around good strong standards 

and take this thing to the next level. Everybody is going to come 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
180 

out the better for it, industry and the public. So with that I yield 

back. 

Mr. RUSH. The chair now recognized the gentleman from Pennsylvania, Dr. Murphy for five minutes. 

Mr. MURPHY of Pennsylvania. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank 

you to the panel. I would have many of you to know that I believe 

at the beginning of the 20th century life span was about 45 years 

or so. By the end of the 20th century it has reached 70 some years. 

Does anybody know why? Any guesses? Dr. Mitchell, do you have 

anything? 

Dr. MITCHELL. Yes, the major thing that happened is public 

health and prevention, you know, especially water, sewer, public 

sanitation all those things. 

Mr. MURPHY of Pennsylvania. But, of course, chlorine is toxic. I 

don’t know if anybody’s abdicating we stop chlorinating water. Any 

of you doing that? Here is a question I had, too. Mr. Williams, I 

had to step out of the room during your testimony. I read it and 

I am really impressed with new building designs and new building 

materials particularly ones that avoid carcinogenic materials. I 

want to ask you if in the materials one uses in buildings, too, do 

you also look at paints, and the substances that might reduce mold 

risk as positive factors there? 

Mr. WILLIAMS. That is not, we don’t manufacture products of 

that type. 

Mr. MURPHY of Pennsylvania. I mean use them. Do you use them 

in buildings or do you recommend them? 

Mr. WILLIAMS. Only in our own buildings. 

Mr. MURPHY of Pennsylvania. OK. 

Mr. WILLIAMS. And—— 

Mr. MURPHY of Pennsylvania. Can you give us reasonable certainty that there is no harm will result from use of those? 

Mr. WILLIAMS. I am not familiar with paints. 

Mr. MURPHY of Pennsylvania. There is also a lot—there is a concern that more people die from diseases they did not have when 

they went to the hospital than by diseases they went to the hospital for. 

Mr. WILLIAMS. They are socomial, yes. 

Mr. MURPHY of Pennsylvania. They are socomial infections or a 

wide range of those. We know that a lot of paints are being developed now. A lot of antimicrobial paints, a lot of antimicrobial clothing to reduce the risk of that, so for you and for Dr. Mitchell, somewhere in here there may be a payoff. Some of these are treated 

with silver and one can have silver toxicity. Some have a certain 

level of nanoparticals including zinc. Zinc is pretty toxic, too, and 

so the question is given that no socomial infections affect about two 

million people a year cost $50 billion of health care system that kill 

about 100,000 people a year, can either of you give me some certainty that no harm will result from using or not using these? 

Mr. WILLIAMS. First of all we at one time researched and began 

to use an anti-microbial within our product. A couple of points to 

that. Research has shown for years that the vast majority in perhaps from the 95th to 98th percentile of all known socomial infection is caused by procedures and by health workers failing to wash 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
181 

their hands. If you look at facilities today you will find numerous—— 

Mr. MURPHY of Pennsylvania. Sure, but though I might had I 

have worked in hospitals for 30 years, but I also know that someone washed their hands, they could touch their clothing, they could 

touch their tie, touch a pen, touch a stethoscope, touch a doorknob, 

and when surfaces are coated they may produce it, but the point 

it when you wash your hands your are also using chemical agents 

which can be toxic. 

Mr. WILLIAMS. Right, well, what—— 

Mr. MURPHY of Pennsylvania. Also saying one of those which can 

be very toxic, but you know the common use is to wash your hands. 

Because you wash your hands a lot all day does that end up with 

other problems? And my question is you are providing valuable information. My question is where is the line here in terms of trying 

to help this? 

Mr. WILLIAMS. Well, what we found is as we began to think we 

had a good product that at the time was using an additive for antimicrobial we found that in order to raise the content level sufficient 

to kill in a time frame that someone else then wouldn’t come touch, 

we stopped using the product because we realized we would virtually have to have a sign on the product that said please don’t 

touch for four and a half minutes while anti-microbial kills. And 

that was the difficulty with that although there are a great number 

of antimicrobials out there we are also seeing that health care leaders such as Kaiser-Permanente is refusing to use products with 

antimicrobials in them. A lot of this is a market driven issue from 

the manufacturing and a marketing company. We thought we had 

the right stuff with the antimicrobials. 

Mr. MURPHY of Pennsylvania. So if they are not using them are 

we going to be developing new ones? 

Mr. WILLIAMS. No, I think the thing is they are not using them 

because of the toxicity at the level at which they would kill as opposed to base product—— 

Mr. MURPHY of Pennsylvania. Well, my concern is I would hope 

you would work with this committee—— 

Mr. WILLIAMS. That is OK I guess—— 

Mr. MURPHY of Pennsylvania. I hope you work with this committee to help make sure we are able to develop new—— 

Mr. WILLIAMS. Right, yes, and I think this final answer is efficacy on some of these things is a very important issue. 

Mr. RUSH. The Chair wants to inform the members of the Subcommittee and also the witnesses if I can impose on your time for 

a second round of questions or one question each per member. I 

think that this would be important for the deliberation of the Subcommittee. And with that the Chair will extend the opportunity for 

each member to ask one additional question. Only one question and 

the Chair will begin with himself for his one additional question. 

I am not—I just want to ask, I think I will ask this of both Mr. 

Dooley and also Mr. Cook. This is a pretty controversial question 

I am going to ask, but there are some people who have stated that 

this—the TSCA reform is necessary to fight cancer. Will you respond to that? And do you agree with that and respond and what 

do you think about that statement? 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
182 

Mr. COOK. Mr. Chairman, I think there is no question that protecting public health from exposure to these toxic chemicals is a 

vital part of what we need to be doing to make sure we are being 

cost effective and smart about prevention of cancer and other 

chronic diseases. There is a very strong literature on this subject. 

We can do it at a modest cost in many cases. We are not talking 

about giving up modern life. We are talking about moving to safer 

substitutes. We have done it before. We got lead out of gasoline, got 

rid of PCB’s, everyone said we wouldn’t have an electrical grid. 

Took care of DDT, went off the market, people—some people said 

we wouldn’t have food, so we can do this. If we don’t though and 

if we don’t conduct the kinds of studies and collect the kind of information that your legislation would for the first time require, we 

are going to continue operating in the dark. And I go back to the 

President’s cancer panel. Just this year very strongly saying that 

including exposures before we entered the world in the womb and 

going forward we have grossly underestimated the contribution 

that these chemicals are probably making to cancer in this country, 

that one half of all men and one third of all women one day will 

get that diagnosis. 

Mr. RUSH. Mr. Dooley. 

Mr. DOOLEY. Yes, let me answer it this way is you know our industry absolutely is committed to insuring that every product that 

is on the shelf is safe and that EPA has the ability to work with 

the industries, we are providing the appropriate data and information to insure that they can make a determination that that product is in fact safe for its intended use. In reference to the specific 

issue in terms of cancer is that that is where we go back to where 

we ought to be embracing a system of prioritizing those chemicals 

that are greatest concern. And we ought to be focusing the resources and the expertise of both the regulatory sector as well as 

the private sector on understanding what are those risks and can 

those risks be managed? And so we would suggest rather than the 

blanket approach that is embodied in this legislation that would ultimately require every chemical to have a safety determination, is 

that we ought to identify those chemicals that we know are carcinogenic, that maybe they are an endocrine disruptor, maybe they 

are a persistent in bio-cumulative toxin. And those are the ones 

that we say, you know what we need to understand more about 

these. We need to ask industry to provide us more research and 

data. We need to EPA spending more time and effort and analyzing 

whether or not we can manage the risk of those products in Commerce. And if we do that effectively I think we are going to have 

a more efficient effective system that is going to contribute in reducing some exposures to some products that might be being used 

now that might in some way be contributing in limited instances 

to increase in some diseases. 

Mr. RUSH. The Chair now recognizes our Ranking Member Mr. 

Whitfield for one question. 

Mr. WHITFIELD. Thank you. Before I ask my question and Mr. 

Chairman, I ask unanimous consent for inclusion in the record the 

testimony of Charles M. Auer pursuant to the previous agreement 

with you all and members maybe they are able to submit questions 

to him for the record. 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
183 

Mr. RUSH. The Chair is mindful of that agreement and hearing 

no objections so ordered. 

Mr. WHITFIELD. And then I ask unanimous consent that we submit for the record letters and statements regard on this legislation 

from 12 different groups. 

Mr. RUSH. Hearing no objections so ordered. 

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

Mr. WHITFIELD. For my question, first of all thank you all very 

much for your patience and being with us today. We appreciate it. 

Mr. Owens, in your testimony you talked about in 1989 the court 

case in which EPA ruling phasing out the use of asbestos that a 

federal court overturned that decision by EPA because the rule 

failed to comply with the TSCA regulation or requirement. I was 

wanting—I wanted to know specifically what part of the TSCA, the 

existing TSCA law was that decision made on? 

Mr. OWENS. Thank you, Congressman. Can you hear me? Thank 

you, Congressman Whit for the question. It was a decision called 

the corrosion proof fittings decision and the Federal Circuit Court 

of Appeals looked at basically the two significant obstacles that 

EPA has to overcome in order to regulate any toxic substances 

under TSCA in this case specifically asbestos first. There was the 

requirement in the law that we determined that there defined that 

there was an unreasonable risk of harm from the substance in this 

case asbestos. And then once we made that determination to select 

the least burdensome alternative to regulate that substance. And 

it is a very length, technical, complicated decision where they went 

through a whole host of various alternatives that might exist out 

there and determine that—— 

Mr. WHITFIELD. But it was based on the unreasonable risk and 

least burdensome—— 

Mr. OWENS. Both there was a—and the basic conclusion as was 

said despite nearly unanimous scientific opinion that asbestos creates an enormous range of health problems including cancer that 

EPA could not meet the burdens under the existing statute to 

eliminate any uses of asbestos or to significantly regulate those 

uses. 

Mr. WHITFIELD. Thank you. 

Mr. RUSH. The Chair now recognizes Mr. Sarbanes. 

Mr. SARBANES. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Dooley, you said 

I think you said something to the effect of rather than requiring 

that every product have a safety determination that we focus on 

those that we know are harmful, potentially carcinogenic and so 

forth. But I don’t really understand that. In other words how are 

we going to know that something is not harmful or carcinogenic if 

we don’t do a safety determination on it? I understand that there 

is ones that we know right out of the gate are the worst of the 

worst and so forth, had that discussion in other hearings and we 

want to move quickly on those. But if you don’t have a process that 

conducts a safety determination of a chemical how are you going 

to know that it doesn’t fall into fall that other category? 

Mr. DOOLEY. Because, Mr. Sarbanes, I think that it is probably 

an area which we agree on is that—and I think EPA would acknowledge is that they have the ability by reviewing a data set, by 

reviewing the chemical characteristic, the molecular weight, the 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
184 

molecular structure, comparing it to other chemicals of similar 

composition is that they can make determinations on which chemicals are going to be those of greater concern. There is, obviously 

now, there is a number of different databases out there where they 

have identified, you know, carcinogenic chemicals; where they have 

already identified chemicals that could be an endocrine disruptor. 

Those lists are currently available today. And so there is, but there 

is also I think broad recognition that there is a lot of chemicals in 

Commerce today that pose really very little health risk. And so 

why should we be, again, requiring EPA to spend as many of their 

attention and resources on those low concern chemicals versus 

those that would be of the greatest concern? And the issue on the 

safety determination, the safety determination is what triggers, 

you know, the obligation to go out and to consider every aggregate 

exposure from that chemical. And so do you want to have EPA, 

which under the legislation in the first 12 months they have to 

identify 300 chemicals. They would be required within 30 months 

to go out and with those 300 chemicals that could have—maybe 

each one had a, you know a hundred applications, or in the marketplace, 30,000 different, you know products that they are in is 

that they would have to go out and do an aggregate assessment of 

all of the exposures resulting from those 300 chemicals, and make 

a determination in whether or not they could meet that standard 

of a reasonable certainty of no harm, of a having adverse impacts 

on the public welfare. I mean, you know, I don’t—you know when 

you look at the track record of EPA and their evaluation of chemicals, I mean, I would be astounded if Mr. Owens today could tell 

you that it would be even remotely possible for them to conduct a 

safety determination on 300 chemicals in the next 30 months after 

this legislation was implemented. 

Mr. SARBANES. Well, let me ask Mr. Owens. I mean do you think 

you have got the ability and as I understand it the statute makes 

clear that there is certain shortcuts that can be taken depending 

on the kind of chemical that you are looking at. So do you think 

you have the ability to move forward on this in a deliberate and 

timely way? 

Mr. OWENS. Well, Congressman, I think the bill also provides for 

additional resources for EPA to conduct that activity. So I think 

the short answer would be if we received the additional resources 

we could make, depending on the level of resources, substantial 

progress toward achieving a goal like that. But it will depend in 

part on us getting additional resources from Congress to achieve 

some of the mission that you would direct us to do. 

Mr. RUSH. The Chair now recognizes Mr. Murphy. 

Mr. MURPHY of Pennsylvania. Thank you. I would like to ask 

perhaps again, you have heard my questions before about some of 

these substances that have some medical prevention applications. 

Many chemicals used in medicines can make them more effective, 

some preventative objects, some antimicrobials, anti-bacterial. 

Where does this bill, in this current version sit in terms of being 

able to encourage further research development application and 

even current use of some of these chemicals and products whose 

goal is and intended use is to treat disease and prevent infection? 

Will this help it, hurt it, stop it? What? 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
185 

Mr. DOOLEY. Well, again with our interpretation and understanding of the legislation is that we think it would hurt it and 

harm bringing new products into the marketplace. I mean I have 

another one of my props here that I haven’t used yet, but it is a 

hand sanitizer. 

Mr. MURPHY of Pennsylvania. That is dangerous stuff. 

Mr. DOOLEY. It is. And it would have, you know its problem ingredient is ethanol, ethyl alcohol. It is quite possible that ethanol, 

would, could be listed as a chemical of concern and at some point 

would be required to be subject to a safety determination. Again, 

under what is required under the Act is that legislation of this be 

as it was implemented, once it was on that safety determination, 

you would have to go out, again, and to identify every product that 

had ethanol in it in Commerce today and maybe those that are in 

naturally occurring. So that would incur your fuel, your biofuels, it 

would incur your wine and occasional gin and tonic that I drink. 

It would include, you know, thousands of different applications that 

then would require EPA to make a determination. Is there a reasonable certainty that this poses no harm? Well, of course it poses 

some harm to some, you know, in some instances because it is designed to kill things. And that is where we think it is, you know 

we have to be very careful with this standard. If you don’t have a 

standard that is set appropriately is that it is going to harm a lot 

of innovations that have a lot of positive contributions that it can 

make. And again I go back if it is on list of 300, and the EPA 

hasn’t made the determination is that if the language says you cannot bring a new application a new use of that chemical to the marketplace until EPA has completed the safety determination. 

Mr. MURPHY of Pennsylvania. Thank you. 

Mr. DENISON. Congressman, could I also answer that question? 

Mr. RUSH. Do you have a comment, Mr. Denison on the last 

question? 

Mr. DENISON. Very briefly, yes. I think there is some confusion 

about the scope here. I mean, first, Cal your wine and beer are 

fine. There is an exemption right up front for alcoholic beverages. 

But medical—— 

Mr. DOOLEY. The exemption that they wouldn’t regulate it by 

toxic—— 

Mr. RUSH. Mr. Dooley, Mr. Denison is recognized. He has the 

time. 

Mr. DENISON. Thank you. Medical applications and drugs and so 

forth are not intended to be covered either here, so I think there 

is some confusion. The other thing is I think there is an interpretation of this standard that somehow it is a zero risk standard. That 

it would drive anything that has any hazard whatsoever off the 

market. It is not in its application under The Food Quality Protection Act, it is a risk based standard that establishes a level of risk 

that is going to be acceptable. So I think that is really important 

to understand here. 

Mr. RUSH. Mr. Dooley. 

Mr. DOOLEY. And Rush, I just want to—when he said I didn’t understand the legislation, the exemption for alcohol is to ensure that 

it exempted from TSCA. It doesn’t exempt it from being considered 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
186 

in the aggregate exposures that would result which was the point 

that I was making. 

Mr. RUSH. Mr. Scalise is recognized for one question. 

Mr. SCALISE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I have a question for 

Mr. Owens and I would like a comment back from Ms. Bosley and 

Mr. Dooley as well. Chemical distribution companies have a unique 

role in the supply chain in that they serve as middle men for the 

manufacturers and industrial customers. A majority of distributors 

also blend chemicals and mixtures, and distributors that provide 

blending services could be subject to many of the requirements of 

this legislation that manufacturers are subject to. It is also feasible 

they will have to gather use and exposure info for other areas of 

the supply chain. Are you concerned that this bill could have a disproportionate impact on chemical distributors? 

Mr. OWENS. Thank you, Congressman. We are still in the process 

of reviewing all the particulars of the bill, so it is a little difficult 

for me to say what might happen and what might not happen 

under some of the individual provisions. But let me respond to it 

this way, that we have had a lot of conversations about the information that is useful and necessary to gather in order to make all 

kinds of determinations that might be required to be made under 

this bill. We have heard a lot of different opinions on that including 

from downstream manufacturers and some companies involved in 

the chemical distribution chain that think they need to have this 

kind of information that would be available under this or some 

other version of this bill in order to know what is going into the 

products or the chemicals that they are producing themselves using 

the ingredients that are available out there. By the same token we 

think it is important for the manufacturers of these chemicals to 

know the uses to which their chemicals are being put especially if 

they are going to be subject to some sort of aggregate cumulative 

exposure determination that we would make at the agency. So we 

want to make sure that there is a right balance that is struck here, 

and the types of information that we need to make the determinations that would be required again under this or whatever version 

of this bill might come forward gives us that level of information 

and meets the needs. We want to make sure also that one sector 

isn’t unduly burdened at the expense of another sector. So that 

would be part of what we would be looking at when we were determining what the minimum data set requirements would be. Under 

new legislation if there is a requirement like that then there would 

be different types of minimum data requirements for different 

types of chemicals. And we would take the specifics of the individual chemical into account. 

Mr. SCALISE. Thanks, Mr. Dooley, and then Ms. Bosley. 

Mr. DOOLEY. You know I think it would have some impact. This 

is an area where I think that you know we agree that you know 

that there has to be a greater degree of transparency than what 

currently occurs under TSCA. And there has to be a greater sharing of information throughout the valued chain. But I would also 

like to maybe segue, if this chemical distributor though was importing a product under the existing TSCA or under the legislation 

is that they would be subject to meeting all the requirements of 

this bill which would mean if you had a chemical distributor that 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
187 

just for discussion purposes was trying to import in this Blackberry, or maybe this sanitizer. If it was subject to the safety determination whether it was a chemical distributor, or Target, or Best 

Buy, they would be required to again to insure that they would 

have to do the determination of all the aggregate exposures again 

and also would be the ones that would be responsible for making 

the—gathering the data to make the determination that this imported product did not pose a reasonable risk of harm. And we 

think that is a burden that is inappropriate to put on a distributor 

or a retailer on the importing of a particular article. 

Mr. SCALISE. Thank you. Ms. Bosley. 

Ms. BOSLEY. I might say that as I said earlier I think yesterday 

afternoon we got some new language. There was a clerical error regarding mixtures and the way the bill reads now I guess I am more 

confused than anything, it is—the mixtures were taken out of the 

title but not the text. And it was taken out of certain sections but 

not other sections, but mixtures is where chemical distributors will 

be primarily affected. They do a lot of mixing and if they have to 

do—if they have to provide a safety determination on every mixture at every concentration it will inordinately affect them. 

