[Senate Hearing 112-974]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
S. Hrg. 112-974
OVERSIGHT OF EPA AUTHORITIES AND ACTIONS TO CONTROL EXPOSURES TO TOXIC
CHEMICALS
=======================================================================
JOINT HEARING
before the
SUBCOMMITTEE ON SUPERFUND, TOXICS
AND ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH
and the
COMMITTEE ON
ENVIRONMENT AND PUBLIC WORKS
UNITED STATES SENATE
ONE HUNDRED TWELFTH CONGRESS
SECOND SESSION
__________
JULY 24, 2012
__________
Printed for the use of the Committee on Environment and Public Works
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.fdsys.gov
_________
U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE
25-110 PDF WASHINGTON : 2017
____________________________________________________________________
For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Publishing 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 20402-001
COMMITTEE ON ENVIRONMENT AND PUBLIC WORKS
ONE HUNDRED TWELFTH CONGRESS
SECOND SESSION
BARBARA BOXER, California, Chairman
MAX BAUCUS, Montana JAMES M. INHOFE, Oklahoma
THOMAS R. CARPER, Delaware DAVID VITTER, Louisiana
FRANK R. LAUTENBERG, New Jersey JOHN BARRASSO, Wyoming
BENJAMIN L. CARDIN, Maryland JEFF SESSIONS, Alabama
BERNARD SANDERS, Vermont MIKE CRAPO, Idaho
SHELDON WHITEHOUSE, Rhode Island LAMAR ALEXANDER, Tennessee
TOM UDALL, New Mexico MIKE JOHANNS, Nebraska
JEFF MERKLEY, Oregon JOHN BOOZMAN, Arkansas
KIRSTEN GILLIBRAND, New York
Bettina Poirier, Majority Staff Director
Ruth Van Mark, Minority Staff Director
----------
Subcommittee on Superfund, Toxics and Environmental Health
FRANK R. LAUTENBERG, New Jersey, Chairman
MAX BAUCUS, Montana MIKE CRAPO, Idaho
THOMAS R. CARPER, Delaware LAMAR ALEXANDER, Tennessee
JEFF MERKLEY, Oregon MIKE JOHANNS, Nebraska
KIRSTEN GILLIBRAND, New York JOHN BOOZMAN, Arkansas
BARBARA BOXER, California (ex JAMES M. INHOFE, Oklahoma (ex
officio) officio)
C O N T E N T S
----------
Page
JULY 24, 2012
OPENING STATEMENTS
Boxer, Hon. Barbara, U.S. Senator from the State of California... 1
Inhofe, Hon. James M., U.S. Senator from the State of Oklahoma... 2
Lautenberg, Hon. Frank R., U.S. Senator from the State of New
Jersey......................................................... 19
Crapo, Hon. Mike, U.S. Senator from the State of Idaho........... 20
Vitter, Hon. David, U.S. Senator from the State of Louisiana..... 21
Sessions, Hon. Jeff, U.S. Senator from the State of Alabama,
prepared statement............................................. 139
WITNESSES
Jones, James J., Acting Assistant Administrator, Office of
Chemical Safety and Pollution Prevention, U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency.............................................. 22
Prepared statement........................................... 25
Responses to additional questions from Senator Boxer......... 30
Pingree, Hannah, mother, former Speaker of the Maine House of
Representatives................................................ 46
Prepared statement........................................... 49
Stapleton, Heather M., Ph.D., Associate Professor, Nicholas
School of the Environment, Duke University..................... 80
Prepared statement........................................... 83
Responses to additional questions from Senator Boxer......... 92
Moore, Marshall, Director, Technology, Advocacy and Marketing,
Great Lakes Solutions, a Chemtura business..................... 95
Prepared statement........................................... 97
Rawson, William K., Partner and Chair of the Environment, Land
and Resources Department in Washington, DC, Latham & Watkins... 105
Prepared statement........................................... 108
Response to an additional question from Senator Boxer........ 115
Stefani, Tony, Founder, President, San Francisco Firefighters
Cancer Prevention Foundation................................... 116
Prepared statement........................................... 118
Responses to additional questions from Senator Boxer......... 122
ADDITIONAL MATERIAL
Letter from the American Chemistry Council to the Professional
Fire Fighters of Maine, July 20, 2012.......................... 141
Letter from the American Chemistry Council to Senators Boxer and
Lautenberg, July 25, 2012...................................... 142
OVERSIGHT OF EPA AUTHORITIES AND ACTIONS TO CONTROL EXPOSURES TO TOXIC
CHEMICALS
----------
TUESDAY, JULY 24, 2012
U.S. Senate,
Committee on Environment and Public Works,
joint with the Subcommittee on Superfund, Toxics
and Environmental Health,
Washington, DC.
