Table Of ContentS. Hrg. 103-776
\^
REAUTHORIZATION OF THE TOXIC SUBSTANCES
CONTROL ACT
Y4.P 96/10: S. HRG, 103-776 ^^g
Reauthorization of the Toxic Substa. '^
. .
ON
»ui5i;uiViivinTEE
TOXIC SUBSTANCES, RESEARCH AND
DEVELOPMENT
OF THE
COMMITTEE ON
ENVIRONMENT AND PUBLIC WORKS
UNITED STATES SENATE
ONE HUNDRED THIRD CONGRESS
SECOND SESSION
MAY 17 AND JULY 13, 1994
Printed for the use of the Committee on Environment and Public Works
U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
82-903cc WASHINGTON : 1994
ForsalebytheU.S.GovernmentPrintingOffice
SuperintendentofDocuments.CongressionalSalesOffice,Washington,DC 20402
ISBN 0-16-046049-2
S. Hrg. 103-776
\^
REAUTHORIZATION OF THE TOXIC SUBSTANCES
CONTROL ACT
Y 4.P 96/10; S. HRG. 103-776
nIGS
Reauthorization of the Toxic Suhsta. . . ^^
ttUtsuuMivuiTEE ON
TOXIC SUBSTANCES, RESEAKCH AND
DEVELOPMENT
OF THE
COMMITTEE ON
ENVIRONMENT AND PUBLIC WORKS
UNITED STATES SENATE
ONE HUNDRED THIRD CONGRESS
SECOND SESSION
MAY 17 AND JULY 13, 1994
Printed for the use of the Committee on Environment and Public Works
DEC
1 3
U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
82-903CC WASHINGTON : 1994
ForsalebytheU.S.GovernmentPrintingOffice
SuperintendentofDocuments,CongressionalSalesOffice,Washington,DC 20402
ISBN 0-16-046049-2
COMMITTEE ON ENVIRONMENT AND PUBLIC WORKS
MAX BAUCUS, Montana, Chairman
DANIEL PATRICK MOYNIHAN, New York JOHN H. CHAFEE, Rhode Island
GEORGE J. MITCHELL, Maine ALAN K. SIMPSON, Wyoming
FRANK R. LAUTENBERG, New Jersey DAVE DURENBERGER, Minnesota
HARRY REID. Nevada JOHN W. WARNER, Virginia
BOB GRAHAM, Florida ROBERT SMITH, New Hampshire
JOSEPH I. LIEBERMAN, Connecticut LAUCH FAIRCLOTH, North Carolina
HOWARD M. METZENBAUM, Ohio DIRK KEMPTHORNE, Idaho
HARRIS WOFFORD, Pennsylvania
BARBARA BOXER, California
Peter L. Scher, StaffDirector
Steven J. Shimberg, Minority StaffDirector and ChiefCounsel
Subcommittee on Toxic Substances, Research and Development
HARRY REID, Nevada, Chairman'
FRANK R. LAUTENBERG, New Jersey ROBERT SMITH, New Hampshire
JOSEPH I. LIEBERMAN, Connecticut JOHN W. WARNER, Virginia
HARRIS WOFFORD, Pennsylvania ALAN K. SIMPSON, Wyoming
BARBARA BOXER, California LAUCH FAIRCLOTH, North Carolina
(II)
CONTENTS
Page
MAY 17, 1994
OPENING STATEMENT
Reid, Hon. Harry, U.S. Senatorfrom the State ofNevada 1
WITNESSES
Allenby, Braden R., research vice president, technology and environment,
AT&T 35
Prepared statement 91
Condray, Ron, director, regulatory management, Monsanto Company, on be-
halfofthe Chemical ManufacturersAssociation 33
Prepared statement 83
Goldman, Lynn, Assistant Administrator, Prevention, Pesticides and Toxic
Substances, Environmental ProtectionAgency 4
Prepared statement 46
Post-hearing questions 56
Guerrero, Peter, Director, Environmental Protection Issues, General Account-
ing Office 14
Prepared statement 58
Muir, WarrenR., president, Hampshire Research 21
Prepared statement 76
Silbergeld, Ellen, seniortoxicologist. Environmental Defense Fund 17
Prepared statement 64
Letterto SenatorReid 71
Synar, Hon. Michael L., U.S. Representative from the State ofOklahoma 3
Prepared statement 44
JULY 13, 1994
OPENING STATEMENTS
Lieberman, Hon. Joseph I., U.S. Senatorfrom the State ofConnecticut 100
Reid, Hon. Harry, U.S. Senatorfrom the State ofNevada 97
WITNESSES
Dear, Joseph A., Assistant Secretary, Occupational Safety and Health, De-
partmentofLabor 104