Mr. SCALISE. All right thank you. I yield back. 

Mr. RUSH. The chair now asks unanimous consent that the following letters concerning the H.R. 5820 be entered into the record. 

A letter from American Chemical Counsel and others, American 

Cleaning Institute, Wilson Manufacturing Associates, and Consumers Special New Products Association, the National Association 

of Manufacturers, the National Association of Chemical Distributors, the Retail Industry Leaders Association, Crop Life America, 

the Vinyl Institute, Pine Chemicals Association, The People for The 

Ethical Treatment of Animals, and also a statement for the record 

from the National Special Chemical and Residents Association. 

Hearing no objections so ordered. 

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

Mr. RUSH. This concludes—is that including the—all right this 

concludes this hearing. The Chair really wants to be very intense 

in his appreciation for all the witnesses. This has been a real provocative and informative discussion. Your testimony has really contributed to the progress of the existing bill, and as we proceed with 

this bill with other additional hearings, and also with hopefully a 

mock up sometime in the future. So I want to thank each and 

every one of you. You have really done this Subcommittee a great 

service by your participation by your testimony and by the sacrifice 

of your time. Thank you so very much and the Subcommittee now 

stands adjourned. 

[Whereupon, at 2:40 p.m., the Subcommittee was adjourned.] 

[Material submitted for inclusion in the record follows:] 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
188 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 197 here 78128A.138

Testimony of 

Charles M. Auer 

President, Charles Auer & Associates, LLC 

17116 Campbell Farm Road 

Poolesville, MD 20837 

Submitted on August 3, 2010 

To 

Subcommittee on Commerce, Trade and Consumer Protection 

U.S. House of Representatives 

Committee on Energy and Commerce 

On 

H.R. 5820 - The Toxic Chemicals Safety Act of 20 I 0 

My name is Charles M. Auer. I was formerly an employee of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 

until my retirement in January 2009. While at EPA I gained experience in hazard and risk assessment, 

policy development and implementation, rule-writing, etc., and also participated as a U.S. negotiator in 

the development and fmal agreement on the Stockholm and Rotterdam Conventions. I started at EPA as a 

staff chemist in and spent my entire EPA career in the Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics (OPPT) 

and its predecessors where, starting as a GS-S, I rose through the ranks in a variety of technical, policy, 

management, and executive positions. In 2002, I was selected as the Director of OPPT and held that 

position until my retirement. Over my career I developed an in-depth knowledge and an integrated 

understanding of scientific, technical, policy, and legal issues encountered in implementation of the Toxic 

Substances Control Act (TSCA). Following my retirement I formed a small consulting company to 

provide advice and analysis on, among other matters, chemical assessment and management. I also 

affiliated with Bergeson & Campbell, P.C., a Washington, DC, law firm specializing in TSCA and related 

areas. Since forming the consulting company I have worked with a variety of clients including chemical 

companies, trade associations, law finns, and international intergovernmental organizations. While I have 

had industry clients, I have not done any representational work before EPA or other agency. 

I am pleased to have the opportunity to provide testimony on the Toxic Chemicals Safety Act of2010 

(TCSA; H.R. 5820). The testimony I am offering is mine and I am not speakingfor or on behalf of 

anyone else in offering it. I have closely followed the debate about reforming or modernizing TSCA and 

have published several papers which outline some of my views. I share the concerns voiced by NGOs, 

grass roots organizations, and others that TSCA has failed to meet its goals and purposes and that a robust 

new approach is needed. I take heart from industry's statements that it too recognizes that problems exist 

and that a modernized approach is needed. TCSA is intended to strengthen and deal with the weaknesses 

in TSCA and, as such, TCSA is based on a discussion draft which was released on April 15, 2010, and 

subsequently taken through a stakeholder process. However, based on my long experience in this area 

and my understanding of the scale and complexity of this sector of the economy, I fear that the TCSA 

approach, if enacted without changes such as those outlined below, runs the risk of failing to deliver on its 

1 
189 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 198 here 78128A.139

goals and expectations despite imposing considerable burden on EPA and the industry or, more 

optimistically, taking so long to unwind that today's frustrations will continue almost indefinitely. Thus 

as discussed and explained in my testimony, I believe that further improvement is needed to provide a 

workable and effective approach to chemical testing, assessment, and management in the U.S. that, when 

implemented, will meet the needs and expectations of stakeholders and the public. 

General Comments 

TCSA proposes a dramatically different approach to managing chemicals from that which currently 

applies. TSCA for far too long did not did not provide adequate legal authority or receive sufficient 

oversight and the resources needed to do an adequate job of testing, assessing, and managing the tens of 

thousands of chemicals in commerce. While I welcome the spirit in TCSA to revise TSCA and address 

its weaknesses, I do not believe that TCSA as drafted provides a workable and effective approach to 

meeting the needs to protect public health and the environment from the risks of the tens of thousands of 

chemicals in commerce; While TSCA with its limited authorities and relatively cumbersome approach 

was insufficient to meet evolving needs and expectations, I believe that the approaches under TCSA are, 

in several areas, overly complex and unnecessarily broad and encompassing, and would present 

significant challenges and issues in their development and implementation, both as a general matter and 

within the timelines allotted, and prove inefficient in their application. In summary, although I agree with 

many of the goals of the bill, based on my experience, I fear that it would fail to adequately meet its stated 

goals and purposes. 

Recognizing that the US must compete in a global economy, I have concerns that the approach in TCSA 

will overly and unnecessarily burden U.S. competitiveness in this critical sector and likely have important 

and undesired impacts on both the chemical manufacturing sector and the manufacturing sectors that rely 

on its products, and on innovation, both generally and particularly with regard to new chemical 

introductions. I believe it is essential that an approach be developed that can ensure timely and effective 

development of the hazard and exposure infonnation needed to adequately inform and prioritize decisions 

regarding chemicals, enable needed actions to protect human health and the environment, and thereby 

gain greater confidence in the chemical industry and its products, and do so in a way that enhances the 

capacity for U.S. competitiveness and keeps innovation and market incentives within the U.s. economy. 

TCSA in my view does not provide that approach as currently drafted. 

TCSA does include a number of useful and valuable concepts that, if appropriately structured and applied, 

could do much to meet the needs and expectations of the public regarding the safety of chemicals and 

products in commerce. I believe the central failing under TSCA was the inability to develop the hazard 

and exposure data needed to infonn decisions on existing chemicals - TCSA would resolve this issue 

although I question if the approach provided is workable. TSCA did not provide adequate focus to 

several areas which TCSA has picked up including, in no particular order: addressing the needs of 

vulnerable subpopulations; encouraging the introduction of safer and greener new chemicals and 

providing help to industry's efforts, througho.ut the value chain, to move toward safer and greener 

chemicals; providing authorities whereby EPA could actually control existing chemicals; shifting the 

burden of proof from EPA to industry; providing a means which could obtain the resources needed for 

governance by EPA (including applying fees to claims for Confidential Business Infonnation); giving 

recognition to the general societal interest in reducing and avoiding animal testing via encouragement of 

new approaches that can provide data adequate for the purposes of assessment; establishing a public data 

base containing test data, assessments, and decisions and.their bases, and others. While the inclusion of 

2 
190 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 199 here 78128A.140

such concepts within TCSA is welcomed, the workability and effectiveness of the approaches proposed 

varies. 

Specific comments 

I am intimately familiar with the statutory provisions and requirements under TSCA and their application 

and operation. Based on that understanding and experience, I offer the following selected observations 

concerning possible issues and concerns associated with the approaches as proposed in TCSA. I also 

offer for consideration by the Subcommittee and stakeholders, several suggestions for possible 

improvement. 

Mixtures. I found TCSA to be cmifusing and complex in its treatment of mixtures. 

The clarification provided by the July 28 technical correction to the legislation was welcomed in the way 

that it narrowed the scope of the requirements and resolved a number of fundamental questions about the 

treatment of and approach to mixtures as new chemicals. At the same time, and while r appreciated the 

deletion of the blunt and encompassing approach to mixtures found in the discussion draft, I question if 

the TCSA approach to mixtures is workable and effective. I found the concept of the mixtures survey at 

section 3(b )(3) a Useful step but was at a loss to understand and attempt to apply the determination 

whether mixtures "have or may have substance characteristics that are different, in kind or degree." 

While I agree that dealing with mixtures is important, it is a difficult and complex area which will require 

more discussion and might best be dealt with via general requirements that would be implemented by 

EPA by rule once it has conducted and analyzed the results of the mixture survey and better understands 

the issue. Certainly EPA, and as is the case under TSCA, should have general authority under TCSA to 

deal with specific mixtures where needs or issues emerge in the interim. 

Section 4. Minimum Data Set and Testing of Chemical Substances and Mixtures. I found TCSA 's 

approach to testing to be over-heavy and impractical, with the potential to impose unintended 

consequences on the introduction of new chemicals and to present potentially significant but currently 

unknown magnitudes of burden on the regulated industry given the number of eXisting chemicals in 

commerce and the scale of the testing that might be needed to satisfY TCSA's requirements. I believe that 

getting the provisions under section 4 right is the key to a workable and effective approach for dealing 

with chemicals. 

TCSA would require a minimum data set (MDS) for all chemical substances except those exempted per 

section 4( a)(3). EPA is given one year to develop and issue a rule implementing the MDS requirements 

as specified at section 4(a)(1 )(A) and with the volume and timing triggers at section 4(aX2)(A). I am 

supportive of the general concept of an MDS to be applied generally to existing chemicals although I 

oppose the requirement that new chemicals be subject to this requirement at the time of notification for 

the reasons given in my discussion ofTCSA section 5 below. I also question if the exemptions allowed 

are sufficient to avoid unneeded or questionable testing, also as discussed elsewhere in my testimony. 

I recommend for consideration by the drafters the discussion and analysis on "test data reporting" in my 

recent article (Auer, 2010) which explores issues of testing strategies and costs, production triggers and 

tiered testing menus, and other matters relevant to this section ofTCSA. As noted previously, I view 

TSCA's centra! failing to be its inability to develop needed data and understanding and thus I attach great 

importance to the getting the approach right under any revised section 4. 

3 
191 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 200 here 78128A.141

While the testing that EPA would require to meet TCSA's MDS requirements can only be surmised, there 

are several models that can serve to outline, for purposes of discussion, possible approaches to designing 

the MDS that might be required. Given the TCSA requirement that the data set be "useful in conducting 

safety standard determinations" and the inclusion of the term "toxicological properties" with its broad 

statutory definition (section 3(24» in the required elements of the MOS, I consider it unlikely that the 

Screening Information Data Set (SIDS) would suffice to satisfy these requirements (notwithstanding this 

statement, I note that the concept of "varied or tiered testing" in TCSA section 4(a)(I)(A) is useful and 

provides some flexibility in possibly using the SIDS menu although some clarity regarding how the 

concept relates to the other requirements for the MOS in section 4(a) and to section 4(b) concerning 

testing beyond the MOS would be helpful to understand). The SIDS data set, which was developed by 

the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) and used by EPA in its "High 

Production Volume (HPV) Challenge" program and in HPV test rules, is intended to provide the basis for 

a screening level assessment that can initially assess a chemical and help to inform decisions as to needed 

higher tier testing. An MOS which both satisfies the definition of ''toxicological properties" and meets 

the needs of a "reasonable certainty of no harm" assessment seemingly would require testing meeting or 

approaching a confirmatory data set for each chemical, such as that required for pesticide registrations 

under Part 158 of the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA), Tier 3 in EPA's 

Voluntary Children's Chemical Evaluation Program (VCCEP; note that this menu is limited to health 

effect testing endpoints and as such does not deal with enviromnental fate and enviromnental effects 

testing endpoints), or the "high volume" tier under the EU's REACH (Registration, Evaluation, 

Authorization and Restriction of Chemicals) regulation (a table comparing several of these testing menus 

is available in Auer, 2010). If testing such as that found in these confirmatory menus is needed to satisfy 

the requirements for the MOS, it seems unlikely that TCSA's allowed time periods for developing the 

data sets will be sufficient. Furthermore, the costs required for such testing would be considerable. If, for 

example, EPA would determine that the SIDS is adequate for one or more of the volume tiers (although 

as noted above it is debatable whether the SIDS menus suffices to meet the requirements imposed), the 

estimated cost is approximately $200,000 for that battery, whereas the estimated cost of the high volume 

tier under REACH is 900,000 to 1.6 million Euros (see Auer, 2010); I do not have cost figures for the 

other test menus cited but estimates should be obtainable from EPA. To provide greater workability and 

flexibility, I suggest narrowing or softening the definition of ''toxicological properties" per se or as 

applied under section 4(a) and an additional suggestion for consideration is noted in my discussion 

concerning TCSA section 6. 

A basic question that would be very useful to have an answer to is "how many Inventory chemicals are 

actually in commerce and thus potentially subject to such an MDS requirement?" I am not aware of any 

vetted estimate of this number but applying available information, I guesstimatei that about 50,000 

chemicals could be in commerce. Considering that tens of thousands of existing chemicals are potentially 

at play, with MDS test menu costs potentially ranging between $200,000 and more that $1 million per 

chemical (and even considering the potential reductions in testing afforded by the various exemptions at 

TCSA section 4(a)(3), the animal welfare considerations at section 34, and the potential for testing done 

under the EU's REACH regulation to meet some ofthe needs), the costs of such testing are likely to be 

prohibitive. I encourage the Subcommittee to carefully reconsider the approach proposed in TCSA and 

my 20 I ° paper provides some specific suggestions that might help to inform the debate. 

4 
192 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 201 here 78128A.142

I note the inclusion at TCSA section 4(b)(3) of several considerations, including relative costs and the 

availability offacilities and personnel to perfonn the testing, that are to be applied by EPA in obtaining 

testing in addition to that in the MDS. I suggest, given the number of chemicals potentially at play and 

the potential scope of the needed testing, that these considerations should also be applied by EPA in the 

MDS rulemaking required under section 4(a)(I). 

A final comment on this section concerns TCSA section 4(bX3)(8) where EPA "may specifY test 

protocols and methodology." While I am generally in favor of flexibility and discretion where 

appropriate, the provision as worded would not adequately ensure the enforceability of testing 

requirements imposed by EPA. To ensure the development of quality test data, I believe it is essential 

that industry conduct any newly required testing via enforceable test methods. From a somewhat 

different perspective, I know from experience that in some cases testing is needed in areas that do not 

have standard methods available and suggest inclusion of an approach based on the TSCA Enforceable 

Consent Agreement process for meeting such needs. 

Section 5. Manufacturing and Processing Notices. [found TCSA 's approach to new chemicals to run the 

risk. in essence, of "throwing the baby out with the bath water." [question the need for and merits of an 

upfront MDS on all new chemicals. [believe it will have a detrimental effect on the rate and extent of 

introduction of new chemicals which. based on my experience at EPA, are generally safer and greener 

and over time proVide important continuous improvement benefits to heath and the environment and to 

U.S. competitiveness and innovation. [ believe there are better ways to approach meeting the needs 

presented in this section ofTCSA and several concepts are discussedfor consideration. 

TCSA would require a premanufacture notification from manufacturers and processors which includes a 

minimum data set on all new chemicals. I believe that this approach presents a strong bias against new 

chemicals and will dramatically reduce the introduction into U.S. commerce of new chemicals thereby 

having significant adverse impacts on innovation. Further I believe it has not been shown that the current 

approach to new chemicals under TSCA has failed to prevent unacceptable risks to public health and the 

environment. I encourage careful analysis of this situation to ensure that significant unintended adverse 

consequences are avoided in developing the regulatory approach to new chemicals under TCSA. 

I offer these comments from the perspective of a fonner EPA staff scientist and official who participated 

personally in the review ofthousands of new chemicals and was otherwise involved in the oversight of 

OPPT's efforts over several decades to assess and take needed actions on tens ofthousands of new 

chemicals notified to EPA. I believe based on that experience that new Chemicals are generally safer and 

greener than their existing chemical competitors and, over time, than their new chemical predecessors. 

EPA has made several efforts to "check its work" over the years and has consistently failed to turn up 

evidence of significant problems despite concerns voiced about the lack of a minimum data set on new 

chemicals and EPA's consequent reliance on (Quantitative) Structure/Activity Relationships ((Q)SAR) 

analysis in its review of new chemicals. New chemicals additionally often provide greater energy 

efficiency, product efficiency, or provide approaches that can help deal with existing health or 

environmental issues. Most of the time the improvements seen with an individual new chemical are 

incremental (however, there are exceptions to this rule of thumb), but over time a strong continuous 

improvement effect is not infrequently realized. An example, one of many, is what are called "100% 

solids" polymer coatings which have been developed and introduced as new chemicals since the 1980s 

and provided, over years of introduction as new chemicals, a breakthrough in solvent-free coating 

technology which combined heath benefits (from reduced solvent exposure and release, and which also 

5 
193 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 202 here 78128A.143

contributed to VOC (volatile organic compound) reductions) and greater energy efficiency (the coatings 

did not require evaporation of the solvent and curing could be obtained via radiation with, for example, 

electron beam technologies rather than heating or other energy-intensive processes). In my view, EPA 

has been appropriately cautious in its review of new chemicals, taking testing and control decisions on 

about 8% of new chemicals while an additional 5% were withdrawn by the notifier often in the fact of 

EPA action, such that significant risks were avoided while allowing the U.s. to benefit from the 

continuous innovation provided by new chemicals. 

I raise concerns about a requirement for an MDS on all new chemicals at the time of notification because 

such up-front costs will have a dramatic and negative impact on the introduction of new chemicals. I 

encourage the Subcommittee to closely examine this issue and obtain the infonnation needed to infonn its 

understanding. Other countries which have required a minimum data set for new chemicals at the time of 

notification, such as the Minimum Premarket Dataset (MPD) in Europe, have seen dramatically fewer 

numbers of new chemicals introduced: over a 20-plus year period from the early 1980s until the entry 

into force of REACH in 2007, the European Union with its standing MPD requirement saw the 

introduction of approximately 4,000 new chemicals, while the U.S. over the same period saw the 

introduction into commerce of approximately 18,000 new chemicals corresponding to those notified in 

the EU (Le., the U.S. figures have been adjusted" to reflect the scope applied in the ED). As stark as 

these figures are, the impact would be even greater if, as discussed above under section 4, a more 

extensive and expensive data set is required. I specifically encourage that efforts be made to understand 

the experience in the EU regarding new chemical notifications since volume-based testing requirements 

were imposed on new chemicals following the entry into force of the REACH regulation in 2007. I 

suspect, but have not been able to confinn, that the testing requirements under REACH have further 

reduced the number of new chemicals introduced in Europe. 

Despite my confidence in the historic perfonnance of the U.S. new chemicals program, I do believe that 

the approach should be strengthened, particularly with regard to approaches that could enhance data 

submission requirements for new chemicals in a way that ensures the capacity for the U.S. to keep 

innovation and market incentives within the U.S. economy. One way to meet these goals is discussed in 

a recent publication (Auer et al., 2009) which proposes to make the new chemical data requirements 

generally consistent with those on existing chemicals but recognizing the impact of up-front submission, 

allows for some delay in testing: 

new chemical notifications would be required to contain production, exposure, and use 

information plus any available hazard and environmental fate information on the chemical and 

EPA would have the ability to require early development of needed testing when it identifies 

concerns and to impose control measures as appropriate; 

• the notifier would be required to undertake and complete the same data set that would be required 

for existing chemicals when the new chemical reaches certain production volumes, based on the 

time period allowed for submission of test data on existing chemicals. 