The Committees met, pursuant to notice, at 10 a.m. in room
406, Dirksen Senate Office Building, Hon. Barbara Boxer
(Chairman of the full Committee) presiding.
Present: Senators Boxer, Inhofe, Carper, Lautenberg,
Cardin, Whitehouse, Merkley, Vitter, and Crapo.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. BARBARA BOXER,
U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
Senator Boxer. The hearing will come to order.
Before I read my opening statement and call on colleagues,
I understand Representative Pingree is in the audience. Is she
here? Welcome. I know that your daughter is testifying before
us today. We are very happy to see you in the audience.
The purpose of this hearing is to review the need to reform
the Toxic Substances Control Act, otherwise known as TSCA, the
primary law that regulates chemicals in this country. TSCA,
which was enacted in the 1970s, was intended to protect public
health and ensure the safety of chemicals that are found in
products that we use every day.
Unfortunately, this law has proven to lack the tools
necessary to act swiftly and effectively when dealing with
chemicals with potentially toxic effects. The weaknesses in the
law were highlighted by a 1991 court decision where the court
interpreted TSCA to require a complex process to obtain
protections from asbestos, despite its obvious health hazards.
It is clear that reforms are needed if the public is to have
the protection that it deserves.
A good illustration of the critical need to reform our
toxic laws is the experience with a group of flame retardants
which was intended to protect public safety but has raised
serious concerns about the risk they pose through the toxic
chemicals they contain. And I am going to have a firefighter
from my State testifying on this matter. Thus far, science has
shown that these chemicals in the flame retardants cause cancer
in animals.
We need to reform TSCA to provide incentives and ensure
that the safest chemicals are used in our products so that the
American public--including the most vulnerable among us,
infants, children and pregnant women--are protected from toxic
substances.
I want to commend Senator Lautenberg for his leadership and
his hard work to move forward with needed reforms. He has
worked tirelessly with stakeholders, including the chemical
industry, the public health community, and across the aisle in
the Senate to find common ground in this important effort.
The American people need us to reform TSCA, which is why I
support Senator Lautenberg's determination to move a bill from
this Committee and to broaden the discussion to the Senate
floor. We must continue to work to develop consensus on this
issue.
I look forward to hearing from witnesses today. It is time
to take action on this public health issue.
And I call on Senator Inhofe.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. JAMES M. INHOFE,
U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF OKLAHOMA
Senator Inhofe. Thank you, Madam Chairman. And I will start
by thanking both of you for holding today's oversight hearing.
I also want to thank today's witnesses that are here.
Modernization of the Toxic Substances Control Act, TSCA, is
important. But before we focus on today's hearing, I would like
to take a moment to address the markup for Senator Lautenberg's
TSCA bill tomorrow.
Senators Vitter, Crapo, Alexander, and I sent a letter to
Senator Lautenberg yesterday expressing our disappointment that
Republicans' sincere effort to work on a bipartisan TSCA reform
had been rebuffed and that we will be going through a partisan
political exercise tomorrow, effectively ending hopes for a
TSCA modernization this year.
Tomorrow's markup is especially disappointing given how
this Committee has already come together and worked so hard to
get a highway bill passed. That is why Barbara and I are so
happy today, that we are still on a roll, are we not, Barbara?
Chemistry is essential to our economy and plays a vital
role in the creation of groundbreaking products that make our
lives and world healthier, safer, and more sustainable. During
this fragile economic time, the chemical industry is
experiencing a competitive resurgence with more than 96 percent
of all manufactured goods dependent upon chemistry. It is not
hard to understand how this regulation impacts almost every
aspect of our economy.
Having said that, it is imperative that any TSCA
modernization efforts be bipartisan, based on sound science,
protective of public health, and continue to allow American
industry to lead the world through responsible innovation.
One subset of chemicals regulated by TSCA is flame
retardants. These chemicals which are required in many
instances to meet mandatory Federal and State laws and
standards not only protect household goods like upholstered
furniture but also electronics, cars, buildings, and airplanes.