Prepared statement 142
Post-hearingquestions 145
Geiser, Kenneth, airector. Toxics Use Reduction Institute, University ofMas-
sachusetts 116
Prepared statement 160
Goldman, Lynn, Assistant Administrator, Prevention, Pesticides and Toxic
Substances, Environmental ProtectionAgency 101
Prepared statement 135
Post-hearingquestions 141
Page
Guerrero, Peter, Director, Environmental Protection Issues, General Account-
ingOffice 112
Prepared statement 149
Hagerman, Robert L., research associate, Dow Chemical Co 114
Prepared statement 155
Kanerva, Roger, environmental policy adviserto the director, Illinois Environ-
mental Protection Agency 124
Prepared statement 164
Monsma, David, attorney, EnvironmentalActionFoundation 125
Prepared statement 175
Rosenstock, Linda, Director, National Institute of Occupational Safety and
Health, DepartmentofHealth andHuman Services 106
Preparedstatement 146
Post-hearing questions 148
Smith, Hugh M., vice president, research and environmental science. Sun
Chemical Co., on behalfofthe Synthetic Organic Chemical Manufacturers
Association, Inc 128
Prepared statement 180
ADDITIONAL STATEMENT SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD
Chemical ManufacturersAssociation 183
(IV)
—
REAUTHORIZATION OF THE TOXIC
SUBSTANCES CONTROL ACT
TUESDAY, MAY 17, 1994
U.S. Senate,
Committee on Environment and Public Works,
Subcommittee on Toxic Substances, Research and
Development,
Washington, DC.
The subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 9:30 a.m. in room
406, Dirksen Senate Office Building, Hon. Harry Reid [chairman of
the subcommittee] presiding.
Present: Senator Reid.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. HARRY REID, U.S. SENATOR
FROM THE STATE OF NEVADA
Senator Reid. The hearing will come to order.
We're here today to discuss the Toxic Substances Control Act, the
quiet environmental statute that doesn't generally receive the at-
tention that other environmental issues do. In some respects, its si-
lence is odd because TSCA gives EPA significant authority and be-
cause many of the original intentions behind TSCA are somewhat
radical and seem oddly contemporary. As many people now recog-
nize, TSCA was really our first pollution prevention statute. This
statute—'s fundamental concept is preventive, going back to the
source that is, to the manufacturers and processors ofchemicals
to prevent and control downstream hazards.
This is particularly true to the new chemical program which re-
quired the EPA to consider the potential health and environmental
effects of chemicals before they're even manufactured. This preven-
tive approach makes sense from the standpoint of protecting our
health and getting the most protection that we can for the dollars
we spend. It's an approach we've been returning to as we've crafted
bills reauthorizing other environmental statutes like the Safe
Drinking Water Act and the Clean Water Act, which acknowledged
the importance of protecting water sources before they become pol-
luted.
Another sensible principle in TSCA is the idea that manufactur-
ers have certain responsibilities for their products. Section 2 of
TSCA recognizes the responsibility of manufacturers and proc-
essors to develop data on the health and environmental effects of
the chemicals they produce. TSCA sets up the expectation that the
industry should be conducting tests, not the government.