Thus, for example, using the timeline proposed in TCSA, high volume new chemicals might be required 

to produce the data set within 3 years after introduction ofthe new chemical. Alternatively, consideration 

should be given to whether a somewhat longer time period or staggered data development approaches 

might make sense for new chemicals which, as such, have yet to actually establish a commercial market. 

I believe that an approach which does not as a general matter require up-front testing but provides for 

6 
194 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 203 here 78128A.144

flexibility in the timing of test data development will do much to continue to encourage the continued 

development and introduction of new chemicals in the U.S. 

Section 6. Prioritization, Safety Standard Determination, and Risk Management. I found TCSA 's 

approach to regulation and management of chemicals to be over-heavy and ill-conceived. While I 

appreciate the desire to apply a safety-based approach to all chemicals and their uses, I question from 

several perspectives the merits of a "one size fits all" regulatory standard for all chemicals in all their 

uses when the pesticides law that is the source for the proposed standard only selectively applies such a 

standard to food use pesticides and otherwise applies a risk-based standard for other pesticide 

registrations. I also question the practical value of the critical use exemption procedure proposed in the 

bill. I believe that improvements to these and other parts of this section of TCSA are needed for the 

reasons explained and offer some suggestions in these regards. 

The concept in TCSA of creating a priority list to guide EPA's efforts is a strong addition which helps 

deal with the lack of guidance and direction to EPA under TSCA. I am cautious, however, about the 

concept of statutorily populated lists of chemicals (such as that at section 6(a)(I)(A)) and, if this approach 

is retained, encourage careful consideration of the entries to ensure they are appropriate for such a list. 

TCSA's safety standard at section 6(b)(I), with its applicability to all intended uses, its taking into 

account of aggregate exposures, and the need to ensure a reasonable certainty that no harm will result, 

would in my view present considerable issues and challenges if applied against all TSCA chemicals and 

uses. I appreciate the significance of the changes made from the version in the discussion draft but 

believe that further refinement is needed to achieve a workable and effective regulatory standard and 

approach. 

I question the practicality and need for applying a "reasonable certainty of no harm" standard to all 

intended uses. This standard derives from a similar standard developed for pesticides under the Food 

Quality Protection Act but applied only to the setting of food tolerances for pesticide residues. Other 

pesticide uses and exposures are subject to an "unreasonable risk" standard for pesticide registrations 

under FIFRA. Recognizing that 

• pesticides are designed to be biologically active, all uses are specifically registered and subject to 

requirements per the relevant registration, and that the use of pesticides involves intentional 

exposure and/or release, 

• while in comparison, chemicals are not designed to be biologically active, relatively few involve 

intentional exposure or release, and they have a broad diversity of uses encompassing industrial, 

commercial, and consumer applications, 

it is difficult to square the public policy implications and see the practicability of the TCSA approach 

which proposes to apply a "reasonable certainty of no harm" standard to the myriad of all chemical uses, 

with the approach in FQP A, which applies a similar standard to only the narrow and targeted subset of 

food use pesticides. Put another way, from a public policy perspective I find it hard to understand why all 

uses of chemicals, especially given their characteristics as outlined above, should be subjected to a more 

stringent regulatory standard than that which is applied to non-food use pesticides. Recognizing these 

points, TCSA should at most be structured to apply such a standard to a narrow subset of uses which, 

following the FQPA approach, represent the gteatest potential for exposure or concern, and to apply an 

appropriate risk-based standard to other uses. 

7 
195 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 204 here 78128A.145

One approach for consideration under TCSA is to possibly target an appropriate safety standard to use in 

products intended for consumers and children and to apply an appropriate risk-based standard to 

commercial and industrial uses. I base this suggestion on the recognition that there is at best limited 

ability to otherwise control exposures to chemicals at the point of contact with consumers and children 

and, furthermore, the available legal authorities are limited (while TSCA provides general authority, the 

effect of the Federal Hazardous Substances Act on chemical issues in consumer products is largely 

limited to acute effects while the recently enacted Consumer Product Safety Improvement Act covers 

only a limited subset of chemicals when used in children's products). This is not the case with exposures 

and releases associated with commercial and industrial uses of chemicals where other statutory schemes 

(Occupational Safety and Health Act, Clean Air Act, Clean Water Act, etc.) provide broad authority in 

conjunction with that available under TSCA, and where the application of concepts such as product 

stewardship and industrial hygiene provide an additional measure of assurance. For these reasons, and to 

provide an approach which can meet the test of being workable and effective, I encourage the 

Subcommittee to consider targeting an appropriate safety standard approach to an appropriate subset of 

uses while looking to an appropriate risk-based approach for other uses. 

I note in passing that applying such a scheme would also have the benefit of focusing MDS testing: 

testing sufficient to meet a safety standard need would be required on only that subset of chemicals 

having uses relevant to the safety standard, while chemicals not having such uses would be subjected to 

an MDS that satisfies the needs for a risk-based determination; such as approach would save considerable 

MDS testing resources and animals. 

I appreciate the inclusion of the concept of the "industrial hygiene hierarchy of controls" at TCSA section 

6(2)(F) but suggest that some clarity or a definition is needed, given that a variety of such hierarchies can 

be found. More fundamentally, however, I raise a question whether it is good public policy to give EPA 

explicit authority to "prescribe specific control measures to reduce occupational exposures" without an 

explicit reference to TCSA section 9 or a requirement that the action be taken in consultation/concurrence 

with the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA), given the potential that independent 

EPA action could introduce conflicts with occupational exposure standards and related requirements 

established by OSHA under its authority. 

Section 6(e) ofTCSA provides a procedure for critical use exemptions to be requested and approved if 

EPA determines that the manufacturer or processor has demonstrated by clear and convincing evidence 

that a combination of requirements has been met. I believe that the exemption, while a good concept, 

will, without revision, find little practical applicability given the difficulty that will be encountered in 

satisfYing the nested requirements articulated. Notwithstanding this concern, I suggest that consideration 

be given to providing the flexibility to also implement such exemptions by rule in the event that the 

exemption involves multiple manufacturers and processors. 

Finally, I raise a question whether, in TCSA section 6(f) on PCBs, the references to section 37 on data 

quality are intended, or if one or both should reference section 36 on international cooperation? 

Section 8. Reporting and Retention of Information I found the concept of periodic declarations to be a 

useful one that will do much to ensure that EPA's understanding remains current with commercial 

developments. At the same time, however, I suggest ways that might reduce the information collection 

burdens without adversely affecting effectiveness and also suggest retaining TSCA section 8(b)(2) 

8 
196 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 205 here 78128A.146

concerning "Inventory categories" which had been deleted under TCSA, and suggest further development 

of the "categorized Inventory" concept at TCSA section 8(c)(3). 

In considering the significant reporting burden of a declaration requirement being applied to all 

manufacturers and processors and noting the additional requirement for immediate updating when any 

one of numerous circumstances is encountered, I raise the question whether the requirement for updating 

every 3 years is more frequent, and thus more burdensome, than necessary. I also note that there would 

be value in requiring EPA to propose and publish a reporting rule specitying reporting requirements for 

declarations to avoid ad hoc submissions based solely on the statutory text at section 8( a)(2). 

Concerning TCSA section 8(c) on the Inventory, I raise a question about the impact of not including or 

otherwise dealing with TSCA section 8(b X2) which serves as the basis for the listing within the TSCA 

Inventory of numerous section 8(bX2) categories (also known as "statutory mixtures") which comprise 

thousands or possibly tens of thousands of complex materials such as ceramics, frits, glasses, cements, 

and others. I note that the retained TSCA section 26( c) provides general authority to take actions with 

respect to categories of chemical substances and arguably could be applied by EPA as appropriate in this 

situation. Nonetheless, given the large number of materials at play which, depending on how or whether 

EPA chooses to address the issue without a specific statutory provision, could potentially result in 

thousands (or possibly tens of thousandS) of additional Inventory entries leading potentially to tens of 

thousands of declarations from manufacturers and processors (and not forgetting the MDS requirement), 

I believe there would be great value in providing clarity in the statute by retaining section 8(b)(2). 

I note the requirement at TCSA section 8(c)(3) that EPA within 5 years, and every 3 years thereafter, 

categorize the substances on the Inventory. The only action specified is that EPA publishes the results of 

its categorization efforts. I encourage that consideration be given to how such a categorized Inventory 

might be of value in developing prioritized approaches to assessing or setting aside chemicals from 

further review. I do not have an elaborated proposal to offer but note that the approach might be 

broadened and strengthened to operate as a key, ifnot the central feature in prioritization efforts under the 

act. For example, section 8(c)(3) could be set up to operate in a manner similar to that applied in Canada 

under the Canadian Environmental Protection Act for the "categorization" of chemicals to identity those 

that require further review and those which do not present such a need. Such as approach could thus 

serve to support continued development of the section 6 priority list and also provide an organized 

framework for efforts to identity persistent, bioaccumulative, and toxic (PBT) chemicals under TCSA 

section 32, and "safer alternative" and "intrinsic property" candidates for consideration under sections 35 

and 39, respectively, among other provisions under TCSA. 

Section 14. Disclosure of Data. While I agree that, historically, industry has approached confidential 

business information (CBl) claims as a "blanket" need rather than as specific needs warranting 

protection against disclosure, I do not believe that the approach as drqfted, while it represents an 

improvement over that in the discussion drift, provides an appropriate balance in addressing the 

competing interests. Without revision, I believe the approach's treatment of chemical identity runs the 

risk of adversely impacting innovation particularly as it relates to new chemicals. More generally, I have 

some concern that the approach proposed could have an effect of weakening the confidence that the 

business community will have in the ability of EPA to legally protect legitimate business confidential 

informationfrom disclosure. 

9 
197 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 206 here 78128A.147

I do not believe that the section affords adequate protection to intellectual property in the fonn of 

chemical identity, especially with regard to new chemicals where I believe such protection is needed to 

encourage and protect the investment made in research and innovation. While it is my guess that the 

"chemical identity" approach proposed would have a lesser effect generally on existing chemicals, I 

suspect that there nonetheless would be specific instances where the approach if implemented without 

greater balance and flexibility could have negative competitiveness impacts on companies doing business 

in the U.S. While I appreciate the difficulty in attempting to assess a health and safety study without 

chemical identity infonnation, I do not believe it is sound public policy to see this transparency need as 

one that reflexively trumps the need for protection, for example, of new chemical identity at the time of 

notification and for some appropriate period thereafter. 

I also have some concerns that the general approach, including the "rules of construction" with its "shall" 

requirements at section I 4(b), the explicit statements of "Infonnation not eligible for protection" at 

section l4( d), and other provisions, could have an effect of weakening the confidence that businesses 

have in the ability of EPA to legally protect legitimate claims of confidentiality under TCSA and 

encourage careful consideration of this possible issue. 

Section 32. Persistent, Bioaccumulative, and Toxic Substances. I appreciate and support the needfor 

greater attention and authority to be applied to "P BTs " given the obvious issues that can be presented by 

exposure to and release of chemicals combining these properties. However, at the same time, I 

encourage careful consideration of the potential unintended consequences of the approach proposed. 

One particular area of concern is the requirement that new chemical PBTs will be evaluated subject to the 

critical uses exemption at section 6(e). As discussed above, I believe that, as a general matter, section 

6( e) as drafted will rarely be satisfied and a likely consequence of retaining this requirement is that no -

or at most very few - PBT new chemicals will successfully enter commerce. An experience I had several 

decades ago when EPA was developing its PBT policy for new chemicals may help to illustrate the 

potential for unintended consequences from such an approach. 

A new chemical was reviewed and determined to clearly meet the draft PBT policy based on 

EPA's review and it was teed up for a ban action. However, upon closer inspection the chemical 

was found to be manufactured in, as I recall, gram or milligram quantities for use as a liquid 

crystal dye in digital displays for watches. Based on the infonnation in the new chemical 

notification, it was clear that well-controlled but tiny releases would occur during production of 

the chemical and during use by downstream digital display producers. 

The case caused me to take another look at the draft policy and to recommend adjusting the approach to 

consider the nature and magnitude of the exposures and releases to ensure that such reflexive unintended 

consequences could be avoided. T<? be clear, this is not to say that this situation alone needs to be 

addressed, rather the point is the importance of recognizing the diversity of the chemical products and 

uses which are in commerce and the future uses which the Subcommittee can't anticipate. Accordingly, I 

encourage development of a more flexible approach that gives EPA more discretion than that provided by 

the language in section 32(a) in identifYing PBTs and by the requirement to apply section 6(e) to new 

chemical PBTs in detennining the need for and nature of the actions required. Black-and-white 

requirements can be useful if carefully applied but I believe that section 32 presents a situation that 

requires and would benefit from the application by EPA of both judgment and discretion to make 

decisions that are protective but avoid unintended - and undesired - consequences. 

10 
198 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 207 here 78128A.148

Section 34. Reduction of Animal-based Testing. I appreciate and generally support the concepts 

outlined in this section and offer a few suggestions and cautions. 

I suggest that it may be useful to articulate an appropriately worded longer-term goal for EPA to work 

towards in this area; as suggested in Auer et al. (2009) such a goal might be framed to achieve by 2020 

the testing vision set forth by the National Research Council of the National Academy of Sciences in its 

2007 report "Toxicity Testing in the 21" Century: A Vision and a Strategy." 

As rioted above in the discussion under section 4, I have raised concerns about the possible lack of 

enforceability concerning testing conducted under TCSA. Regarding section 34(b) and the need to 

periodically publish a list of methods, I raise a question about the need to carefully consider the effect of 

the fuilure to include and apply a definition of "standards for the development of test data," a term that 

was defined in TSCA at section 3(12) and applied under section 4. The discussion of methods in section 

34 is focused on "demonstrated testing methods that reduce the use of animals in testing" and, while this 

is a worthy goal, the loss of the concept of "test standards" and the relatively general nature of the 

discussion in section 34(b) may lead to a weakening in the level of scientific rigor that is required to be 

met by the test methods applied under TCSA. An important point to consider is that whatever approach is 

selected in this regard must also allow the U.S. to continue to meet the terms ofthe OECD's Council 

Decision on Mutual Acceptance of Data which ensures international acceptability of testing conducted in 

accord with OECD test guidelines and Good Laboratory Practices. I question whether the approach in 

TCSA provides adequate assurances in the areas discussed in this paragraph. 

Section 35. Safer Alternatives and Green Chemistry and Engineering. I generally support the concepts 

outlined in this section and believe that TCSA and its future orientation is improved by virtue of their 

inclusion. At the same time, some suggested improvements are offered. 

A general comment is to note that the section, with its emphasis on the concept of "safer alternatives," 

might be strengthened and improved via a somewhat broadened and elaborated concept that also allowed 

recognition of factors like energy efficiency, product efficiency, and others that can also be valuable 

contributors to developing safer and greener alternatives. Based on my experience at EPA in 

development and implementation of the Design for the Environment (DiE), Green Chemistry, Green 

Engineering, Pollution Prevention, "Sustainable Futures," and "New Chemical Pollution Prevention 

Recognition" efforts, I believe that such a broadened approach can be invaluable in developing and 

applying analyses that reflect an integrated optimization of the properties, relative hazards and exposures, 

performance needs and attributes (including "functional use" considerations such as those applied in the 

DiE program), costs, and other factors that are key to developing alternatives that will provide 

commercial value and find application. 

I note the requirement under TCSA section 35(aX2)(B) which has the Administrator determining that the 

proposed alternative "is effective for the proposed use or uses." I question if this is something that EPA 

can do or if such a "determination" is actually better left for the markets to decide. I believe that such 

consideration might better be applied as a "factor" rather than a determination by EPA. 

Section 39. Exemption for Chemical Substances or Mixtures Based on Intrinsic Properties. While I liked 

the concept of an exemption based on intrinsic properties, I found the exemption approach contained in 

this section to be overly cautious such that, at the end of the day, it would not serve its purposes of 

exempting chemicals for which there is little need or value in applying the close scrutiny that otherwise 

would be required by TCSA. I recommend that a more flexible approach be developed that could meet 

11 
199 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 208 here 78128A.149

the purposes of exempting chemicals from some or all requirements as warranted and offer a few 

suggestions in this regard. 1 also raise what 1 believe is an important issue concerning polymers and 

whether it makes sense to treat them in the same manner as non polymeric chemicals under TCSA. 

TCSA proposes authority to exempt certain chemical substances and mixtures based on intrinsic 

properties. If EPA can determine that "scientific consensus exists that the intrinsic properties of a 

chemical substance or mixture are such that it does not and would not pose any risk of injury to health or 

the environment under any current, proposed, or anticipated levels of production, patterns or use, or 

exposures arising at any stage across the lifecycle" (emphasis added), EPA may by order exempt the 

substance or mixture from one or more requirements under sections 4, 5, 6, or 8 of the act. While the 

concept of the exemption is a welcome addition, it is difficult to see that it will be useful for many 

chemicals. As indicated by the italicized points in the determination text, the multiple requirements, all 

of which must be met, conspire to make it virtually impossible for a chemical to be determined to satisfy 

the requirements. Consider the ~xample of water -- could it satisfy the requirement for "not posing any 

risk ... under any ... anticipated ... exposures".at any stage across the lifecycle" when this substance, while 

essential for life, can cause intoxication or drowning under exposures that are known to occur? Even high 

molecular weight polymers, that are eligible for production under the current TSCA section 5(h)( 4) 

polymer exemption, could be found ineligible for the section 39 exemption insofar as the reactive or toxic 

monomers used in their manufacture might not satisfy the "across the Iifecyle" requirement. Finally, the 

fact that all such chemicals would not be eligible for CBI protection seems to detract further from the 

appeal ofthe exemption. 

I encourage that careful consideration be given to developing an approach that would prove workable and 

effective in exempting chemicals for which data development or other requirements might not be 

warranted. Although I appreciate the desire for what amounts to an almost "absolute and comprehensive" 

standard based on intrinsic properties for making such determinations, I believe that such an approach 

runs a considerable risk of defeating the purposes ofthe exemption. I believe that to serve and meet its 

purposes the exemption must allow an appropriate role for judgment and discretion in applying the 

exemption. Thus, for starters, I encourage the Subcommittee to gain a good understanding of EPA's 

approach in implementing the TSCA section 5(h)( 4) exemptions. I believe these exemption approaches 

have been effective in encouraging the introduction of new chemicals under appropriate conditions of 

volume and use (such as the low volume exemption and the low releasellow exposure exemption) or 

where polymers meet conditions of high molecular weight and other factors. I encourage the 

Subcommittee to consider ways that such approaches, in addition to a revision of the "intrinsic properties" 

approach, might be incorporated into revised legislation. 

Relatedly, I draw attention to the issue of polymers and whether and to what extent the revised law should 

treat the tens of thousands of polymers which are likely in commerce (the TSCA Inventory lists 

approximately 30,000 polymers) in the same manner for MDS and declaration purposes as the 

nonpolymeric chemicals on the Inventory. While some polymers are of concern many, perhaps most, are 

generally considered to present low hazard, especially those that have high molecular weights such that 

absorption is limited. Polymers also present practical difficulties. For TSCA Inventory purposes, 

polymers are named based on the monomers which are used in their production. Thus, an Inventory 

polymer can be named as "Polymer of A, B, C, and 0" where A to 0 are monomers used in producing the 

polymer and the chemical name does not otherwise provide any details on the reaction sequence or 

conditions, the ratio of the monomers, the molecular weight, or other information critical in determining 

12 
200 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 209 here 78128A.150

the nature of the resultant polymer. In fact it is possible to make multiple, distinctly different polymers 

from a given Inventory listing by adjusting factors such as these. (In reviewing new chemical polymers, 

EPA principally considers the polymer that the submitter intends to produce, an approach which gives a 

specific focus to EPA's assessment task.) 