Despite the recent focus on furniture, foam cushions in the
upholstered furniture represent only about 2 to 3 percent of
the total flame retardant usage in plastic applications in
North America.
Flame retardants are one of many fire safety tools relied
up on in homes and public places to reduce fire, injuries, and
deaths, and they have made a significant impact in fire safety
despite the increases in exposure to flammable materials in our
daily lives.
Studies in the United States and abroad have proven the
effectiveness of flame retardants in a wide variety of uses.
For example, Dr. Matt Blais recently analyzed data from the
National Institute of Justice Arson Study and found that flame
retardants do provide measurable fire safety benefits in
upholstered furniture by providing time for families to escape
and increase the response for fire escape.
So, with that, I would like to enter that into the record--
--
Senator Boxer. Without objection. So ordered.
Senator Inhofe. Along with the Aerospace Industries
Association letter relating to this subject.
The Chicago Tribune, which we will be hearing about a lot
today, reported in 2005 on the effectiveness of flame
retardants in seat cushions, carpets, and other materials
following the crash of an Air France jetliner in Toronto when
flight crews evacuated the flaming jumbo jetliner with no
fatalities.
So, we do have some problems coming up in perhaps some
industries that were not fully brought into the fold and have a
great effect on our national security and other things.
So with that, we are looking forward to hearing more about
this, and I think I would probably be opposing it as it is
going to be introduced tomorrow, is it? Or it is the next day?
Thursday?
Senator Boxer. We are going to be marking up tomorrow.
Senator Inhofe. Thursday, I believe.
Senator Boxer. Tomorrow? Yes, tomorrow.
Senator Inhofe. OK.
Senator Boxer. Well, thank you Senator.
Senator Inhofe. Thank you, Madam Chairman.
[The prepared statement of Senator Inhofe follows:]
Statement of Hon. James M. Inhofe,
U.S. Senator from the State of Oklahoma
I want to start by thanking Chairman Boxer and Chairman
Lautenberg for holding today's oversight hearing; I also want
to thank today's witnesses. Modernization of the Toxic
Substances Control Act (TSCA) is very important, but before we
focus on today's hearing I would like to take a moment to
address the markup of Senator Lautenberg's TSCA bill tomorrow.
Senators Vitter, Crapo, Alexander, and I sent a letter to
Senator Lautenberg yesterday expressing our disappointment that
Republicans' sincere efforts to work on bipartisan TSCA reform
have been rebuffed and that we will be going through a partisan
political exercise tomorrow, effectively ending hopes for TSCA
modernization this year. Tomorrow's markup is especially
disappointing given how this Committee has recently come
together and worked so hard to get a highway bill passed into
law and leading into our important bipartisan efforts to see if
we can complete a Water Resources Development Act
reauthorization. Despite our frustration, we will continue
working to find a bipartisan path for TSCA modernization moving
forward.
Chemistry is essential to our economy and plays a vital
role in the creation of ground breaking products that make our
lives and world healthier, safer, and more sustainable. During
this fragile economic time, the chemical industry is
experiencing a competitive resurgence, and with more than 96
percent of all manufactured goods dependent on chemistry it is
not hard to understand how this regulation impacts almost every
aspect of our economy. Having said that, it is imperative that
any TSCA modernization efforts be bipartisan, based on sound
science, protective of public health, and continue to allow
American industry to lead the world through responsible
innovation.
One subset of chemicals regulated by TSCA is flame
retardants. These chemicals, which are required in many
instances to meet mandatory Federal and State laws and
standards, not only protect household goods like upholstered
furniture, but also electronics, cars, buildings, and
airplanes. Despite the recent focus on furniture, foam
cushioning in upholstered furniture represents only 2-3 percent
of the total flame retardant usage in plastic applications in
North America.
Flame retardants are one of many fire safety tools relied
upon in homes and public places to reduce fire injuries and
deaths, and they have made a significant impact in fire safety
despite the increase in exposure to flammable materials in our
daily lives.
Studies in the U.S. and abroad have proven the
effectiveness of flame retardants in a wide variety of uses.
For example, Dr. Matt Blais recently analyzed data from a
National Institute of Justice arson study and found that flame
retardants do provide measurable fire safety benefit in
upholstered furniture by providing time for families to escape
and increasing available response time for the fire service.