We'll talk some today about how this responsibility should go be-
yond testing chemical use and the management of risks. In addi-
(1)
tion to this preventive aspect, TSCA also gave the EPA the more
traditional end of the pipe regulatory authority. If TSCA's creators
intended the statute to support numerous rules restricting or ban-
ning specific chemicals, they would certainly be disappointed at the
results.
TSCA has, in some ways, been a statute with a good deal of au-
thority, with some inherent contradictions that obscure its mission.
It gives the EPA the authority to require chemical testing but pro-
vides cumbersome processes. Although recognizing the industry's
responsibility for testing, its incentives reward ignorance.
TSCA gives the EPA a broad range ofoptions to control chemical
risks through actions ranging from labeling to bans, but, again, the
process is extremely cumbersome. It gives the EPA extensive au-
thority to collect health and safety information, but it greatly inhib-
its dissemination of that information by allowing broad confiden-
tiality claims. TSCA appears to need a clearer sense of its mission
and more streamline processes.
Recent EPA actions have shown some of the potential of TSCA.
Recently, the EPA has emphasized its information gathering au-
thorities, and, in combination with some more recent actions like
the Pollution Prevention Act and APRA, has sought out pollution
prevention strategies. Yet, it almost seems that this effective TSCA
work comes in spite ofthe statute rather than because ofit.
We'll hear witnesses today talk about cooperative efforts between
the EPA and industry to consider environmen—tal effects of their
manufacturing decisions at a very early stage ^that is, to design
for the environment. The EPA has worked with industry to encour-
age the use of chemicals and materials that avoid or reduce haz-
ardous chemicals. These are important efforts but often voluntary
actions are affected because of the realistic prospect of regulation.
We have to see that the EPA has the ability to remove severe risks
when appropriate.
As we've seen with the success of TRI, another important incen-
tive for industries is to take responsibility for its activities in public
accountability. Recognizing that industry has a legitimate and im-
portant interest in keeping confidential information that would af-
fect its competitive position, we must allow the public to obtain
health and safety information of the chemicals that they are ex-
posed to.
Moreover, information is essential for companies using chemicals
to manufacture other products so they can choose safer chemicals
and process and produce the environmental friendly products that
more consumers are demanding. To some extent today, we'll talk
about the familiar negatives that have always come up in the past
when TSCA is the topic, the slowness in issuing test drills, so few
section 6 regulations, and the need for priorities and reviewing ex-
isting ch—emicals. But today we'll also want to start a more positive
dialogue ask not just what TSCA hasn't done but what it should
do.
I'm looking forward to hearing our witnesses on these matters.
Congressman Synar, I really appreciate your being here today.
This committee room on occasion is packed. There are TV cameras
all over, people waiting in the back of the room, and, frankly, the
importance of those hearings is much less than this one today. It
is extremely important to control the 60,000 chemicals that are out
there in our world, and there are not a lot of people really inter-
ested in it. I am really grateful that a leader like you has taken
.the time in the past to be interested in this issue that, as I said,
doesn't gain a lot of notoriety. But it's going to take the work of
the Mike Sjmars of the world to change how we regulate chemicals
in the world, so I am grateful that you're here and taking the time
to come over. I'm looking forward to your statement.
STATEMENT OF HON. MICHAEL L. SYNAR, U.S.
REPRESENTATIVE FROM THE STATE OF OKLAHOMA
Mr. Synar. Well, thank you, Mr. Chairman, I couldn't agree with
you more. I'm disappointed, like you are, about the lack of interest
expressed in this room; it doesn't reflect the need and the dimen-
sions of this problem, and this important oversight hearing that
you're holding today is not only timely, but is critical as we begin
to look at the whole question ofthe reauthorization.
You know, I've held five oversight hearings on this very subject,
and we've had numerous GAG reports, and, obviously, we'll want
to make those and other information that we've —gathered available
to you as you consider this. But you said it best ^TSCA has failed
to live up to its mission. In fact, it's probably EPA's biggest under-
achiever. As you said, in many ways, TSCA was the EPA's most
modem statute. It was pollution prevention, a very advanced idea
in 1976.