Because of such considerations and practical complexities, polymers were not subject to the reporting that 

EPA required by regulation under the Inventory Update Reporting rule and polymers were also not 

included in EPA's HPV Challenge program. In Europe, the approach to polymers has differed 

historically from that in the U.S., in that polymers were generally not subject to the legal regime which 

preceded REACH (e.g., polymers were not included on the European inventory nor were they generally 

subject to new chemical notification requirements). Under REACH, polymers are generally exempted 

from the registration requirements that otherwise apply to chemicals. The Subcommittee should consider 

these points carefully given the large number of Inventory-listed polymers which could be subject to 

testing and declaration requirements, and also recognizing some of the practical issues briefly noted in 

this section. One alternative approach to consider is to continue to apply requirements under section 5 to 

new chemical polymers, to generally exempt new and existing chemical polymers from the MDS 

requirements, and to obtain exposure and use information under section 8 needed to support an EPA 

review of the issue similar to the approach envisioned under TCSA section 3(b )(3) for mixtures. Based 

on that analysis, EPA could, as suggested above for mixtures, develop general requirements for testing 

and assessment of polymers that would be implemented by EPA by rule once it better understands the 

issue. During the interim, EPA should have authority to require appropriate testing and impose controls 

on specific polymers or classes of polymers when there is a need for such action. 

Regulatory procedures and need for adequate due process. I welcome and support the broadened order 

authority provided to EPA under TCSA, however, recognizing the nature of and the limitations in orders, 

I encourage careful consideration of whether the authority is workable and effective in all of the areas 

where it is mentioned 

In particular, I question the approach of developing and applying CBI guidance via order authority at 

section 14( e) and the requirement at section 24( d) that all actions on single chemical substances or a 

single category of substances "shall be made through an order." Regarding the first, it is difficult to 

understand how order authority, both generally and particularly without a requirement for proposal and 

comment, would be used to implement CBI "guidance." The second appears difficult to implement 

effectively. Consider the chemicals on the section 6(a) initial priority list where, from my perspective, it 

would prove very difficult to implement needed requirements on formaldehyde, methylene chloride, the 

phthalates category, and others via order authority considering the number of manufacturers, processors, 

users, distributors, disposers, etc. that are involved with such chemicals. Furthermore, since most actions 

under section 6( c) will likely involve single chemicals or a single category (are the PBTs under section 32 

a "single category of chemical substances?"), it appears that order authority would be the required 

approach in almost all instances. I encourage that greater flexibility to use rulemaking be provided. 

I also question whether TCSA as drafted provides the appropriate balance between an ability to take more 

prompt action by order versus the due process afforded by ruIemaking. Although I am not a big fan of 

ruIemaking, given the time required and the difficulty encountered in proposing and promulgating an 

action, I have to say that in my experience at EPA virtually every rule and guidance document was 

improved following EPA's consideration of the comments. I grudgingly came to the conclusion that 

notice and comment is a necessary and valuable step which serves to improve the rulemaking process and 

13 
201 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 210 here 78128A.151

ultimately make Executive branch regulations workable in a participatory democracy. I think this is an 

important issue to get right and I encourage the drafters to think carefully about the appropriate role for 

rules versus orders in the bill. 

Timelines and Deadlines. I believe based on my experience that a number of the timelines and deadlines 

in TCSA will prove very difficult to realize, while others might not be sufficiently responsive. While I 

appreciate the desire by the Subcommittee and stakeholders for prompt progress to be realized after the 

failings under TSCA, the reality is that sorting through the issues and developing workable and effective 

approaches that satisfY statutory requirements is, in an area as complex as this, difficult to do and the 

result will not be improved by unrealistically short deadlines which not infrequently have been 

superimposed on each other. I offer afew suggestions for consideration. 

One of the practical challenges that EPA will encounter in implementing any revision to TCSA is the 

need to staff up (despite the challenges and delays encountered in the Federal hiring process) and to 

develop and implement support contracts (which itself can be a time-consuming and complex process) 

that would allow it to apply such resources in meeting the requirements under a revised law. Even as 

EPA is attempting to expand its staffmg and extramural capabilities, it will at the same time need to work 

to understand, interpret, and apply the new statutory requirements, develop options and get Agency 

decisions and potentially inter-Agency clearance on required actions, establish the bodies called for under 

the law, develop policies required per the statute or ones that EPA determines are needed to guide its 

future efforts, and so on. The first several years will be quite challenging to say the least. I note, for 

example, the following overlapping timelines/deadlines and other considerations that might benefit from 

more realistic timeframes and other changes in approach: 

• Whether the I year allowed under TCSA section 4(a) provides sufficient time for EPA to propose 

and promulgate the MDS requirements given the issues and complexities at play and as discussed 

above in the relevant section. Relatedly, I note also the requirement at section 35(a)(2) that 

within 1 year EPA establish by rule the "safer alternatives data set" and, within the same period, 

establish a program to create incentives for the development of safer alternatives (section 

35(a)(1)). 

Whether TCSA should continue to require "premanufacture" notices from new chemicals or, 

based on EPA's experience under TSCA with new chemicals, if the trigger should be shifted to 

"premarketing" (i.e., notifications would be required after manufacture but before 

commercialization has occurred). The key statistic prompting this suggestion is that only about 

50% of the new chemical premanufacture notifications received by EPA actually commence 

manufacture (Auer, 2009), which represents considerable wasted effort by both EPA and the 

industry. 

• Section 5(b)(2) under TCSA essentially requires that all new chemicals be taken through the 

section 6(b) safety standard determination, unless otherwise exempted. Per section 5(b)(5) EPA 

has 90 days to determine whether a safety standard determination is required and 9 months later 

EPA is required to have completed such required determination (although there is no 

consequence or relief provided if EPA is late), which means that EPA could take as much as a 

year to render the determination on each new chemical. In comparison, under TSCA EPA has 90 

days (extendable to 180 total days) to take its decision on new chemicals and historically 

decisions have been completed on the great majority of new chemicals within the initial90-day 

14 
202 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 211 here 78128A.152

period (in the case of exemption requests under TSCA section 5(h)( 4), decisions to grant or deny 

such requests are typically made within 30 days of receiving the exemption notification). I 

question if a new chemicals decision process that could require I year for a decision to be 

rendered, appropriately balances the competing needs between sound decision-making and being 

adequately responsive to commercial needs and realities. I encourage careful consideration of 

shortening the timeline, noting in particular that, in my experience at EPA, it is generally simpler 

to assess the situation associated with a single notifier of a new chemical, than it is to assess and 

understand a situation involving an existing chemical with multiple commercial entities at play. 

TCSA section 6(a)(l)(B) requires that EPA, within I year of enactment, update the priority list to 

a total of not fewer than 300 chemicals. While I can appreciate the value of having such a list 

developed promptly, I question if the deadline makes good sense considering, among other 

aspects, that EPA would not have the first set of declarations available wben it is making these 

initial additions to the priority list 

Other TCSA requirements that come due within 18 months following enactment, include, for 

example: section 8(d)(I) on establishing a public database; section 14(e) on guidance for CBI 

claims; section 32 on establishing criteria for PBTs; section 37 on "data quality;" section 38 on 

"hot spots;" section 39(d) on "prior regulatory exemptions;" and so on. 

I think you for the opportunity to have provided this written testimony. 

References 

Auer, Charles M., Blake A. Biles, and Lawrence E. Culleen, "Fundamental changes could be in store for 

regulation for commercial chemicals," BNA Chern. Reg. Reporter (Vol. 33, No. 40); Oct 12,2009 (pp 

1008-1012). 

Auer, Charles M., "Periodic Reporting of hazard data, exposure information on existing chemicals," 

BNA Chern. Reg. Reporter (Vol. 34, No. 16), April 19, 2010 (pp. 384-392). 

I The 2006 Inventory Update Reporting rule received reports on a total of approximately 6,200 non-polymeric 

chemicals produced above 25,000 pounds per year at a site (http://www.epa.gov/iur/pubs/2006 data summary.pdf, 

page 2). It is not known how many of the polymers on the TSCA Inventory are currently in production, nor is it 

known how many of the lower volume non-polymeric Inventory chemicals are presently in commerce (such 

chemicals were not subject to the 20061UR rule). It is kno,,", that there are approximately 30,000 polymers listed 

on the TSCA Inventory and EPA reports additionally over 4,500 TSCA section 5(h)(4) "polymer exemptions" for a 

total of 34,500 polymers potentially in commerce (an additional unknown number of exempted polymers is also 

likely to be in commerce based on the terms of the revised TSCA section 5(h)(4) polymer exemption). There are 

45,000 non-polymeric Inventory chemicals that did not meet the volume reporting trigger under the 2006 IUR rule 

plus an additional approximately 8,900 TSCA section 5(h)(4) "low volume exemptions" that have been approved by 

EPA (http://www.epa.gov/oppVpubs/oPDtlOI-032008.pdf,seepages6 and 12) yielding an estimated total of 53,900 

lower volume nonpolymeric chemicals potentially in commerce. 

Assuming that half of each of the 34,500 polymers and the 53,900 lower volume chemicals are currently in 

production, and adding in the 6,200 higher volume chemicals which are known to be in production based on the 

2006 reporting under the JUR rule, yields an estimated total of slightly over 50,000 substances currently in 

commerce and for which EPA would possibly receive MDSs under TCSA section 4(a)(2) and declarations under 

TCSA section 8(a)(l) (the math is as follows: (53,900 + 34,500)/2 + 6,200 = 50,400). 

15 
203 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 212 here 78128A.153

I~istorically, the U.S. and the EU have taken somewhat different approaches to the chemicals that are covered under 

their respective new chemical notification requirements and the figures reported have accounted for those 

differences. A key difference is that new polymers are treated as new chemicals in the U.S. (where they represent 

about 55% of the new chemicals notified to EPA) whereas polymers are generally not subject to notification in the 

EU. The U.S. also has a regulatory exemption procedure for low volume new chemicals under TSCA section 

5(h)(4). Thus, considering these points, the U.S., through approximately 2006, has seen over 9,200 nonpolymeric 

new chemicals added to the Inventory and over 8,800 low volume exemption requests granted by EPA for a total of 

approximately 18,000 nonpolymeric new chemicals introduced into U.S. commerce 

(http://www.epa.gov/opptipubs/owtIOl-032008.pdf, see pages 7-12). 

16 
204 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 213 here 78128A.154

WRITTEN STATEMENT OF THE 

NATIONAL PETROCHEMICAL & REFINERS ASSOCIATION 

SiffiMIITED 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON COMMERCE, 

on 

B,R, 5820, tbe "Toxie Chemicals 

29,21110 

THE 

Al"1'D CONS'lJMER PROTECTION 

ActoflOHI" 
205 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 214 here 78128A.155

NPRA, the National Petrochemical and Refiners Association, appreciates the opportunity 

to submit this statement on H.R. 5820, the "Toxic Chemicals Safety Act of2010". NPRA's 

members include more than 450 companies, including virtually all U.S. refiners and 

petrochemical manufacturers. Our members supply consumers with a wide variety of products 

and services that are used daily in homes and businesses. These include products that fuel our 

cars, heat our homes, pave our streets, and the chemicals that serve as "building blocks" for 

making everything from plastics, clothing and medicine to computers and bullet-proof vests. 

NPRA appreciates the commitment Chairman Waxman and Chairman Rush have 

demonstrated through the stakeholder process of reforming the Toxic Substance Control Act 

(TSCA) and are pleased to have participated in the discussions. While we recognize the need for 

TSCA modernization, NPRA believes significant problems remain with the legislation that will 

have a disproportionate impact on small businesses, lead to increased barriers of entry into the 

marketplace, decreased domestic innovation, and threaten American international 

competitiveness. 

A primary concern with H.R. 5820 is the establishment of a potentially unachievable 

safety standard. In the legislation, manufacturers would be required to prove that their products 

meet a "reasonable certainty of no-harm" standard for all intended uses of each chemical covered 

under this legislation. While a "no-harm" standard is questionably suitable for pesticides that are 

designed to kill pests and are applied to things that may be ingested, it is not appropriate to 

regulate industrial chemicals. Most of these chemicals never come into contact with society and 

are used in closed systems to make a large number of essential products such as solar panels, 

vehicles, and batteries. Forcing the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to find a 

reasonable certainty of no harm for all intended uses of each chemical is impractical, nearly 

2 
206 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 215 here 78128A.156

impossible, and will be extremely burdensome on the Agency and those trying to meet the 

standard. Experience from the regulation of pesticides has demonstrated that EPA is reluctant to 

deem anything "safe" without ever-increasing amounts of very costly and animal-intensive 

laboratory data. 

The proposed legislation also provides little protection for American intellectual 

property, and the protections that are allowed in the legislation would require companies to pay 

"user fees" to obtain them. Requiring both the EPA and companies to make detailed information 

about their formulas publicly available, even down to the molecular leve~ is simply opening the 

door to foreign knockoffs. Companies would have little incentive to introduce any new or safer 

chemicals into u.s. commerce, knowing that their intellectual property would be disclosed. 

Under the legislation, the disclosure rules for Confidential Business Information (CBI) would 

follow the procedures and processes of the Freedom ofinformation Act (FOIA). FOIA does not 

stipulate which types ofinformation are considered confidential in the manner that the current 

TSCA provisions set for CBI. Since chemical identity could no longer be claimed as CBI under 

this bill, there would be a disproportionate adverse impact on small businesses and innovation 

would be dampened for all companies. Furthermore, the strong CBI protections in the current 

TSCA statute have been an important factor in companies' decisions to use the United States as 

an economic platform for innovation. By making this information publicly available, proprietary 

information that is exclusive property of American businesses will be freely available to overseas 

competitors from China or India who could easily discover the exact formulations and chemical 

compounds of American products through government databases. They would then be able to 

produce these same products, most likely at a lower price, and export them to the United States, 

placing domestic companies as a competitive disadvantage. 

3 
207 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 216 here 78128A.157

We understand and agree with the belief that there needs to be a balance between the 

public access to information regarding substances with which they may come in contact and 

providing adequate protection to confidential business information. Regulators must be able to 

adequately assess the risk ofsubstances without inhibiting the ability of America's businesses to 

develop chemicals that make our lives safer and enhance our quality oflife. Unfortunately, we 

do not believe this current legislation as drafted achieves such a goal. 

Another concern with H.R. 5820 is the seemingly unilateral authority it gives the EPA to 

create and enforce regulations without an effective system of checks and balances. For example, 

the decision on chemical prioritization is left exclusively up to the EPA with no guidelines and 

no explanation required as to why particular chemicals are chosen. Also, there are very few 

requirements imposed on the EPA before it can mandate expensive and animal-intensive testing 

or actions potentially disruptive to the supply chain. Historically, the EPA has required millions 

of dollars in costly testing in order to approve a chemical under the Federal Insecticide, 

Fungicide and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA) before approving a chemical. This is simply a cost that 

small- and medium-sized chemical companies cannot afford in an already suffering domestic 

economy, especially for the approval ofa chemical that never comes into contact with the 

population. Furthermore, most opportunities for judicial review have been eliminated. There is 

no recourse for companies that question or want to review the EPA's actions and decisions. 

The regulations that the legislation would create for the approval of new chemicals will 

stifle innovation and allow foreign manufacturers a distinct advantage over domestic 

manufacturers. The upfront testing costs, disclosure of intellectual property and change in the 

status of various exemptions could bring America's strong history of manufacturing innovation 

to a halt. For example, the European Union dramatically increased the regulatory requirements 

4 
208 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 217 here 78128A.158

for new chemicals before they were allowed into commerce, resulting in the introduction of only 

4,000 chemicals since that time. In the same period, about 18,000 new and typically safer 

chemicals were introduced into U.S. commerce.l 

Lastly, NPRA cautions against allowing states to adopt additional or more stringent 

regulations than those included in the federal program. Chemical companies operate throughout 

many different regions and states. Allowing a patchwork of possibly dozens of different 

chemical control programs creates significant regulatory confusion, places an undue burden on 

chemical companies and will certainly be disruptive to interstate commerce. 

NPRA believes that any chemical control program should take a tiered, targeted and riskbased approach to chemicals management, which is the most efficient and effective way to 

ensure safety for industrial chemicals on a national scale. However, the proposed legislation 

uses a one-size-fits-all approach to information collection and safety, and places an undue burden 

on both the EPA and companies to submit, collect, and manage an overabundance of 

information, with no regard to what information is useful, needed, or even legitimate. An 

efficient and effective program would regulate chemicals using a risk-based standard, meaning 

the greater the likelihood of societal exposure to chemicals, the greater priority they are in terms 

of testing, information collection and, for those that also have significant risks, potential risk 

management actions. 

The "Toxic Chemicals Safety Act of 201 0" significantly raises ~e cost and barriers of 

entry into the marketplace and as a result will greatly stifle domestic innovation while giving 

foreign competitors the advantage of easily being able to ship their products in from overseas. It 

also places an undue burden on market entrants to collect, manage and submit an overabundance 

I Response of Charlie Auer, fonner Director oflhe Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxies, U,S. EPA, to a blog 

posting oflhe Environmental Defense Fund; May 12,2010; hltjl://blogs.edf.orglnanotechnology/2010/05I09!raisingthe-bar-for-chemical-safety-will-spur-not-s\ifle-innovation! 

5 
209 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 218 here 78128A.159

of test data and exposure infonnation with little regard to what infonnation is useful, needed or 

legitimate for risk management purposes. Furthennore, raising the barriers of entry into 

commerce would have a negative impact on green chemistry, innovation and the development of 

new and safer chemicals. 

NPRA and its member companies support the reasonable modernization ofTSCA. 

Unfortunately, the proposed legislation would decrease domestic innovation and hamper 

American global competitiveness. NPRA stands ready and willing to work with the committee 

towards the responsible modernization of our nation's chemical safety laws. 

6 
210 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 219 here 78128A.160

The Honorable Bobby Rush 

Chairman 

Subcommittee on CommerG'C Trade, 

and Consumer Protection 

United of Representatives 

Dear Chairm,UI Rush 

Trade, Commerce and 

2010," We 

Ranking Member 

than three of scientific lIDd technological advancements since 

The Honorable Whitfield 

Ranking Member 

Subcommittee on Commerce Trade, 

and Consumer Protection 

Washington, DC 20515 

Products AssaC'laUIOl1 

improve contidence in the safety used in the United States, 

record lor the Congressional hearing on H.R. 5820, 

leading trade associations representing the dovmstrcam users of chemical substances, 

We are committed to manufacturin~ and innovative and sustainable products that 

Md environment Product is the 

substantial resources toward achieving this 

paJ1iciD2lnts in the stakeholder initiated by this Committee, we have worked to communicate what we 

modernization of a management Toward that end, AC!, CSPA and GMA 

Members Subcommittee with the block conc",p!s the 

Discussion Drait that should be included 

Adopting a risk-based approach prioritize and review 

use and exposure data; 

innovation and competitiveness under improved: 

risk concerns; 

in commerce include adequate 

chemical policy rather than a 

has adequate resources to meel those 

ll1forn1al:io11 sharing that leverage the chemical management 

We urge the Subcommittee to work with 

consumer confidence chemicals in t .. onsmner products While 

would to highlight some pmvisions 

would impact our industry, 

and concerned about the direction H.R. 5820 ta.!(es with to mixtures and 

you and ac<,onlolish further clarification 
211 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 220 here 78128A.161

While we appreciate the changes under the proposed safety standard that focus the safety 

detennination on intended use, the proposed standard continues to require EPA to determine "8 

reasonable certainty of no harm" that would be unattainable. We will continue to analyze the bill to 

detennine what impact it will have on the current consumer product protection regulatory system and 

the overall risk-based system of U.s. chemicals management. 