The Chicago Tribune, which we will be hearing a lot about
today, reported in 2005 on the effectiveness of flame
retardants in ``seat cushions, carpets, and other materials''
following the crash of an Air France jetliner in Toronto when
flight crews evacuated the ``flaming jumbo jetliner'' with no
fatalities.
As these reports have outlined, flame retardants can be an
important and effective tool in protecting the American public.
Any decision made by EPA or any other Federal agency should be
based on sound, peer reviewed science--not politics or articles
in newspapers--and the Agency should be very cognizant of
shifting risks from one area to another.
As a father and grandfather of 20 children and
grandchildren, I fully recognize the fact that we need to
modernize TSCA and revive public confidence in our Federal
chemical management system, but if we want to effectively
update TSCA we also need to be honest about our current
system--both about what it does well and what needs
improvement. For example, even the EPA has acknowledged there
are far fewer than 80,000 chemicals actively in commerce today.
We have also heard from numerous witnesses in this
Committee, including Dr. Lynn Goldman, former Assistant
Administrator for Toxic Substances under President Clinton,
that EPA's new chemicals program has been a good process and
has led ``industry to screen out `bad actors' before presenting
them to EPA in the first instance.''
Given the regulatory barrage by the Obama administration
and his EPA, we must ensure that TSCA modernization is
accomplished in a responsible manner while not harming the
economy and shipping jobs overseas. In order to have real and
effective reform, it must be accomplished in a bipartisan way
with a broad base of support from a wide range of stakeholders,
including those up and down the value chain.
I would like unanimous consent to include Dr. Blais's study
into the record as well as a letter from the aerospace industry
voicing concerns over EPA's current initiatives related to
flame retardant chemicals. I look forward to hearing from the
witnesses today.
[The referenced information follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Senator Boxer. Well, thank you, Senator.
Senator Lautenberg.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. FRANK R. LAUTENBERG,
U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF NEW JERSEY
Senator Lautenberg. Thanks, Madam Chairman.
It is regrettable that we find ourselves kind of landlocked
here. When I introduced the first TSCA reform bill in 2005, in
the 7 years since then we have held many hearings, briefings,
stakeholder meetings, and negotiations. During that time, our
office has had an open door policy. My staff and I have
conducted dozens of meetings with groups on all sides of the
issue. And more than 2 years ago, in this very room, I said
that my State Chemicals Act should be considered an invitation
for all to play a part. And I have reiterated that call for
Republican input at almost every opportunity.
Last summer and fall Senator Inhofe and his staff joined us
to hold a series of 10 meetings to better understand his
concerns and those of industry. And this summer I was pleased
when Senator Vitter reached out and expressed his interest in
working together on TSCA reform. At the end of May I agreed to
discussions but made clear that we needed to show progress,
that we could not engage in things that might delay us getting
to something of value and help.
After 7 weeks of talks, we were still discussing the first
of many topics on our agenda. My staff proposed new comprised
language on a number of sections, but we never received a
single counterproposal. This week's Committee markup may be the
last in this Congress. And I--and millions of people across
this country--did not want another year to pass without
progress on toxic chemicals.
And so we will be voting tomorrow on a bill that has
evolved to reflect years of input from all parties. And I hope
that my friends across the aisle will give it fair
consideration. Let us air it out here. Let us talk about it. Be
here and show the interest that should be shown to say that we
want to continue to work together to bring out something that
is worth the effort.
And when we--so, what has happened this spring, the Chicago
Tribune ran an expose about how some in the chemical industry
have used dirty tricks and bad science to drive a public
misinformation campaign that keeps dangerous flame retardants
in our home, even when those chemicals do not do what they are
supposed to do, and that is prevent fires.
The industry has been accused of bankrolling so-called
experts to invent stories that spout the company line, all this
service of protecting their profits, and all of that at the
expense of safety and health. Many companies, many countries,
require chemicals like flame retardants to be tested, proven
safe before they end up in stores and then in our homes. But
not in the United States.
And that is why Senator Snowe and I recently sent a
bipartisan letter to EPA signed by 24 of our Senator colleagues
urging the agency to take action on a class of flame
retardants. Our letter also called for real reforms to the
Toxic Substances Control Act.
But let us be clear. Flame retardants are only one example
of the problems that we have with our system of regulating
chemicals. Studies by CDC scientists found 212 industrial
chemicals, including six linked to cancer coursing through
American bodies. But in nearly 35 years, EPA has been able to
regulate only five substances using the tools of TSCA.