The real question, I think, is: why such a disappointing response
by TSCA?
Well, first of all, the EPA has issued only 30 test rules in 18
years for existing chemicals and almost none since 1989, and
there's no guarantee as we look at it today the EPA will ever be
more timely—.
Secondly and I think an example is 1984 where we h—ad 800,000
workers who were exposed to high levels of a chemical it took 7
years before the EPA sent in the test summary to GSHA. That
shows you the failure in terms of timeliness of action by the EPA.
And, finally, you mentioned in your opening statement the prob-
lems with "confidential business information." You know, it's easier
for a contractor in the EPA's mail room to get clearance to see
TSCA data than it is a governor. In fact, if a governor really wants
to find that kind of information, he would be better served reading
the New York Times than he would be talking to the EPA.
What needs to be done? Four things:
First, the EPA needs to set priorities for which of the 60,000 ex-
isting chemicals they should test.
Secondly, they need to have better criteria to decide whether to
take regulatory action.
Third, they need to consider mandating timetables for testing
and evaluation.
And, fourth, especially at a time oflimited funds at the EPA, we
need to ensure that TSCA works well with the other EPA programs
and more effectively with EPA statutes such as the Clean Air Act
and Clean Water Act, so that we can deal with this as an entire
industrial facility at one time and try to have more effective pipe-
to-pipe solutions.
These things seem very simple when you go through them, yet,
after 18 years it doesn't seem like the EPA has gotten the message
on how to deliver those simple solutions.
You're hearing today what we will do in the House, and I think
it's going to be very critical as we review this. I will close as I
opened: as you said, there's probably not a more important environ-
mental subject which has received less attention.
Senator Reid. Congressman Synar, I have worked for over 3
years on a lead bill. It has been one of the most frustrating, time-
consuming efforts ofmy political career. Ifyou work something out
with industry here, something else pops up over there. We now
have a bill, and I hope by the first of the month to get it on the
Senate floor, but it has been extremely difficult. I can imagine how
it will be with TSCA.
I think it's commendable, I repeat, that you're one ofthe leaders
in the House on this. You've got a lot of other things to work on,
things that in this modem media-driven world you could be work-
ing on. It speaks well of you as a person and as a public servant
to be working on something like this. There is going to be all oppo-
sition and very little support, and so I pledge my time and that of
this subcommittee to do what we can. I think, realistically, we're
not going to get a bill this year, but I think we should make a com-
mitment to get one during the next Congress. Let's change TSCA,
and I think we can do that. You've held five hearings, we have a
GAO report that you and I have asked for that should be out soon,
and that should be a big help to us. My staff has reviewed your
previous hearings, which have really laid the foundation for this
one.
So, again, for the third time today, I congratulate and applaud
you for the work that you've done, and look forward to working
with you and the House on this most important matter.
Mr. Synar. Thank you, Harry.
Senator Reid. We'll now hear from Dr. Lynn Goldman, the As-
sistant Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency for
Prevention, Pesticides, and Toxic Substances.
Dr. Goldman, we welcome you to the committee and look forward
to your testimony.
STATEMENT OF LYNN GOLDMAN, ASSISTANT ADMINIS-
TRATOR, PREVENTION, PESTICIDES AND TOXIC SUB-
STANCES, EPA; ACCOMPANIED BY MARK GREENWOOD, DI-
RECTOR, OFFICE OF POLLUTION PREVENTION AND TOXICS
Dr. GrOLDMAN. Thank you very much.
I have some written testimony that I'm submitting for the record,
and with me hei^^ is Mark Greenwood who is the director of the
Office ofPollution Prevention and Toxics.
I'm truly pleased to have the opportunity to participate in today's
hearing about TSCA. I'm encouraged by your interest in TSCA in
making it a more effective and current statute. After all, it has
been 18 years since TSCA was passed, and there have been no
changes to the original statute since that time. Quite frankly, we've
become frustrated by its limitations. In general, all of us involved
in environmental work now have come to realize that the time has
come for a new generation of environmental protection, new ap-