We maintain our support for up-front substantiation for confidential business information (CBI) that 

allows U.S. industry to maintain a competitive edge in a very challenging global economy. However, 

consistent with our discussion draft comments, EPA should require resubstantiation ofCBI claims that 

would be prompted by appropriate EPA determined ''triggers" for CBI claims rather than an arbitrary 

five-year expiration timeline. The need to protect such information from disclosure to competitors is 

directly related to the commercial value companies derive from the investments they have made in 

their products; a five-year timeline bears no reasonable relationship to the time and expense necessary 

to realize a return on those investments. Also, we question the appropriateness under TSCA of 

including new requirements for a company to disclose chemical identity and other commercial 

information to other companies along the supply chain. 

H.R. 5820 has taken some steps to address these concerns raised in the stakeholder process; however, a great deal of 

work needs to be done to ensure a robust chemical management system for U.S. companies. While we could not 

support provisions as currently drafted, we remain committed to working with you and your colleagues on the 

substantive work ahead. We are committed to this process and will continue to work with all stakeholders to develop 

strong and world-class chemical management system under a modernized TSCA. 

AboutACI 

The ACl is the Home ofthe U.S. Cleaning Products IndustryTM, representing producers of household, industrial, and 

institutional cleaning products, their ingredients and finished packaging; oleochemical producers: and chemical 

distributors to the cleaning product industry. ACI represents the $30 billion U.S. cleaning products market. For 

more information, please visit the ACI website at www.cleaninginstitute.org. 

AboutCSPA 

The Consumer Specialty Products Association (CSPA) is the premier trade association representing the interests of 

approximately 240 companies engaged in the manufacture, formulation, distribution and sale of approximately $80 

billion annually in the U.s. of hundreds of familiar consumer products that help household, institutional and 

industrial customers create cleaner and healthier environments. Our products include disinfectants that kill germs in 

homes, hospitals and restaurants; candles, fragrances and air fresheners that eliminate odors; pest management 

products for home, garden and pets; cleaning products and polishes for use throughout the home and institutions; 

products used to protect and improve the performance and appearance of automobiles; aerosol products and a host of 

other products used everyday. Through its product stewardship program Product Care-, and scientific and businessto-business endeavors, CSPA provides its members a platform to effectively address issues regarding the health, 

safety, sustainability and environmental impacts of their products. For more information, please visit www.cspa.org. 

AboutGMA 

The Grocery Manufacturers Association (GMA) represents the world's leading food, beverage and consumer 

products companies. The Association promotes sound public poliey, champions initiatives that increase productivity 

and growth and helps ensure the safety and security of consumer packaged goods through scientific excellence. The 

GMA board of director.! is comprised of chief executive officers from the Association's member companies. The 

$2.1 trillion food, beverage and consumer packaged goods industry employs 14 million workers, and contributes 

over $1 trillion in added value to the nation's economy. For more information, visit the GMA Web site at 

www.gmaonline.org. 
212 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 221 here 78128A.162

July 28, 2010 

The Honorable Bobby Rush 

United States House of Representatives 

2416 Rayburn House Office Building 

Washington, DC 20515 

Dear Chairman and Ranking Member: 

The Honorable Ed Whitfield 

United States House of Representatives 

2411 Rayburn House Office Building 

Washington, DC 20515 

The organizations listed below, which represent companies throughout the business of chemistry 

and metals value chain, including producers, processors, wholesalers, retailers, end-line 

manufacturers, and users, remain committed to modernizing the Toxic Substances Control Act of 

1976 (fSCA). We believe that a strong legislative framework is critical to creating a successful 

chemicals management regulatory program and requires deliberate and careful consideration due 

to the complexities of the issues and their broad impact on all parts of the American economy. 

Some of the organizations below participated in the stakeholder discussions for the Toxic 

Chemicals Safety Act of2010 (H.R. 5820), the bill introduced by Chairman Rush last Thursday, 

and we appreciate that opportunity. Unfortunately, H.R. 5820 does not adequately account for 

the complexities of chemical and metals uses in commerce. We are concerned that the bill as 

drafted is not workable and would significantly and negatively impact American jobs and 

innovation. 

• The safety standard established in H.R. 5820 is not achievable. It requires an unworkable 

risk assessment methodology for every chemical substance and for all EPA-prioritized 

mixtures. Chemicals used in industrial articles, such as solar panel cells and integrated 

circuits, would face significant regulatory barriers. The "no-harm" standard essentially 

requires proof of zero-risk, an impossible goal that will hamper lower-risk, beneficial 

products from coming to market. Further, the standard's requirement for companies to 

assess aggregate exposures from all uses of a chemical--and not just their own uses--is 

also unachievable because companies won't have information about these other uses and 

their exposure scenarios. 

• The proposed regulatory structure in H.R. 5820 will create a new barrier to American 

innovation and job growth. New chemicals and new uses of existing chemicals will be 

subject to a year-long review by EPA, creating a distinct competitive advantage for 

foreign manufacturers and a disincentive to produce new chemistry solutions, including 

safer and greener alternatives, in the United States. American innovation and job growth 

will be damaged by this complex and burdensome process. 

• H.R. 5820 places substantial burdens on importers of chemicals. mixtures. and articles. 

hnporters will be subject to all the declaration, data generation, assessment, and reporting 

provisions of TSCA, just as if they are chemical manufacturers or processors. 

Additionally, this provision appears to be vulnerable to challenge under the World Trade 

Organization agreements. 
213 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 222 here 78128A.163

The Honorable Bobby Rush, The Honorable Ed Whitfield 

July 28, 2010 

Page 2 

These are but a few of our collective concerns with H.R. 5820. We believe that the bill requires 

substantial changes to ensure a robust statutory and regulatory program that will gamer public 

confidence in the safety of chemicals used in the United States, while protecting and promoting 

American innovation and jobs. We look forward to working with you as the Subcommittee 

addresses these important issues. 

Sincerely, 

Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers 

American Chemistry Council 

American Cleaning Institute 

American Coatings Association 

American Composites Manufilcturers Association 

American Forest & Paper Association 

American Petroleum Institute 

Automotive Aftermarket Industry Association 

Ball Clay Producers Association 

Consumer Specialty Products Association 

Flexible Packaging Association 

Fragrance Materials Association 

Grocery Manufacturers Association 

Industrial Minerals Association - North America 

International Diatomite Producers Association 

National Association of Chemical Distributors 

National Association of Manufacturers 

National Electrical Manufacturers Association 

National Industrial Sand Association 

National Mining Association 

National Oilseed Processors Association 

National Petrochemical and Refiners Association 

National Retail Federation 

Natural Gas Supply Association 

North American Metals Council 

Personal Care Products Council 

Pine Chemicals Association 

Silicones Environmental, Health and Safety Council of North America 

Society of Chemical Manufacturers and Affiliates 

Specialty Graphic Imaging Association 

SPI: The Plastics Industry Trade Association 

The Adhesive and Sealant Council 

Treated Wood Council 

cc: Chairman Waxman, Ranking Member Barton, House Energy & Commerce Committee 

Energy & Commerce Committee, Subcommittee on Commerce, Trade, and Consumer 

Protection Members 
214 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 223 here 78128A.164
215 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 224 here 78128A.165
216 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 225 here 78128A.166

The Honorable Bobby Rush 

United Slates House of Representatives 

Subcommittee Commerce, Trade, 

and Consumer Prclteotion 

2416 House 

DC 20515 

Dear Chairman and Ranking Member: 

28, 

The Honorable Ed 

Member 

House of Representatives 

Subcommittee on Commerce, Trade, 

and Consumer Protection 

2411 House Office Building 

W",,,,hirlllin,n DC 20515 
217 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 226 here 78128A.167

H.R. 5820 provides insufficient protection for Confidential Business Information ("CBI). 

To compete in today's global economy, Manufacturers need to protect information 

regarding their products. While this legislation provides renewable CBI protection, it 

often takes companies more than the five-year timeframe to develop their products. 

Furthermore, Manufacturers believe that the CBI protection should be criteria driven. To 

ensure this disclosure of information does not discourage manufacturers from making 

product investments, data confidentiality provisions need to protect proprietary 

information to encourage innovation and protect businesses from loss to competitors 

globally. 

• H.R. 5820 would create conflicting federal and state chemical regulatory programs. Lack 

of confidence in the EPA's ability to implement TSCA has led states to create individual 

chemical management regimes. The legislation would require chemical manufacturers, 

processors and business users to comply with both federal and state regulations, unless 

compliance with federal laws is made "impossible" because of conflicting state 

requirements. Manufacturers believe this approach encourages the development of 

inconsistent statutory requirements and would cause a complex patchwork of federal 

and state regulatory programs. 

These are but a few of our collective concems with H.R. 5820. Manufacturers believe that H.R. 

5820 requires substantial changes to ensure a workable legislative and regulatory program that 

will gamer public confidence in the safety of products, while protecting and promoting American 

innovation and jobs. 

Sincerely, 

~MA4 Keith McCoy, 

Vice President 

Energy and Resources Policy 

Cc: Chairman Waxman, Ranking Member Barton, House Energy & Commerce Committee 

Energy & Commerce Committee, Subcommittee on Commerce, Trade, and Consumer 

Protection Members 
218 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 227 here 78128A.168

Jul. 26. 2010 3:51PM No. 0470 P. 2/3 

6~~micaIS Association, ·Inc. _________ _ 

July 26, 2010 

The Honorable Henry Waxman 

Chairman, Commitl8e on Energy and Commerce 

2204 Rayburn House Office BuDding 

Washington. DC 20515 

Daar Mr. Waxman: 

The Pine Chemicals Association (PCA) Is an Inlemalionaf trade association comprised 

of 46 producers of natural themital products derived from pine trees that end up in 

products as diverse as inks, paints. adhesives, lubriCants, diesel fuel, fragrances and 

even cholesterol-reducing agents for human consumplion. Our members were part of 

the ·green" products industry many decades before the term WIIS ever used. The valUe 

or aur products in the United States alone exceeds one billion dollars and the indusl/y 

provides employment for about six.lhousand wortmrB. OUr aSSOCiation has had a long 

history or poslove intenll;lions wIIh the United Stales Environmental Protection Agency 

on a several regulatory issues· especlally lhose concemed with the Toxic Substances 

Control Act (TSCA). 

The PCA is also one trade associllUon of fifty-three in the Cnemlcals Interests Group, an 

organization representing a large part oIlhe US economy that would be affected by the 

passage of H 5280 bill We support a rational and reasonable bin to update TSCA, but 

while there are a few modifications we can agree with, the bill baing proposed by the 

Honorable Mr. Rush and you are not that bill. 

The modificaUons 10 TSCA that you envisage represent a huge e)(panslon In expenSive 

govemment command·and-cootrol regulation with little benefit to the public. We have so 

many concerns that we cannot see how it can possibly be amended 10 form II law that 

can be implemented. Among the major ones am: 

1 , The regulation of mlxtLll1ll1 would be a larga and oosUy increase in complexity. It 

is highly unlikely that II miXture would be more hazardous than its components, 

so this seems to be liHle more than an exercise In data gathering. 

2. The Confidential Business Information protection is 80 porous that foreign 

Industry will have no difficulty in deciphering our products and their end-uses 

enabling thair low-cost production to compete more effectively and driving 

American jobs oIf&hora. 

3. The ir1dusion for the first time of downstream processors in the TSCA ragulaUons 

will ba a difficult and, for many, an unfamiliar major new requirement at precisely 

the Ume when our economy is struggling to return to profitability. 

4. New Chemicals and new uses wiD require increased testing and reporting. This 

will discourage domestic l'B&ean:h and development, hindering the Inventiveness 

3350 RlverwooCl PkWy SE • suite 1900 • Atlanta, GA 30339 

Ph: 770 984·5340 • Fx: 770 984.5341 

www.pinechemicals.org 
219 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 228 here 78128A.169

)u I. 26. 2010 3: 51PM ~o. 0470 P. 3/3 

that has made our Industry a world leader and Increasing costs. We have already 

seen the chilling elfBcl of eXC8B8ive regulation on the development of new 

ct'temical products in Europe. Excessive con\Tols on new uses for a sub&tellCe 

elready tested and found to be safe &Brve no useful purpose. 

5. There are so many increased reporting requirements thai our member 

companies will surely have \0 increase hiring or diversion of personnel Into !he 

regulatory function. This WIll make our industry leaa compalilive than thet 

oversass which doesn't have to shoulder a similar burden. 

6. The bil \ends to shift the emphasis on regulation 0' hazerds ralher Ihan risks. A 

hazardous chemical presents no risk if Ihere is no exposure. 

7. Substances have well-developed and understood definitions. The bill allows the 

EPA Adminisntor, 10 declare that an existing chemical is whetever he chooses 

10 cen it 

6. Lack of pl'lHlmplion is of particular concem. It is Clft/calto our member 

companies that they can sell nationally without having to meet mora restrictive 

sl8ta regulations thai may have been promulgated to meet local poIillcal pressure 

rather than based on good science. 

9. Emphasizing "hot spots" Is a misdirected and unnecessary effort CommuniHes 

that and up on the ·1Ist" will sursly suffer from tile bad PubliCity. 

10. To meet the provisioos of this bill in the lime hams specified will surely require a 

significant increase in USEPA stalf. Since user fees wiD not be J91ained within lIle 

agency increased approprtatlons will be reqUired, leading to increased 

government spending at a time whon we can ill afford it 

Finally I might add that since this Adminisltation has repeatedly stated its support for 

"green" products and industries it seems inconsistent to needlessly burden Ihe members 

of the peA with yet more unwieldy and expenSive regulations. 

We are ready to help in any way if you choose to start over. 