My TSCA reform bill, the Safe Chemicals Act, will simply
require chemical manufacturers to display, demonstrate that
their products are safe before they end up in bodies. Most of
the thousands of chemicals that are used every day are safe.
But this bill will separate those safe chemicals from the ones
that are not.
We first began examining the problem with TSCA in 2005. So,
this is not a new subject. It is a subject that really you
would think would wear out of its own weight. But no, we
persisted, because it is our obligation to the people in our
country.
So, I am proud that this Committee will vote tomorrow on
the Safe Chemicals Act. I believe today's hearing will add
further evidence that we cannot delay any longer.
And I publicly invite Senator Vitter and colleagues on the
other side to come along. Let us discuss it. Let us show that
there is enough interest to get a response to the changes that
we have made. We have made many to try to accommodate our
colleagues.
So, thank you, Madam Chairman, for the opportunity to do
this.
Senator Boxer. Thanks, Senator.
Senator Crapo.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. MIKE CRAPO,
U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF IDAHO
Senator Crapo. Thank you very much, Senator Boxer. I
appreciate you and Senator Lautenberg for scheduling today's
hearing on EPA's authorities and actions for controlling
exposures to toxic chemicals generally and to flame retardants
specifically.
I also appreciate the participation of the witnesses who
have agreed to answer and appear here this morning. The first
panel features the testimony of James Jones, the Acting
Assistant Administrator of the EPA's Office of Chemical Safety
and Pollution Prevention, who is responsible for implementing
the provisions of the Toxic Substances Control Act.
I look forward to hearing Mr. Jones' opinion regarding
EPA's implementation of TSCA and how it works to help ensure an
effective and efficient Federal regulatory regime that is
capable of protecting public health, welfare, safety, and our
environment while promoting economic growth, innovation,
competitiveness. and job creation.
The five witnesses that comprise the second panel represent
a diverse set of interests and experiences. This diversity is
valuable for understanding the multiple facets of what is a
highly complex regulatory challenge, and I thank them for their
participation and look forward to their testimonies.
There has been much written and much said about the
regulation and use of flame retardants in commerce. As we will
hear today, there is substantive proof that flame retardants
are effective in saving lives by delaying the spreading of fire
and allowing people additional time to escape injury. We will
also hear divergent views regarding the safety of flame
retardants and EPA's regulatory authority under TSCA.
Under current TSCA framework, EPA and industry conducted
extensive reviews of flame, of the current flame retardants,
and EPA approved their use on the market. Further, EPA has not
invoked its authority under TSCA to remove these chemicals from
the market.
Because of the obvious diversity of opinion regarding the
efficacy of flame retardants and other chemicals, it is
critical that we support a regulatory framework that is risk
based and further grounded in peer reviewed science. Our
understanding of the possible health effects of flame
retardants is constantly evolving. Therefore, we must be
pragmatic in our regulatory approaches and mindful of the
consequences of jumping to conclusions that have not been
definitely proved by science.
Tomorrow, this Committee will meet to mark up several
pieces of legislation including Senator Lautenberg's Safe
Chemicals Act. My office, as has been indicated already, along
with several others had, until last week, been actively engaged
with Senator Lautenberg's office to develop a bipartisan path
forward for TSCA reform. I am disappointed that we will now
move forward and abandon this process and tomorrow consider a
bill that is still controversial and does not represent the
bipartisan consensus building that we have been seeking to
achieve.
As I stated earlier, effective regulatory frameworks must
seek to protect health and safety while promoting economic
growth. This balance is difficult and cannot be achieved
unilaterally.
Again, I appreciate the participation of the panel members
this morning, and I look forward to your insight.
Senator Boxer. Thank you so much.
Senator Vitter.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. DAVID VITTER,
U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF LOUISIANA
Senator Vitter. Thank you, Madam Chair and Ranking Member
Inhofe, for the hearing. And certainly there is no disagreement
in terms of the broader issue we are here about, that there is
need for TSCA reform, a law which really has not been updated
significantly since 1976.
And I want to commend Senator Lautenberg for his priority
and focus for several years with regard to reform. I know it is
very deep and very sincere. As has been stated, Senators Inhofe
and Crapo and Alexander, as well as myself, have very actively
engaged with Senator Lautenberg, meeting at the staff level
weekly, if not more, over an extended period of time.
