Table Of Content

S. 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 behalfofthe 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 attention that other environmental issues do. In some respects, its si- lence is odd because TSCA gives EPA significant authority and because 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 preventive 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 manufacturers have certain responsibilities for their products. Section 2 of TSCA recognizes the responsibility of manufacturers and processors 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 authority, 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 authority 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 important 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 exposed 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 existing 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 interested 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 existing 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 environmental 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 working 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-