Sincerely, 

Pine Chamicals Association, Inc. 

~~~ President & c'rft/ Cc: To d (58) COIIImlllee Memberc or lilt Ho ... Commll ........ Entlg' ond co""""",. 
220 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 229 here 78128A.170

July 29,2010 

The Honofaole 

1700 ~ORT1< MOQllt :STR£ET 

SUlTEnSO 

United States House of Representatives 

2411 Rayburn I'louse Office Building 

Washington, 

Dear Chairman Rush and Ranking Member Whitfield, 

H,R, Would Impose !J.lenable Burde.s ou Imporlers 

Section new 

importer of any chemica! 

substance for 

4, 

has 
221 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 230 here 78128A.171

In other words, the bill requires importers of or fmished goods to satisfy all requirements of the 

Act for testing/minimum data set, notification, new chemicals and uses, control, safety standard 

determinations, and reporting and certification for chemicals and mixtures in those fmished 

goods, even though exposure to those chemicals may be zero or virtually zero. 

Retailers sell hundreds of thousands offmal products to consumers, and their expertise is in 

distribution and retail sales, not manufacturing of products or chemicals that may be included in 

those products. 

Importers of Reconl Are Not Manufactnrers 

Notwithstanding their expertise in global supply chains, retailers do not possess the expertise or 

have access to product information to conduct and perform the requirements in section 13-

those are specific functions and responsibilities ofproduct manufacturers. Retailers are not in a 

position to control what is in products, except to require their suppliers to know and comply with 

relevant standards for their products. Moreover, retailers are not in a position to report or 

undertake other risk management requirements related to chemical make-up for all the products 

they sell. 

RILA also notes that many of the same reasons why retailers carmot meet the bill's requirements 

for chemicals in imported articles also applies to the bill's requirements for imported mixtures. 

Retailers import many consumer products that do not meet the TSCA definition of "article" but 

which do meet the definition of "mixture." Examples include dishwasher detergent, paints, 

lubricants, liquid soap, shoe polish, or saline solution. 

RILA believes responsibility for compliance should be based on the amount of control each 

supply chain partner has over the product as it moves through the supply chain. For example, if 

retailers have new obligations in a modernized TSCA, they should be limited to reporting only 

certain levels of chemical content in products and providing information to consumers. 

Articles Should Not GeDeraily Be Subject to TSCA Requirements 

Consumer products sold by retailers move through complex supply chains with several 

stakeholders -material manufacturers, formulators, fabricators, packagers, and distributors. 

Moreover, these fmished products often consist of hundreds of components, each of which has 

its own supply chain. The difficuhy of tracking the chemical substances or mixtures in a single 

consumer product increases exponentially depending on the complexity of the product and the 

level of quality management processes in the supply chain for a product category. 

As an example, a single piece ofupholstered furniture may have hundreds of components within 

the fmished product. Each component may be sourced in full or partly fabricated from hundreds 

of global suppliers. A partial list of components in a piece of upholstered furniture includes: the 

wood or metal frame; composite wood backing: springs; filling material whether hair, fiber, 

flock, foam, foam rubber, down; coverings such as woven or knot fabrics, plastics, leather, 

synthetics; hardware and fastener accessories such as nails, screws, fasteners, glue, brads, 

brackets, braces, snaps, buttons, thread and hem tape, rivets, bolts, washers, nuts; functional and 

or decorative components such as leg glides, cups or pads, leg extensions, wheels, casters; 
222 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 231 here 78128A.172

decorative hardware; surface finishings, such as printing, paint, varnish, dying, and yarns made 

into tassels and other trimmings. 

Another example is brassieres. There are more than 30 components that go into a single bra, and 

the bra industry is based on offering muhiple choices and the level of complexity increases with 

the variety of materials employed in an assortment. Bra components are sourced globally, either 

partially or fully assembled by the bra manufacturer, and include: non-stretch padded straps or 

elastic fabric straps; elastic gore that connects cups in the center; fabric covered inner sling under 

cups (instead of under wire), graduated padding and may also contain removable padding; plastic 

tip under wire; wings (stretch or non stretch fabric extending from outside bra cups to back 

closure); coated hook and eye closure; moisture wick components; a combination of dyed, 

printed natural and synthetic woven, knit, decorative textiles; elastic materials, dyed sewing 

thread, embroidery, and decorative trims. 

These two disparate examples begin to show the breadth, complexity and impracticability of the 

new requirements for importers and subjecting finished articles to TSCA requirements. 

TSCA Today Largely Exempts Imported Articles-For Good Reason 

Under TSCA today, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and U.S. Customs and Border 

Protection (CBP) can require importers of articles to meet testing, notification, contro~ and 

reporting requirements. Nevertheless, time and time again, the EPA has chosen to exempt 

importers of articles from those requirements. For example: 

• CBP exempts chemicals in imported articles from TSCA import notification requirements 

(unless an EPA rule expressly requires reporting of a chemical imported in articles), 19 

C.F.R. § 19.121(b). 

• EPA exempts new chemicals in imported articles from Pre-Manufacture Notice 

requirements, 40 C.F.R § 720.22(b)(1). 

• EPA exempts chemicals in imported articles from Inventory Update Rule requirements, 

40 C.F.R. § 710.50(b). 

• EPA exempts chemicals in imported articles from significant new use rule requirements 

(unless it expressly requires notification of a chemical imported in articles), 40 C.F.R. § 

721.45(g). 

The EPA adopted these exemptions because it recognized the burden and potential impossibility 

of compliance for imported articles. Notwithstanding this precedent, H.R. 5820 takes the 

opposite approach and instead of exempting chemicals in imported articles unless there is a 

specific need for information, the bill would prohibit any exemptions for articles. This 

framework is unnecessarily burdensome and costly. 

Recall Autbority Witbout Court Action Is Inappropriate 

One additional concern RILA has relates to the new authority that the EPA would have in section 

7 to order recalls and replacement or repurchase of chemicals, mixtures, and articles that it 

considers to pose an imminent hazard. This authority goes well beyond that given to Consumer 
223 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 232 here 78128A.173

Product Safety Commission (CPSCXwhich is still required to go to court to get such an order). 

There are no requirements for notice or opportunity for comment before the EPA could issue 

such an order, and the bill would even delete the definition of what it means to be imminently 

hazardous. The ability to issue orders such as these should have the protections that come with a 

court proceeding. RILA believes that the bill should maintain the current recall authority that 

exists today. 

Preemption 

R1LA supports a strong federal system for chemical management and as noted above, we support 

Congressional effurts to modernize TSCA. One reason retailers support this is because we need 

one consistent standard to apply across the country. Retailers operate in all 50 states and cannot 

modify their supply chains to accommodate different and conflicting state standards. When 

Congress adopts a new national chemical management system under TSCA, R1LA believes that 

Congress should ensure it is consistently adopted throughout the country by including federal 

preemption unless states can show a compelling reason to deviate from the federal standard. A 

patchwork of different state standards would undermine industry's effurts to ofter safe products 

across the country. 

Conclusion 

In conclusion, R1LA members believe H.R. 5820 imposes unworkable burdens on importers and 

is not implementable in its current form. R1LA urges the Committee to work with stakeholders 

to develop a more effective and workable alternative to modernize TSCA. We look forward to 

continuing to work with you throughout that process. If you have any questions or concerns, 

please contact Stephanie Lester, Vice President, International Trade at 

(stephanie.lester@rila.org) or 703.600.2046. 

Sincerely, 

Stephanie Lester 

Vice President, International Trade 
224 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 233 here 78128A.174

2010 

and 

Dear Chairman and Member: 

On behalf of The Institute, I would 

support FIR 5820, the Chemicals 

Institute represents U.S. manufacturers 

the raw material for 

and 

PVC has been ""t,p"Olvplv 

government ag,:nCles 

confirmed its 

federal 

Protection 

and National 

".n'lf"''''r'''''T,t~1 nef'fmm'lnce. the most cmnDI'ehlenslve IHl":·C\ICle 

cmnpl~tll1!g materials have shown that PVC's 

lower - those of alternative materials. 

Suite390 571.970.3400 FX 571.910.3211 
225 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 234 here 78128A.175

Chairman Rush 

28,2010 

2 

Member Whitfield 

has been used commerce for more than 50 years with no reports of substantial 

risk under the Toxic Substances Control Act since became law. 

H.R. 5820 has an unwarranted and 

from the substances listed 

out of PVC because 

or uncontrolled 

'vv'um,,,,,,,,y for decades, while PVC 

As for end-of-life material 

",~o'''''''''''''y any 

from trash and 

among the 85,000 

government reviews to have been used 

out the most toxic? 

worker and environmental health and 

We are committed to human health 

nrHLct1i~e~ and 

RR. 5820, as introduced, cannot be should be rewritten before further 

action is considered. The Institute ofters its assistance the subcommil1ee 

address the of the that are unworkable for our 

Thanks you, 

Alexandria., V:-1 22314 TEL 5n9703400 }X 571.9703271 
226 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 235 here 78128A.176

28,2010 

The Honorable The Honorable Ed Whitt1eld 

United States House of 

241 House Oftlce 

DC 205 5 

Dear Chairman Rush and '''''''''''''" Member Whitfield: 

On behalf the National Association of Chemical Distributors am to 

express my concern the H.R. 5820, the Toxic Chemicals 

Act of 20 1 0, have on the chemical distribution and its customers. 

NACD represents more than 250 chemical distribution North 

America. These operate 1,500 facilities and over 

20,500 NACD members represent between 80% to 90% of the chemical 

distribution facilities in the nation and more than 90% of the 

The includes small businesses as well as 

"pC''''''''';;''';;, and 

chemical distribution business. 

million chemical distribution are 

delivered and drive over 199 million miles while chemicals. 

Earlier this year, NACD came out in suppOli the Toxic 

Substances Control Act At over years old, TSCA has demonstrated 

in many cases to be an outdated chemicals management system that is need 

NACD has advocated for a workable risk-based system that protects 

creation. H.R. 5820 creates a framework that would 

burden innovation and 

jobs. 

l1mrtlc:ui:1T concern to NACD is the treatment of mixtures in H.R. 5820. Over 70% of 

NACD Members services to a wide 

nm'mllCemlCallS, water treatment, and electronics 

in the discussion draft, the treatment of 

in to the new chemicals 

program. is in that it would create an unfathomable and unnecessary burden 

on chemical distributors, but the Environmental Protection as 

In addition to the the inclusion ofmixiures is also unnecessary in 

available on the individual components of the 

mixture 
227 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 236 here 78128A.177

H.R. 5820 is also problematic in that it does not adequately protect confidential business 

information. Specifically, the provisions in Section 14 of the legislation requiring 

disclosures of chemical identity and the components of mixtures would create a 

framework where very little proprietary information regarding chemicals processed and 

distributed by NACD l'v1embers would remain protected. The weakening ofCSI 

protection would also complicate existing confidentiality provisions between chemical 

distribution companies and their customers that request customized mixtures for certain 

products. 

In addition to the direct requirements in H.R. 5820 for chemical distributors, there are 

many indirect impacts simply because of their middleman role in the supply chain. The 

data generation requirements for other areas ofthe supply chain, such as manufacturers 

and downstream users, will strain the already limited resources of many small business 

chemical distributors. The market pressures on top of the explicit requirements in H.R. 

5820 would make the system unworkable for the industry. 

Although we are deeply concerned with H.R. 5820, NACD hopes that the Subcommittee 

continues to work towards creating an improved chemicals management system that 

emphasizes safety while protecting jobs and innovation in the marketplace. We look 

forward to working ,,,ith you to achieve this goal. 

Sincerely, 

Chris Jahn 

President 

National Association of Chemical Distributors 
228 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 237 here 78128A.178

2fl10 
229 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 238 here 78128A.179

ACC bdicv(;s that TSC/\ lTIodcl11i;;:ation must been conskkrcd l:iT>m 0 systems approach, The 

scope ofthe legislation, lbr example. cannot be read OUI of eomext with related to 

chemicals j(lr review and the stitely stamlard lhr 

m'H""HJnO{, chemical management sy~lcm must 

fi'amcwnrk if)f existing chemicals in commerce. 

chemicals 1hr intcnd~,d llses, imposing a range of risk management controls to 

and enhancing certain aspects ofthe new chcmic;1i, program. ;\U of the in this complex. 

systcm must work together in a way that EPA implemcnt in a scicnce-based and timely 

manner that not only assures health and environmental protection. but business 

celiainly and support !orthe innovation that has characterized the U,S. of chemistry jill' 

so long. 

Please let us know if you have any questions on ACe's rcsp(l11ses to your additional questions, 

Attaehment 
230 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 239 here 78128A.180

The Honorable Henry A. Waxman and the Honorable Bobby L. Rush 

I. You have stated that one of ACe's highest priorities is modernizing how government 

assesses the safety of chemicals in commerce. You have said that your members' number 

one commitment is to the safety oftheir products. That's why, you've said, ACC wants 

TSCA "improved and enhanced." Please explain how TSCA should be improved and 

enhanced. Specifically, please describe what aspects ofTSCA are currently deficient and 

most in need of being improved? 

RESPONSE 1. ACC and its member companies are committed to improvements in TSCA that 

enhance health and environmental protection and the competitiveness of the U.S. business of 

chemistry and the jobs associated with it. In our view these are complementary objectives. The 

specific elements ofTSCA which should be addressed include: 

• EPA's chemicals program under TSCA suffers from a lack of clearly established 

priorities. The rationale for the Agency's focus on any particular chemical or class of 

chemicals is not often apparent. There is no requirement that EPA consider existing, 

available information in setting priorities or prior to issuing a test rule. 

• Enhancements in the data available to and considered by the Agency. 

• Improvements in the information reported to EPA to more accurately reflect the 

chemicals that are actually in commerce today. 

• Enhancements to ensure appropriate protection of Confidential Business Infonnation 

while ensuring that appropriate information is available to the public. 

• A clearer delineation between a safety decision by EPA and the risk management 

measures needed to address the concern. 

• Clearer Congressional direction to EPA on implementation ofthe statute to create greater 

certainty for both the public and the industry. The perception that TSCA is ineffective in 

protecting health and the environment is based in part on EPA's constrained 

interpretation of some of its authority (e.g., Sections 4 and 6). Ironically, EPA has 

indicated in several Chemical Action Plans that it intends to pursue regulatory actions 

under these authorities. apparently indicating that the Agency is in the process of 

reinterpreting some of its authorities. 

2. In your written testimony, you stated that the H.R. 5820 "creates additional burdens that do 

not contribute to and, in fact, detract from making advances in safety." The bill requires 

manufacturers and processors to prove that their new and existing chemicals are safe for 

intended uses and mandates greater disclosure of chemical identity, health and safety data 

and use and exposure intormation to downstream users, workers and the public. The bill 

would also limit exposure to harmful chemicals such as PBTs (chemicals that are persistent, 

bioaccumulative, and toxic) and provide incentives for the development of safer alternatives. 

Please explain why you believe these requirements detract from making advances in safety. 
231 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 240 here 78128A.181

RESPONSE 2. This question restates broad objectives tor H.R. 5820. ACC agrees with those 

objectives, but we disagree with specific elements and detail in the bill that lead to our 

conclusion that the bill will detract from safety advances. H.R. 5820 generally assumes that 

industrial chemicals pose the same type of risks that pharmaceuticals and pesticides might have, 

and therefore a regulatory regime sim ilar to that for pharmaceuticals or pesticides is appropriate. 

That assumption is not a warranted, however. Unlike pesticides or pharmaceuticals, chemicals 

regulated under TSCA are not designed to be biologically active. Instead, industrial chemicals 

are designed to deliver functions to products and processes, and therefore, as a general matter, 

they don't pose the same degree of risks assumed for pesticides and pharmaceuticals. . Many 

industrial chemicals are limited to specific functions, with limited exposure and use patterns. 

They are not intended, and often do not have any, significant exposure. Indeed, many industrial 

chemicals are minor variations of similar chemistries. 

3. Further, H.R. 5820 requires all chemicals to be subject to an aggregate exposure assessment, 

and strongly suggests that EPA require cumulative assessments as well. These requirements 

(for all chemicals) would be significantly burdensome, especially given the multiple uses of 

TSCA chemicals (as contrasted, say, with pesticides). These requirements would necessarily 

slow the development of new advances in chemistry, particularly since even a "safer" 

alternative (even one that is a variation of an existing chemical) would have to meet the same 

requirements under the bill. The bill purports to create a preferential regulatory track for 

"safer"' chemicals but ignores the fact that under certain uses/exposures, even the "safest" 

chemical could create potential exposures, some of which might still need to be managed in 

some way. In short, the bill establishes significant requirements that would, in our view, 

make it extremely difficult to prove either existing or new chemicals are safe for their 

intended uses. That in tum, could push manufacturing of existing chemicals off shore and 

slow the process of developing and bringing to market new chemicals. In your written 

testimony, you stated that the safety standard in this bill sets "an impossibly high hurdle for 

all chemicals in commerce." You also stated that ACC and its member companies "are 

committed to continuing to work with this committee and with other stakeholders to 

modernize the law in a meaningful and effective way." Yet, to date, ACC has not presented 

any specific recommendations for modifYing the proposed standard or fonnulating an 

alternative standard. While you made reference at the hearing to the Canadian system of 

prioritization as a model for U.S. refornl, you did not specifically comment on or endorse the 

satety standard applied by Canadian law. 

There is near universal agreement that the existing standard, which requires EPA to show 

that a chemical presents an "unreasonable risk of injury" to health or the environment before 

taking any regulatory action, is unworkable and inadequate to protect the public health. 

a. What specific safety standard does ACC propose for ensuring that chemicals in 

commerce are safe tor their intended uses? Please explain why such a proposed standard 

would be a better approach than the existing standard and than the standard proposed in 

H.R.5820. 

2 
232 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 241 here 78128A.182

RESPONSE 3(a), The question one workable option for safety standard, a focus 

on "salety for their intended uses," formulation the focus on the exact 

that EPA's review ofa chemical should address chemical is safe for 

jf not, what steps be taken to assure that 

formulation does not force an probative standard on or the Agency, 

which H,R. 5820 would the requirement that there be a "reasonable certainty of 

.!!Q harm," taking into account aggregate and considering cumulative effects 

(emphasis added). Even the most innocuous substances would have difficulty meeting this 

standard, 

b. Has the Canadian approach to regulating chemicals proven workable fbI' industry? Does 

it adequately protect public health and environment? Docs ACC support adopting 

Canadian approach to regulating here in the United States? 

RESPONSE 3(b). ACes reference 

was intendt,d to the of a system 

makes a concerted effort to address the 

23.000 substances on the Canadian Domestic Substances List (the ",,·,m,~,·,,~rt 

Inventory), set aside as no or low priority further review. and identilled SOO 

chemicals as highest priorities for While the broad structure ofthe CMP holds 

important lessons for the States. specific requirements of the Canadian statute 

Canadian Environmental Protection Act) translate readily into or practice. 

c. There is currently no consensus on the of cb(1micals currently manufactured or 

imported for distribution in commerce. an question because it hdps 

indicate the magnitude challenge involved reform. As the trade 

associat ion representing the manufacturers of chemicals, ACC is perhaps the best 

position this provide the 

manufactured or imported fbI' distribution commerce. does no! have an 

accurate number, plcase provide ACe's best estimate ofthe number a of 

how this number 

Inventory a database of chemicals introduced into 

commerce. information on the number of chemicals currently in U.S. 

commerce Inventory Updates. The 2006 TSCA Inventory Update identil1ed 

approximately 7,000 chemicals on the public inventory having been manufactured or imported 

into the United States in volumes greater than pounds, is the reporting threshold. 

number in commerce volumes below 25,000 pounds unknown. The 

number of chemicals in commerce below the 84,000 the ACC 

believes in Inventory reporting requirements are to better 

establish 

4. In your oral testimony, you were of the ofH.R. 5820 that require EPA 10 

develop a of priority chemicals that would be subject to a safety determination, 

upon a sct of criteria the legislation. Yet ACe, and individual member 

companies of ACe stated that of chemicals for review by EPA is an 
233 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 242 here 78128A.183

imp0l1ant component ofTSCA reform legislation. \Vhat is ACe's specific objection to the 

prioritization provisions of H.R 58207 

a. Does ACC object to the criteria that EPA would be required to use for the priofitization? 

If the answer is yes, please state which criteria ACC objects to (and why) and which 

additional Of alternative criteria ACC believes should be included. 

RESPONSE 4(a). Prioritization consideration of both hazard and exposure 

information. The criteria reflected inlLR 5820 may be relevant to an individual substance, but 

they arc predominantly hazard-based criteria that inappropriately focus EPA's prioritization 

eftort on hazard alone. The prioritization process should also require EPA to consider exposure 

and use as well. All existing, available information is relevant inlllaking a screening 

prioritization decision, information on use and exposure patterns, Major data needs 

(not simple data gaps) can be in such a process and can inform prioritization decisions. 

b. Does ACC object to the notion of publicly listing 300 chemicals as priorities for 

assessment? Ifso, please explain what ACC believes would be the correct approach for 

prioritizing chemicals for review. Would it be preferahle for EPA to develop a 

list that is not made available to the public? 

RESPONSE 4(b). ACC believes that a public list of priority chemicals should be developed, 

but that it should not rely on an artificial number. Under H.R. 5820. the list 0[300 is a 

permanent. rolling list. It is well-established that there can be market impacts from the mere 

~')1~".",rm1rp of a substance on a list. even before it has been established that there are 