Unfortunately, those of us on this side all view this
hearing and the partisan markup to follow tomorrow as a
diversion from that, an interruption from that. And we think it
is unfortunate.
But I, for one, remain completely committed to getting back
to that bipartisan process so that we can produce a good
consensus bill that can actually pass the Senate and the House.
And that is what I remain committed to. Again, I think this
diversion is unfortunate, but it is not going to shake that
commitment on my part.
TSCA is very important. We need to reform it and we need to
get that right. From my perspective in Louisiana, I will tell
you a few reasons we need to get it right because this
industry, which is so important for the nation, is certainly
important for our economy.
Chemical companies in Louisiana directly employ over 22,000
people and indirectly contribute 158,000 jobs to the economy.
For every direct job in Louisiana, another 5.5 jobs are created
in the State. An average wage we are talking about for those
direct jobs is very healthy, over $84,000, 47 percent higher
than the average manufacturing wage. These jobs generate $1.9
billion in earnings and almost $1 billion in tax revenue and
$962 million in Social Security and Medicare contributions.
Let me also focus for a minute about the need to reform to
get it right because I think we have had a lot of evidence in
the last few years in particular how the present regime with
regard to regulation is getting it wrong.
In particular, I was very involved in demanding a National
Academy of Science study with regard to one particular
chemical, formaldehyde, when EPA was pushing an aggressive
agenda regarding this. We finally got that independent NAS
study, and unfortunately, it underscored and really proved a
lot of our concerns about the IRIS process in general. Let me
just point to some of the conclusions from that study.
This is the National Academy of Science, a very mainstream,
respected organization. They said ``Problems with clarity and
transparency of the methods appear to be a repeating theme over
the years.'' They said ``The conclusions appear to be based on
a subjective view of the overall data.'' And ``The causal
determinations are not supported by the narrative provided.''
And then finally, EPA overstated the evidence to deem
formaldehyde a neurotoxic. The human data are insufficient, and
the candidate animal studies deviate substantially from testing
guidelines and common practice.
Unfortunately, this was not an isolated incident. It is a
much broader issue, at least with the whole IRIS process. And
because of that, the EPA itself even admitted the need for
fundamental reform, Dr. Paul Anastas saying in July 14 of last
year, ``Over the coming months, the IRIS program will fully
implement the NAS recommendations and continue to improve the
IRIS process to reflect the highest standards of scientific
integrity and credibility.''
We are still not there, and TSCA reform based on sound
science, based on bipartisan consensus, is absolutely necessary
to get us there. So, after this distraction this week, I really
hope we get back to that important hard work of mainstream TSCA
reform.
Thank you, Madam Chair.
Senator Boxer. Thank you very much.
Now we will turn to our first witness, Hon. Jim Jones,
Acting Assistant Administrator for the Office of Chemical
Safety and Pollution Prevention, U.S. EPA.
Welcome.
STATEMENT OF JAMES J. JONES, ACTING ASSISTANT ADMINISTRATOR,
OFFICE OF CHEMICAL SAFETY AND POLLUTION PREVENTION, U.S.
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
Mr. Jones. Good morning, Chairman Boxer, Senator
Lautenberg, Ranking Member Inhofe, and members of the
Committee. Thank you for the opportunity to address you today
on the reform of chemical management and our authority to
assess the safety of flame retardant chemicals.
Ensuring chemical safety, maintaining public confidence
that EPA is protecting the American people, and promoting our
global leadership in chemicals management remain top priorities
for the EPA and Administrator Jackson. I want to thank you
both, Senator Boxer and Senator Lautenberg, as well as members
of the Committee, for your continued leadership on this very
important issue and your efforts to bring about reform of TSCA.
With each passing year, the need for TSCA reform grows.
Chemicals are found in most everything we use and consume, and
they are essential for our health, our well-being, and our
prosperity. It should be equally essential that chemicals are
safe. Today I will discuss a prime example of the shortcomings
of TSCA that stands as a clear illustration of the need for
TSCA reform.
So, what are the problems with TSCA? When TSCA was enacted,
it grandfathered in, without any evaluation, the 62,000
chemicals in commerce that existed in 1976. The TSCA inventory
currently lists over 84,000 chemicals, few of which have been
studied for their risks, especially to children.
Unlike the laws applicable to drugs and pesticides, TSCA
does not have a mandatory program where EPA must conduct a
review to determine the safety of existing chemicals. The
manufacturers do not need to demonstrate the safety of new
chemicals before they are introduced into the marketplace.
When EPA determines that a chemical imposes a significant
health concern, taking action under TSCA to limit or ban a
chemical is challenging. To address these shortcomings, in
September 2009 the EPA Administrator, Lisa Jackson, announced a
set of administration principles to update and strengthen TSCA.
These include that manufacturers provide EPA with the necessary
information to conclude that new and existing chemicals are
safe, and the agency should have the tools to quickly and
efficiently obtain information from manufacturers that is
relevant to determining the safety of chemicals. The EPA should
also have clear authority to assess chemicals against a safety
standard and take risk management actions when chemicals do not
meet the safety standard.
While the legislative reform process is under way, we are
not just standing by. The agency is utilizing the current
authority under TSCA to help protect human health and the
environment. Earlier this year, EPA developed a screening
process to identify chemicals for review based on their hazard,
exposure, and persistence and bioaccumulation characteristics.
We identified 83 work plan chemicals for risk assessment
with an initial of seven for assessment for this year. In June
we identified an additional 18 chemicals that the agency
intends to review and then develop risk assessments in 2013 and
2014, including three flame retardant chemicals.
EPA's experience with one flame retardant in particular
highlights the limitations of TSCA. The EPA first reviewed a
new flame retardant component, TBB, in several products in 1995
for use in foam and was unable to identify that is was
persistent and bioaccumulative. We only learned of these
properties after the chemical was in commerce and was later
found in humans and the environment. Also in the formulation
was an existing flame retardant chemical, TBPH. Further
research has shown that this existing chemical has similar
concerns, but it, too, is persistent and bioaccumulative.
This example illustrates the problems we face with both new
and existing chemicals since taking the necessary steps to
ensure that new chemicals or chemical already in commerce are
safe can be cumbersome, involve regulatory processes that take
years before hazards are addressed. TBB and TBPH are two of the
flame retardants that EPA will evaluate in 2013, 18 years after
TBB was first introduced into the market. This is an example
that highlights the critical need for the agency to have
greater evidence that new chemicals are safe prior to
commercialization and stronger tools to take action after they
are on the market to ensure safety.
The American public has the right to expect that chemicals
manufactured, imported, and used in this country are safe. And
EPA needs an effective law that gives us the tools necessary to
provide the public with these assurances. TSCA must be updated
and strengthened so that EPA has the tools to do our job of
protecting public health and the environment. The time to fix
this badly outdated law is now.
I will be pleased to answer any questions that you may
have.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Jones follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Senator Boxer. Thank you very much.
I just wanted to make a note here that I am a very strong
supporter of bipartisanship, and this Committee has shown we
can do it. And we are very proud of our accomplishments.
But there are certain times when it does not work, and as
Chairman of this Committee, I am responsible for saying we
should mark up a bill, and I take all the heat for that. It is
not Senator Lautenberg, but I found out from him that he had
dozens of meetings, and he just believes at this point that
there is a breakdown, there is a difference.
There is a difference here which involves how much you want
to protect public health versus how much you want to balance
that with protecting chemical companies. Now, that is his view
on the thing.
And I think at some point we might have to say that we have
gone very far in our talks, everyone is friendly and amiable,
and I really appreciate that as Chairman. But at some point
there are going to be issues where there are just clear
differences. And I do not think that is anything to be ashamed
of. I think the people of this country need to understand the
differences. There is nothing wrong with that. So we are going
to move ahead.
But I was also heartened to hear Senator Vitter say, and
others, that they are going to continue to work with us
because, if we do get this bill out, we do not know, if we do
get this bill out, and it is ready for the floor, we are still
open. I know Senator Lautenberg is still open to negotiations.
So, I wanted to make that point.
I want to ask my first question this way, Administrator
Jones. Your testimony states that EPA is concerned that certain
flame retardants called PBDEs are persistent, bioaccumulative,
and toxic to humans and the environment and that their
potential impacts on neurobehavioral development raise
particular concerns for the health of our children. Can you
explain why these types of persistent and bioaccumulative
chemicals can raise unique threats to children's health?
Mr. Jones. Thank you, Senator Boxer. These compounds, PBDEs
in particular, express toxicity in developing organisms, and we
learned that about a dozen years ago through some data
associated with developing organisms, development neurotoxicity
studies. So, they affect the development of growing organisms,
so, children in utero.