of harm that are no! managed. In order to minimize those impacts, a robust 

"rinri,i.""i"" system one that allows EPA to quickly screen chemicals lor priority based on 

use and exposure information, and one that creates a more dynamic information sharing 

environment -

C. Does ACC object to Ihe number of chemicals (300) that EPA would be required to 

initially prioritize? [fso, what number of chemicals does ACC believe should be 

included on such a priority list? 

RESPONSE 4(c). ACC believes there is value in granting EPA authority to establish an initial 

priority list and moving quickly to assess those substances. The initial priority list or a longer 

tenn priority list need not be limited by a specific number. The number of chemicals on the 

priority list is a factor ofthe time the Agency requires in order to make a determination, 

d. Does ACC object to the amount oftime that EPA is given under the bill to assess the 

initial list of 300 chemicals? Assuming that EPA has adequate resources to complete 

whatever prioritizatioll and assessment requirements are established under the bill, what 

does ACC believe is a reasonable number of chemicals that EPA should be required to 

assess annually. or within the 30 mOlllh established under H.R. 5820'1 

4 
234 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 243 here 78128A.184

RESPONSE 4(d). ACC does not have sufficient information to determine what would be a 

reasonable number of safety assessments EPA should be expected to complete annually. Under 

the Food Quality Protection Act, EPA was required to complete some 700 assessments over a 10 

year period. Under H.R. 5820, EPA would be required to complete 300 assessments within 30 

months. with each subsequent chemical added to the list assessed with 30 months oflisting. 

5. In response to a question from Rep. Sarbanes about how we know that chemicals are safe if 

they are not assessed based upon a set of basic data, you indicated the desirability of focusing 

on chemicals such as those that may be carcinogens, endocrine disruptors, or PBTs, and he 

noted that there are a number of lists in existence identifYing such chemicals. -

a. Would ACC support prioritizing tor assessment the chemicals that are on such lists, and 

would ACC prefer that approach to requiring EPA to develop a list for priority 

assessment? 

RESPONSE 5(a). As noted above, certain hazard characteristics should be relevant to the 

Agency's prioritization decisions. The mere fact that a substance has such characteristics, 

however, is not determinative of that substance's relative priority for further review and 

assessment. Use and exposure patterns are also relevant to priority decisions. 

b. Has ACC identified a list of chemicals that it believes warrant prioritization for 

assessment? Ifso, on what criteria has ACC based its identification of those chemicals? 

RESPONSE 5(b). ACC has not identified a list of chemicals that warrant prioritization for 

assessment. 

c. Does ACC agree that the 13 chemicals or groups of chemicals identified for priority 

assessment under Section 6 ofH.R. 5820 merit prioritization? Ifnot, please state which 

of those chemicals ACC believes are not a priority for assessment, and why not. 

RESPONSE 5(c). ACC does not agree that the 13 chemicals or groups of chemicals identified 

in Section 6 ofH.R. 5820 warrant a high priority in the absence of an EPA review of the 

existing, available information, consideration of other information on anticipated use and 

exposures, and a better understanding of risk management actions and practices already taken for 

those chemicals. It appears the list in Section 6 was compiled so lely on the basis of hazard 

characteristics, not risk. ACC believes that EPA not Congress, should apply its expertise to 

identifY high priority chemicals. 

6. ACC has long taken the position that regulation of chemicals under TSCA should be riskbased. 

a. Does the ACC consider the safety standard under H.R. 5820 to be risk-based? lfnot, 

please explain what specific provisions ofthe bill ACC considers to be non-risk-based. 

5 
235 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 244 here 78128A.185

RESPONSE 6(a). Although it appears that the safety standard in H.R. 5820 is intended to be 

risk-based, it establishes a stringent standard that appears to require proof of absolute safety, or 

zero risk. The legislative history ofTSCA is replete with an acknowledgement that establishing 

zero risk is impossible (leading Congress at that point to focus on ''Unreasonable'' risks). 

b. The "reasonable certainty of no harm" standard originated in the Food Quality Protection 

Act (FQPA). Does ACC believe that FQPA is a risk-based statute? If ACC considers 

FQPA to be risk-based and does not consider H.R. 5820 to be risk-based, please explain 

what specific provisions in H.R. 5820 distinguish it from FQPA. 

RESPONSE 6(b). The FQPA applies to a narrow range of products that have a narrow range of 

exposure pathways (through the application to crops and consumption of food). H.R. 5820 does 

not reflect the inherently broader and much more complex arena of industrial chemicals, in 

which a single chemical can have many uses and may have multiple exposure pathways. In our 

view, the net effect ofthe approach is a "zero-risk" standard. 

7. Risk assessment is commonly understood (in the context of chemical safety) to mean an 

analysis of both the hazard posed by one or more chemicals and the degree of exposure to 

that chemical or chemicals. In your testimony, you were very critical ofthe bill's 

requirement that EPA consider aggregate exposures to a chemical as part of its safety 

determination. 

a. How does ACC propose for EPA to assess the true risk of a chemical if consideration is 

not given - to the greatest extent possible to the total exposure to that chemical, 

including from different sources? 

RESPONSE 7(a). ACC believes that requiring an assessment ofthe total exposure to a 

chemical, including all sources (which would include natural sources) should only be required in 

exceptional circumstances. Aggregate exposure assessment assumes a perfect ability to know 

and quantifY exposures for all chemicals from all sources. Aggregate exposure assessments 

should not be routinely required of all chemicals. 

b. Is it ACe's position that each use ofa chemical should be assessed individually and 

separately, without taking into account other sources of exposure to the same chemical? 

How would such an approach provide a useful or sufficiently health-protective risk 

assessment? 

RESPONSE 7(b). ACC believes a more practical approach would have EPA focus on the most 

significant exposure pathways within use categories in assessing the safety of a chemical for its 

intended use. Where known and relevant to that exposure pathway, other sources of exposure 

can also be taken into account. 

c. If such an approach is not proposed by ACC, what does ACC propose? 

6 
236 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 245 here 78128A.186

RESPONSE 7(c). See response 7(b) above. 

d. Risk assessment under the Food Quality Protection Act currently includes consideration 

of aggregate exposures. Does ACC consider this aspect ofFQPA to be unworkable or 

not of value to risk assessment? 

RESPONSE 7(d). See response 7(a) above. It is also ACC's understanding that the 

consideration of aggregate exposures under the FQPA only applies to food use pesticides. 

8. In his testimony, Dr. Denison suggested that, in considering innovation of new chemicals, 

safety should be a criterion that is built into the design of new chemical products and should 

be part of the definition of what constitutes innovation. ACe's testimony included 

statements of serious concern about requiring new chemicals to undergo a safety standard 

determination or to be subject to minimum data requirements prior to being allowed onto the 

market, based in part upon concerns that such requirements would stifle innovation. 

a. Do ACe's member companies take steps to ensure the safety of new chemicals prior to 

their submission to EPA under the existing new chemical review process? Ifso, please 

describe these steps. 

RESPONSE 8(a). All ACC members take steps to ensure the safety of new chemicals. Safety 

considerations inform the development of new chemicals from the very beginning of the process, 

including safety considerations in processing, use, distribution and disposal. In addition to the 

requirements ofTSCA and other relevant environmental, health and safety statutes, the U.S. tort 

liability system establishes an important incentive for manufacturers of new chemicals to address 

safety considerations. No single process applies across the industry, but in ACC's view, a TSCA 

regulatory system that establishes initial expectations for relevant hazard, use and exposure data 

or intormation would help establish confidence in the industry's practices. The approach should 

not establish a single, inflexible data or information requ irement for all new chemicals, but 

should be geared toward the anticipated use and exposure patterns for a substance. 

b. Do all ACC members follow the same practice? If different companies have different 

practices, please describe how these practices vary across the industry. 

RESPONSE 8(b). See response 8(a) above. 

c. If companies are currently taking steps to ensure the safety of all new chemicals that are 

being proposed for use in commerce, would a requirement that these new chemicals meet 

a safety standard have to necessarily stifle innovation? If you believe it would, please 

explain why. 

RESPONSE 8(c). In ACe's view, determining that a chemical is sate for intended uses is an 

appropriate step in the development, manufacture and use ofa substance. The requirement to 

7 
237 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 246 here 78128A.187

establish absolute safety under the safety standard established in H.R. 5820. and the inherent 

delays that meeting that standard implies, would tend to stifle innovation. 

d. Ifthe safety of new chemicals is not determined prior to their introduction into 

commerce, arc you concerned that consumers could experience unsafe exposure to 

chemicals? Ifnot. why not? 

RESPONSE 8(d). TSCA's new chemicals PMN program is generally view'ed as an effective 

mechanism for the review of new substances. When chemicals are first introduced into 

commerce, they are typically at low volumes and hence the potential for exposure should 

typically be lo\'v as well. I fthat is not the case, EPA can request more information about the 

chemical before approving it as a new chemical. TSCA and other applicable statutes, and our 

tort liability system, create powerful incentives to determine the safety of new chemicals prior to 

their introduction into commerce. If consumers experience unsafe exposure to chemicals, are 

you concerned that this would have a negative effect on your industry? Ifnot. why not? 

RESPONSE 8(e). ACC is not certain what this question is intended to address. For our part, we 

believe the public, the entire chemical value chain. and the government should have confidence 

that they can safely use chemical products. Appropriate modifications to TSCA can help achieve 

that goal. 

9. It takes a significant amount of time to bring a new chemical to market. For instance, the 

new chemical must be developed, it must undergo significant testing to determine its 

suitability for commercial application, the process for manufacturing the chemical at 

commercial seale must be developed, a factory must be built or modified to manufacture the 

chemical and a market must be found or developed for its intended sale. Please provide 

information regarding the typical lead-time involved in bringing a new chemical to market. 

To the extent possible. please provide information regarding the time involved with each 

aspect of bringing a new ehemical to market. 

RESPONSE 9. It is not possible to detail the many different elements and timelines applicable 

to the development ora new chemical in the many different markets and uses to which industrial 

chemicals are put. Generally speaking. the development of a new chemical and TSCA approval 

of a pre-manufacturing notice (PMN) can take years. It should he noted that not all PMNs are 

approved in the 90-day period outlined in TSCA: many can take significantly longer. 

10. Is it ACe's position that all chemicals currently used in commerce are safe for their intended 

llses? Ifso, please provide the hasis for this position. Ifnot. please provide available 

information about slIch chemicals, including. if possible. the identity of any such chemicals 

that ACC believes are not safe for their intended uses. 

RESPONSE 10. ACC believes that chemicals in commerce are safe for their intended uses. 

The significant improvements in health, the environment. and our standard ofliving over the last 

century stand as important evidence that chemicals can be and are being used safely. 

8 
238 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 247 here 78128A.188

11. Based on feedback received on the discussion draft during the stakeholder process, the 

committee has incorporated or revised several provisions specifically to address industry 

concerns. 

a. H.R. 5820 requires EPA to promulgate a rule to establish a minimum data set. Acc 

specifically requested that this provision be included during the stakeholder process. 

Does ACC support this provision? If so, why? If not, what not? 

RESPONSE l1(a). ACC agrees that establishing minimum expectations for data and 

information on new chemicals is appropriate, assuming that use and exposure patterns and 

considerations inform what data and information is provided. TSCA revisions should not impose 

an inflexible minimum data set requirement. 

b. H.R. 5820 incorporates penalties for inappropriate claims of confidentiality, as suggested 

by ACC and other industry stakeholders, in lieu of automatic EPA review of each claim. 

Does ACC support this provision? If so, why? If not, why not? 

RESPONSE l1(b). ACC supports enhancing public access to chemical health and safety 

information. This objective, however, must be balanced against the need to protect legitimate 

confidential business information. To that end; ACC supports the concept of an up-front 

justification for claims of confidentiality and opportunities to re-substantiate those claims as 

appropriate. Penalties may be appropriate to prevent willful misrepresentation ofCBI claims. 

c. In your testimony, you raised concerns about the treatment of mixtures in H.R. 5820. 

EPA's authority over mixtures is now wholly discretionary under this legislation, as 

requested by industry stakeholders and as is the case under existing law. Does ACC 

support this approach? If so, why? 1fnot, why not? 

RESPONSE l1(c). ACC disagrees that H.R. 5820 provides EPA wholly discretionary authority 

over mixtures. ACC reads the bill to subject new mixtures to the same requirements as other 

new chemicals. 

d. H.R. 5820 excludes articles from automatic coverage, as requested by industry 

stakeholders. Does ACC support this approach? If so, why? If not, why not? 

RESPONSE l1(d). In ACC's view, additional clarity is required on the extent to which EPA 

has regulatory authority over articles, the jurisdictional scope of such authority, and the criteria 

and circumstances in which EPA would be expected to exercise that authority. 

e. H.R. 5820 includes a provision requiring that importers meet the same requirements with 

respect to chemical safety that domestic manufacturers must meet. Given the importance 

of ensuring a level playing field for domestic manufacturers to compete with foreign 

manufacturers, does ACC support this provisions? If so, why? If not, why not? 

RESPONSE l1(e). ACC's concern is that the provisions ofH.R. 5820 create an incentive to 

develop new chemicals and products outside the United States and then import the fmished 

9 
239 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 248 here 78128A.189

goods made with or containing the chemical substance in question. Appropriate modifications tc 

TSCA should create an environment in which manufucturers have appropriate incentives to 

develop, manufacture, and use the benefits of chemistry in the United States. 

12. H.R. 5820 provides for expedited review and exposure reduction for persistent, 

bioaccumulative, and toxic chemicals (PBTs) and authorizes EPA to grant critical use 

exemptions where appropriate. Does ACC believe that PBTs deserve special concern and 

regulatory treatment based on their intrinsic characteristics? Does ACC support the bill's 

treatment ofPBTs? Ifso, why? Ifnot, why not? 

RESPONSE 12. PBTs are a class of chemicals that warrant review. However, they are but one 

class of chemicals, and not all PBTs may require expedited review. EPA should have the 

discretion to prioritize all substances for review, including PBTs, where their use poses a risk of 

harmful exposure in use. 

13. In your written and oral testimony on H.R. 5820, you stated that EPA's TSCA program 

would be unworkable if this legislation were enacted .. H.R. 5820 extends a number of 

deadlines in response to industry concerns about the timing of data development and 

submission. For example, submission of the minimum data set is staggered over a 5 year 

period based on production volume and other factors, while deadlines for EPA action also 

have been extended to ensure feasibility. Does ACC agree that extending the submission 

deadlines improves workability? If so, why? Ifnot, why not? 

RESPONSE 13. ACC agrees that compliance deadlines should be addressed in revisions to 

TSCA, with a view to efficiently and effectively implementing the amendments. Extended 

compliance deadlines can improve workability but the cumulative burden of the requirements on 

EPA and the industry must also be addressed. 

14. In your testimony, you state that the safer alternatives provision is unworkable and would 

stifle innovation. Does ACC agree that TSCA should address safer alternatives? If so, why? 

If not, why not? Please explain specifically why ACC believes that the safer alternative 

provisions in H.R. 5820 would stifle innovation. What approach would you recommend for 

identifYing safer alternatives that would be workable, foster innovation and protect health 

and the environment? 

RESPONSE 14. The safer alternatives provisions ofH.R. 5820 are grounded in the assumption 

that there are a host of "safer" substances that simply need an improved regulatory environment 

to be brought to market. ACC questions that assumption. H.R. 5820 establishes significant 

regulatory hurdles to such "safer" chemicals, and in fuct requires that such substances meet all 

the requirements as "other" new chemicals. Under the framework proposed in H.R. 5820, 

"safer" chemicals are identified on the basis of some reduction in one or more hazard 

characteristics. That notion is unrealistic, and belies the fact that "safer" or "greener" chemicals 

can also address critical elements such as process concerns, sustainability considerations, and 

even exposure potential. 

10 
240 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 249 here 78128A.190

15. In your testimony you suggested that disclosure of chemical identity and health and safety 

data to downstream users - even where it is subject to the protections of Section 14 limiting 

disclosure of confidential information - would hurt innovation and threaten the commercial 

interests of the chemical industry. Mr. Williams testified that these disclosures have the 

opposite effect, because when downstream users, consumers and the public are informed 

about the chemical constituents ofthe products that they use and the associated health and 

safety effects, they will demand safer products, which will drive innovation. 

Does ACC agree that manufacturers and processors should disclose health and safety 

information to downstream users, consumers and the public? If so, why? If not, why not? 

Why do you disagree with the assertion that disclosure will foster innovation and lead to 

safer chemicals in commerce? If you oppose such disclosure, how should downstream 

companies ensure that their products are safe, without basic information on the nature and 

toxicity of chemicals contained in those products? 

RESPONSE 15. ACC has long held the view that health and safety data should not be claimed 

confidential. TSCA Section 14 makes clear that EPA can disclose confidential information when 

health and safety is threatened. There are circumstances in which chemical identity, or the 

identity of a company, appropriately require protection. The disclosure of information properly 

claimed confidential jeopardizes irmovation because competitors by definition will have access 

to that information. As we outline in the response to Mr. Barton's question number 5, the 

approach taken in H.R. 5820 has implications for the competitive position of the chemical 

industry. 

16. H.R. 5820 requires EPA to identify and address localities with populations that are 

disproportionately exposed to toxic chemical substances. Does ACC agree that EPA should 

give special consideration to disproportionately exposed populations? If so, why? If not, 

why not? 

RESPONSE 16. ACC believes that the Environmental Protection Agency has considerable 

authority under a number of statutes to address issues related to exposures to toxic chemicals in 

particular localities. 

17. Industry representatives have suggested that legislation should exempt chemicals from the 

requirements ofTSCA where there is consensus that those chemicals are inherently safe, 

even under the worst case scenarios of exposure. H.R. 5820 includes an exemption for 

chemicals that allows for such an analysis and exemption. In your testimony, you suggested 

that this provision is unworkable. 

a. Why do you believe that the intrinsic properties exemption is unworkable? 

RESPONSE 17(a). ACC's position has been very clear. The existing exeinptions in TSCAfor certain polymers, low release/exposure substances, and the like - appear to have worked 

well. In our view, the exemptions provisions should allow EPA to make a considered judgment 

that some substances either do not have inherent hazard properties, or do not pose a significant 

1l 
241 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 250 here 78128A.191

risk of exposure in use. H.R. 5820's approach, however, raises concerns that no chemical would 

ever qualifY for the exemption. 

b. What specific alternative approach would you suggest for identifYing and exempting 

intrinsically safe chemicals that is also protective of health and the environment? 

RESPONSE 17(b). See response 17(a) above. 

18. In your testimony, you suggested that, under H.R. 5820, new uses of polysilicates (a group of 

polymers) could be prevented if EPA did not complete a safety determination within the 

timeframes established by the bill. Yet the bill creates an explicit carry-over for the existing 

polymer exemption under the Act, and permits the exemption to continue in effect as long as 

the chemicals covered are in fact found to be safe based on their intrinsic properties .. 

a. Given this provision, do you believe that the polymer exemption would not continue' 

under H.R. 5820? If not, why not? 

RESPONSE 18(a). ACC assumed, properly, that if a polymeric substance is identified as a 

priority for review, the failure to complete a safety assessment would effectively bar the 

introduction of new uses of that substance. The explicit carry-over of the polymer exemption 

under the bill does not, in our view, preclude EPA identifYing such as substance as a priority for 

review, or, in appropriate circumstances, deciding that a polymer could be unsafe for an intended 

use. 

b. If a polymer is found by EPA to not meet the specifications of the new provision on 

chemicals that are intrinsically safe, by definition that polymer could be unsafe for its 

intended use. In such a circumstance, why should the exemption continue? 

RESPONSE 18(b). See response 18(a) above. 

c. Is your organization aware ot; or have any evidence ot; any polymer that could be unsafe 

for its intended use? If so, please provide such information to the Committee. 

RESPONSE 18(c). ACC is certainly aware that the molecular weight ofa polymeric substance 

has implications for possible biological activity, but is not in and of itself determinative of safe 

use. 

19. One issue that arose during the hearing was the question of how reforming TSCA might 

affect efforts to reduce the incidence ofcancer in the U.S. A number of chemicals have been 

identified by the National Toxicology Program (NTP) and/or the International Agency for 

Research on Cancer (IARC) as known human carcinogens. For many of these chemicals, 

exposure is widespread within the United States. 

a. What authority should EPA have under a revised TSCA to address the threats posed by 

known human carcinogens where there is evidence of widespread exposure? How should 

TSCA be modified to better address the risks posed by these chemicals? 

12 
242 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 251 here 78128A.192

RESPONSE 19(a). ACC believes that modifications to TSCA that ensure a robust prioritization 

and assessment program will also apply to carcinogens. We assume that carcinogenicity would 

be one of the criteria by which EPA would identifY priority substances for review, in conjunction 

with information on the use and exposure patterns. 

b. Do you think the changes to TSCA proposed in H.R. 5280 are sufficient, go too far, or do 

not go far enough? Please explain. 

RESPONSE 19(b) . . We think that many of the changes proposed in H.R. 5280 (as discussed in 

response to each of the questions above) fail to appropriately focus EPA on priority chemicals, 

impose requirements out of proportion to the policy objective, and create barriers to the practical 

implementation. 

13 
243 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 252 here 78128A.193

The Honorable Joe Barton 

1. Would it be expensive for chemical companies to comply with H.R. 5820? 

RESPONSE 1. ACC has not compiled a specific estimate ofthe costs associated with H.R. 

5820. However, the direct costs associated with generating and submitting the additional data 

and information required under the proposed bill, and the indirect costs associated with market 

impacts (e.g., those impacts associated with a mere listing of a chemical as a "priority chemical") 

are substantially higher than under existing TSCA law and practice. 

2. Would this legislation discourage innovation and new products that would be sold in the u.S. 

market? 

RESPONSE 2. ACC believes that as drafted, H.R. 5820 will discourage innovation and new 

product introduction. Minimum data set requirements can be significant. For example, the full 

screening data set required in the U.S. High Production Volume challenge program (which 

requires less data than that outlined in H.R. 5820) would run approximately $1 million per 

chemical. Applying those requirements to new chemicals, before a market has even been 

established, would discourage the development and introduction of new chemistries. ACC notes 

that these data requirements would apply to all chemicals, including so-called "safer" chemicals. 

3. Would this legislation significantly increase the costs of the products sold throughout the 

United States economy? 

RESPONSE 3. Chemicals are the building blocks ofthe U.S. economy. Some 96% of all 

manufactured goods are touched in some way by chemistry. It stands to reason that ifthe costs 

of manufacturing or using chemicals increases significantly as a result of a regulatory regime like 

that contemplated in H.R. 5820, the costs of products that rely on chemistry will similarly 

increase. 

4. Would the increased costs of complying with this legislation competitively disadvantage u.s. 

chemical companies vis-a-vis foreign competitors? 

RESPONSE 4. The global business of chemistry is intensely competitive. While the costs of 

feedstocks and energy are the largest components ofthe industry's cost structure, the costs 

associated with regulatory requirements are increasing and could be a factor in decisions around 

the manufucture ofa specific chemical. For example, the costs of completing a minimum data 

set of the type contemplated in H.R. 5820 could run into the millions of dollars. By definition 

new chemicals have not yet established a market but would face a significant barrier by virtue of 

the minimum data set alone. Assuming new chemical introduction is an indicator of 

competitiveness and that is an area in which the United States has had a significant global 

advantage - H.R. 5820 would likely impose a competitive disadvantage on the U.S. business of 

chemistry. 

5. Would the new disclosure requirements make it easier for foreign competitors to obtain 

proprietary information, also putting U.S. companies at a competitive disadvantage? 

14 
244 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 253 here 78128A.194

RESPONSE 5. The limitations on the protection of confidential business information in H.R. 

5820 could have the effect of making it easier for competitors to obtain proprietary information. 

For example, under section 8 Of the House draft, every manufacturer and processor must declare 

the chemical identity, specific facility where the substance is produced or processed, all known 

uses, production volume for each of the uses, and a description of the byproducts associated with 

the manufacture, processing, use or disposal of each substance or mixture. Immediately upon 

filing this declaration, every competitor can have access to this information with a simple FOIA 

request. 

It is well established that the mosaic of information reported to the government under various 

programs, and which may not qualifY individually for CBI treatment, can still implicate 

proprietary interests. H.R. 5820 would exacerbate that problem. See, e.g., Government 

Accountability Office, "Environmental Information: EPA Could Better Address Concerns 

About Disseminating Sensitive Business Information," (GAOIRCED-99-156, General 

Accounting Office, June 1999). The rapid growth of the Internet and other electronic means of 

disseminating information, the increasing use of competitive intelligence gathering, and the 

increased potential for attacks on cyber security measures are among the reasons why ACC has a 

heightened concern about the appropriate protection of information. ACC is committed to 

seeking the right balance in the disclosure ofinfoTl)'lation that can enhance public and 

government access to chemical information. 

6. How important is the export market to your members? How would this bill impact their 

ability to continue their sales overseas? 

RESPONSE 6. The U.S. chemical industry's global competitive position results in large part 

from the ability to serve fureign markets. The chemical industry continues to be one ofthe top 

exporting sectors in the U.S. According to U.S. Department of Commerce statistics, total U.S. 

exports of chemicals to the rest of the world were valued at $145 billion. Since 2002 our 

industry has posted a trade deficit, in contrast to its positive trade balance since the 1920s. While 

the industry reduced its trade deficit to only $138 million in 2009, we believe that H.R. 5820 

would significantly increase the cost of U.S. chemicals, potentially increasing our trade deficit. 

7. How should the EPA handle the influx of REACH data on 3,000 chemicals expected in 

201O? Considering the requirements in H.R. 5820, should infurmation on chemical 

substances and mixtures from foreign countries be taken into account by EPA? If you 

support using this data., what is your opinion of ensuring these studies are of high scientific 

quality and relevance? 

RESPONSE 7. Under the REACH program, registration dossiers on high volume chemicals 

and certain high hazard chemicals are due November 30, 2010. The registration process will 

continue through June 2018 for lower volume substances. To the extent that REACH 

registration dossiers contain public information, EPA should be able to leverage that information 

and augment the information the Agency has available on any particular substance. ACC 

believes that in general information from foreign chemical regulatory systems can be 

appropriately leveraged to prevent duplication of cost and effort. 

ACC recognizes, however, that TSCA currently prohibits EPA from sharing and receiving 

confidential information from other governments. We believe EPA should have the authority to 

15 
245 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 254 here 78128A.195

further augment its databases with such information, assuming the United States government and 

CBI claimants can be assured that foreign governments afford the information protection 

comparable to that provided by EPA under TSCA. In the meantime, ACC welcomes EPA's 

efforts to conclude a Memorandum of Understanding with the European Chemicals Agency. 

That effort should help in better understanding the REACH system and the lessons both agencies 

can apply from their respective experience. 

8. What kind of pressure does the U.S. chemical industry fuce from competition overseas? 

How would H.R. 5820 affect the ability of ACC's members to compete in the global 

economy? 

RESPONSE 8. The global business of chemistry is intensely competitive. ACC believes that as 

drafted, H.R. 5820 establishes a disincentive to introduce new chemicals in the U.S. market. 

The minimum data requirements ofH.R. 5820 would impose significant costs, and would likely 

move new chemical introduction outside the United States. 

9. You testified that the bill's treatment of importers is unworkable. Ifunchanged, how would 

it affect U.S. manufacturers that depend on imported chemicals? 

RESPONSE 9. H.R. 5820 requires importers to prove "no harm" from an imported substance, 

the same standard applied to domestically produced chemicals. However, that standard creates 

an important disincentive to import. As an example, assume that a foreign manufacturer has 

made a substantial investment to comply with Europe's REACH requirements. It is fur from 

certain that compliance with REACH will equate to compliance with the H.R. 5820 approach 

(indeed, it can be argued that H.R. 5820 establishes a higher safety standard than is applied under 

REACH). ACC believes a better standard would focus on the safety ofa chemical substance 

(whether imported or not) in its intended use. To be clear, ACC is not advocating a lower 

standard of protection for imported substances. Our industry is a net importer of chemicals, 

particularly from Europe, and to a large extent those imports are intra-company transfers. 

10. What are "green chemicals" and how prevalent are they currently in the chemicals industry? 

RESPONSE 10. "Green" chemistry and engineering is a process of considering multiple fuctors 

and trade-oft's in chemical synthesis, manufacturing, use and disposal. The fuctors that influence 

"green" chemistry include health and environmental safety, energy efficiency, water efficiency, 

exposure and use considerations (including function), and quality, among others. There is no 

single definition of a "green" or "safer" chemical. 

II. Are "green chemicals" intrinsically safer? 

RESPONSE 11. So-called "green chemicals" are not necessarily intrinsically safer than other 

chemicals. For example, some "green chemicals" might improve energy efficiency in a given 

chemical process but have hazard characteristics similar to other chemicals. As ACC has 

frequently noted, the hazard characteristic of a substance alone (presumptively, the indicator of a 

"safer" chemical under H.R. 5820) is not sufficient to properly assess the risk of exposure to a 

substance in a given use. 

16 
246 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 255 here 78128A.196

12. Is there a distinct difference between TSCA-regulated chemicals and FIFRA-regulated 

pesticides, particularly with regard to human exposure? 

RESPONSE 12. As we noted in our response to Mr. Waxman and Mr. Rush (question number 

2), there are significant differences between TSCA-regulated industrial chemicals and FIFRAregulated pesticides, notably in the use and exposure patterns for those substances. 

13. You testified that the National Academy of Sciences report "Science and Decisions" makes 

some useful recommendations but that others are not based on the best available science. 

Which NAS recommendations are not based on the best available science? Please explain. 

RESPONSE 13. ACC believes that the NAS Report's recommendation to treat noncarcinogenic substances in a manner identical to carcinogens (e.g., the non-linear low dose 

thresho Id theory) is not supported by the best available science. 

14. You testified that you believe there are advantages to the Canadian system of chemical 

regulation. Could you please explain what those advantages are and cl!irifY whether ACC 

supports importing the Canadian chemicals management program into the U.S. to replace 

TSCA? 

RESPONSE 14. As outlined in the response to question 3(b) raised by Mr. Waxman and Mr. 

Rush, the Canadian Chemical Management Program provides some important lessons on 

approaches to prioritizing a large number of chemical substances fur review. Not all elements of 

the Canadian program will translate well into U.S. law and practice, but the general structure of a 

program that prioritizes, assesses, and regulates where necessary substances in commerce is 

notable. 

17 
247 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 256 here 78128A.197

Responses of Kenneth A. Cook, President of Environmental Working Group to Follow Up 

Questions from "Toxic Chemicals Safety Act of 2010," July 29th, 2010 hearing: 

1, Industry witnesses have expressed concern that, ifthis bill passes, it will drive 

innovative manufacturing outside of the U.S. and kill high-paying American 

manufacturing jobs. Do you have any concerns that the global environment could 

suffer if we force this type of manufacturing to countries with less robust or nonexistent 

environmental controls? 

For decades, America has been an international leader in market innovation, job creation and 

environmental health and safety. Through reforming the Toxic Substances Control Act, the 

United States can regain its leadership safeguarding the health of children and advancing the 

protection of the global environment while maintaining a robust chemical industry. 

The global environment will not suffer from stronger U.S. chemical safety laws. In fact, as 

more testing and sharing of information on chemical safety comes to light more countries 

will find it easier to protect their populations and environment. 

Currently the United States has nearly nonexistent controls on chemicals coming to the 

market. Ever since the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals in New Orleans overturned EPA's 

proposed regulation of asbestos in 1991, TSCA has effectively been a broken and failed law 

because the "unreasonable risk of injury to health or the environment" is too high of a 

standard to effectively assess chemicals for safety. In the 34 years since TSCA was signed 

into law more than 20,000 chemicals have come on the market joining the 62,000 chemicals 

that were considered safe and grandfathered in under TSCA. Of those more than 80,000 

chemicals EPA has only required testing on approximately 200 chemicals, and only regulated 

5 chemicals. 

Many companies that would be regulated by a reformed TSCA are multinational companies 

and are already required to comply with the European Union's Registration, Evaluation, 

Authorisation and Restriction of Chemical substances (REACH) program, which has 

extensive safety testing reporting requirements. By reforming TSCA, Congress will ensure 

that Americans are protected from harmful chemicals 'and drive innovation in green 

chemistry and safer chemical alternatives. Because the Toxic Chemicals Safety Act would 

require chemicals to be assessed for safety before coming to market, the companies must 

meet the safety standard no matter where they are manufactured. That could actually lead to 

improved manufacturing processes at plants because any chemicals to be sold in the U.S. 

must meet the requirements of the law. 

2 

EWG: THE POWER OF INFORMATION 
248 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 257 here 78128A.198

2. While H.R. 5820 does not regulate pharmaceuticals directly, it does directly regulate 

many of the active ingredients in those drugs that make them effective. If it is 

determined that this bill would significantly restrict access to life saving or life 

improving drugs, would your position change? 

A meaningful safety standard requirement for industrial chemicals under TSCA would not 

restrict access to pharmaceuticals. Under the Federal Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act (21 USC 

§ 355-356) as amended, drugs are already extensively tested for safety and efficacy for 

people before ever reaching the market. Also, H.R. 5820 does not change any jurisdictional 

boundaries. EPA will maintain the authority to regulate only the uses that fall under the 

agency's jurisdiction. 

Under current pharmaceutical law, it is not enough for a drug to be effective, it has to be safe 

as well. We have seen numerous occasions of FDA asking companies to take 

pharmaceuticals off the market because of health risks. In October 2010, for example, 

Abbott Laboratories took the drug Meridia off the market because a trial suggested that 

patients taking the weight loss medication experienced more heart attacks and strokes than 

those taking a placebo. The director of the Office of New Drugs in the FDA's Center for 

Drug Evaluation and Research (CDER) said FDA made the request because the risks far 

outweighed the modest weight loss benefits (FDA News Release). The drug posed too 

significant a risk to stay on the market. Industrial chemicals should also be proven safe 

before they are sold, and EPA should be able to take chemicals off the market if chemicals 

are not safe. 

Under H.R. 5820, the safety standard - "a reasonable certainty of no harm" - will not restrict 

access to the active ingredients in pharmaceuticals because those pharmaceuticals are subject 

to robust testing by the FDA and the EPA will not have authority to regulate chemical uses 

that fall under another agency. 

3 

EWG: THE POWER OF INFORMATION 
249 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 258 here 78128A.199

References 

FDA News Release. "Abbott Laboratories agrees to withdraw its obesity drug Meridia" 0 

8,2010 http://www.fda.govlNewsEventslNewsroomlPressAnnouncements/ucm228812.ht 

[Accessed November 8, 2010] 

4 

EWG: THE POWER OF INFORMATION 
250 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 259 here 78128A.200

Responses of Kenneth A. Cook, President of Environmental Working Group to follow up 

questions regarding "Toxic Chemicals Safety Act of201O," July 291h, 2010 hearing: 

1. One issue that arose during the hearing was the question of how reforming TSCA 

might affect efforts to reduce the incidence of cancer in the U,S. A number of chemicals 

have been identified by the National Toxicology Program (NTP) and/or the 

International Agency for Research on Cancer as known human carcinogens. For many 

ofthese chemicals, exposure is widespread within the United States. 

a. What authority should EPA have under a revised TSCA to address the threats 

posed by known human carcinogens where there is evidence or widespread 

exposure? How should TSCA be modified to better address the risks posed by these 

chemicals? 

We agree that a revised Toxic Substances Control Act should address chemicals 

classified as "known human carcinogens" by various authoritative scientific bodies. The 

President's Cancer Panel underscored the health risks associated with toxic chemicals 

when it declared that the number of cancers induced by toxic chemicals is "grossly 

underestimated" and warned that Americans face "grievous hann" from largely 

unregulated chemicals that contaminate air, water and food (President's Cancer Panel 

2010). 

However, Americans are not only exposed to cancer-causing chemicals, Everyday, we 

are also exposed to chemicals linked to birth defects, honnone disruption, and organ and 

brain impainnent. H.R, 5820 in its current draft effectively deals with all industrial 

chemicals including, but not limited to, those that are "known human carcinogens." This 

authority is critical given that a growing body of research has demonstrated that the fetus 

is exposed to a wide range of toxic chemicals during vulnerable development periods. 

In 2005, an EWG commissioned biomonitoring study found more than 200 synthetic 

chemicals in the umbilical cord blood of 10 newborns. Last year, in tests of 10 more cord 

blood samples we found bisphenol A (BP A) and perchlorate along with numerous other 

chemicals. BPA is a synthetic estrogen that is an endocrine disruptor and reproductive 

toxin. BP A has been linked to cancer while perchlorate targets the thyroid and can 

negatively impact brain development. EWG's 2010 study also found polybrominated 

diphenyl ethers (PBDEs), which are flame retardants found on many electronics and 

furniture, in umbilical cord blood. These PBDEs are developmental neurotoxins. We 

also found mercury, lead, and the common perfluronated chemicals: PFOA (Teflon) and 

PFOS (Scotchguard) which have been tied to birth defects, infertility and cancer, Neither 

PFOA or PFOS are listed as known carcinogens under IARC or the NTP. 

While a refonned TSCA must deal with known carcinogens, effective legislation must 

also regulate neuro- and reproductive toxins, endocrine disruptors, and other chemicals 

that cause dangerous health effects. It must also focus on protecting the most vulnerable 

among us, especially children. We strongly support the proposed safety standard of 

2 

EWG: THE POWER OF INFORMATION 
251 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 260 here 78128A.201

"reasonable certainty of no harm, "as reflected in Section 6 ofH.R. 5820. A safety 

standard that protects children and their developing bodies will be strong enough to 

protect all of us. We also urge the committee to ensure that that industrial chemicals that 

are found in human umbilical cord blood be the top priority for EPA under an overhauled 

TSCA. 

b. Do you think the changes to TSCA proposed in H.R. 5280 are sufficient, go too far, 

or do not go far enough? Please explain. 

EWG commends you and your staff for the tremendous work on this legislation. IfH.R. 

5280 passed today, the Toxic Chemicals Safety Act of2010 would be light years ahead 

of where TSCA currently is - a broken law that allows chemicals to stream onto the 

market with little or no safety testing. 

We strongly support the legislation's risk-based approach to regulation and assessment 

and the "reasonably certainty of no harm" safety standard replacing TSCA's futile 

"unreasonable risk of significant injury to health or the environment," which proved too 

weak to ban asbestos. This standard, which EPA already utilizes under the Food Quality 

Protection Act of 1996, would require EPA to consider aggregate exposures to chemicals. 

We're also supportive of the change made from the discussion draft requiring existing 

and new chemicals to meet the safety standard. 

A critical component of a successfully reformed TSCA is a robust minimum data set and 

we support the data set laid out in Section 4 of the legislation as well as tiered testing and 

data sharing, which will reduce costs and animal testing. 

Many of the companies that would be regulated under a revised TSCA are already 

participating in the European Union's Registration, Evaluation, Authorisation and 

Restriction of Chemical substances (REACH) scheme. In an effort to reduce costs, 

animal testing and the time taken to gather data we'd like to see clear requirements that 

industry share chemical dossiers and data prepared for REACH, EPA's voluntary High 

Production Volume program, internal uses, EPA's TOXCAST and other high-throughput 

screening batteries as well as data from other government agencies and programs 

including the FDA, NIEHS and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention's (CDC) 

National Children's Study. 

With more 80,000 chemicals on EPA's TSCA inventory it is vital to establish a robust 

prioritization system. We support the placing of the 19 chemicals listed in Section 6 on 

the priority list. In fact EWG has conducted research on many of these chemicals 

including BP A, perchlorate, phthalates and formaldehyde. 

One of our main concerns, however, is that biomonitoring is not the primary factor of the 

prioritization process. As already detailed, EWG has biomonitored twenty samples of 

umbilical cord blood. In the past decade we have biomonitored approximately 200 

people including those twenty cord blood samples. We commissioned these studies 

3 

EWG: THE POWER OF INFORMATION 
252 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 261 here 78128A.202

because we believe that much of the public support for toxic chemicals policy - more 

than 111,000 signed EWG's petition to reform TSCA - is driven by concern for 

chemicals' effect on human health, especially children's health. Many other scientific 

agencies, including the CDC have confirmed these results through additional 

biomonitioring studies. 

The Kid-Safe Chemicals Act of2008 would have required chemicals found in human 

umbilical cord blood to be phased out unless rigorous testing showed them to be safe. 

While detection of a chemical in umbilical cord blood does not prove that it will cause 

harm, it's our view that industrial chemicals that cross the placenta to contaminate a 

developing fetus must be placed at the top of EPA's priority list. 

We also support the reporting requirements in Section 8 of the legislation. Chemical 

identity, use, manufacturer and relevant health and safety studies are critical for 

transparency and accountability. We feel that this data should be updated every year so 

that regulators, first responders and the public would have the most up to date 

information. 

For too long the chemical industry has hidden behind overbroad confidential business 

information (CBI) protections. EWG has found that industry made CBr claims for the 

identities of 13,596 chemicals since TSCA was passed in 1976. The Toxic Chemicals 

Safety Act of 20 1 0 contains a crucial improvement by eliminating CBl protection for 

chemical identity and ensuring identity and health and safety data would be publicly 

available. We also support the requirement that manufacturers must justify 

confidentiality. All these provisions would end the spurious confidentiality claims that 

have undermined TSCA. 

We also support the expanded oversight authority of EPA that will allow them to conduct 

inspections and issue subpoenas to facilities as well as allowing EPA to issue orders for 

more testing. We are pleased to see this legislation engage on the issues surrounding 

fenceline communities, but would like to see the "hot spot" list and action plan 

strengthened to impose penalties if EPA, a state or locality does not fully implement an 

action plan or meet the reduction targets. 

4 

EWG: THE POWER OF INFORMATION 
253 

Æ 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 262 here 78128A.203

References 

President's Caner Panel. 2010. Reducing Environmental Cancer Risk. 

http://deainfo.nci.nih.gov/advisory/pc;p/annuaIReports/pcp08-09rot1PCP Report 08-09 508.pdf 

[Accessed November 8, 2010] 

5 EWG: THE POWER OF INFORMATION