But the fact that they are persistent and bioaccumulative
creates additional concerns because they are going to last in
the environment for a very long time. So, even after they are
removed from the market, they are going to be in our
environment for some time, and they are going to move up the
food chain. So, that creates a different route of exposure to
humans, not only from your exposure directly to such a chemical
but also indirectly as they will get into the environment and
move up the food chain. So, they will ultimately end up in
foods that we consume.
Senator Boxer. Well, I wanted to make a point that a study
by researchers at UC, University of California San Francisco,
detected certain PBDEs, PCBs, pthalates, pesticides,
perchlorate, and other chemicals in the blood of 99 to 100
percent of pregnant women that they tested. So, our society is
being exposed to these chemicals and the most vulnerable, the
fetuses, are getting exposed. And it is very serious.
So I know, as we look at history, that TSCA needs to be
reformed. I think everybody agrees with this. So, my question
to you is, could you describe the additional tools to protect
the health of pregnant women, infants, and children that
reforming TSCA would provide to the EPA? In other words, what
would it give you if it was done right that you cannot do now?
Mr. Jones. Thank you, Senator Boxer. The things that we
would hope to achieve as articulated in the Administration
principles are that we would have, the manufacturers would be
able to demonstrate the safety of compounds such as these
before they are on the market, the agency would have tools for
those chemicals that are on the market to quickly get health
and safety information from manufacturers, and then the agency
would have the tools it would need when we identify a risk to
manage or mitigate the risks associated with those chemicals
that are on the market.
Senator Boxer. OK. Well, let me, I will just make a final
comment and then pass it on to Ranking Member Inhofe.
What you said is really key. I would bet that if we went
outside and just asked anybody walking by if they thought that
chemical companies have to do tests and prove the chemicals
safe before it is used people would say of course. They would
think that would be the case, that a chemical has to be proven
safe before it is used. In actuality, under the law currently,
the EPA has to prove it unsafe. Is that correct?
Mr. Jones. That is correct, Senator.
Senator Boxer. OK. So, what Senator Lautenberg is doing,
which I so strongly support, is he is doing the common sense
thing. He is saying, chemical companies, make sure your product
is safe. Let us not have a series of disasters, cancers, all
kinds of problems, after you introduce a new chemical. Prove it
safe first. And then that would turn this thing around to a
place that I think the people of America already believe is the
case.
So, thank you very much.
Senator Inhofe.
Senator Inhofe. Thank you, Madam Chairman.
Perhaps Mr. Jones, because of my position on the Armed
Services Committee, I have gotten a lot of concerns expressed
as those were expressed in the letter that I made a part of the
record. And in your April 2nd report it says downstream users
believe that there will continue to be critical military and
aeronautical uses of Deca-BDE after December 31, 2013.
Now, I would like to ask you, did EPA actually consult
these people prior to--at any time during this process? And if
so, what will you be doing after this point, say this thing
passes?
Mr. Jones. Thanks, Senator Inhofe. So, you are referring to
the phase-out of Deca-BDE, which becomes effective at the end
of 2013. The agency is working with aircraft manufacturers as
well as the Department of Defense to make sure that we fully
understand their need for flame retardancy in aircraft, which
we think it is very important that aircrafts are safe from
fires, as you referenced in your testimony. And so, we are
going to continue to work with DOD and the aircraft
manufacturers to make sure they have the tools to ensure that.
Senator Inhofe. That is good. Let me just ask you, if you
would do for the record and have it--so that we will have it
writing and give me a chance to look at it, would you read the
two documents that I made as a part of the record and respond
to those documents for me as to your feelings, of you and the
EPA?
Mr. Jones. Absolutely, sir.
Senator Inhofe. The other thing I wanted to ask you, to
better understand where the EPA is on this, have you formally
taken a position on the Lautenberg legislation?
Mr. Jones. The Administration and myself, as part of that,
have not taken a position on Senator Lautenberg's bill.
Senator Inhofe. OK. And have you provided policy advice or
technical support to Senator Lautenberg about the latest
revisions?
Mr. Jones. My staff has been providing technical support to
Senator Lautenberg for actually a number of years.
Senator Inhofe. All right. And have you done any sort of
review or analysis of S. 847, internally or for other purposes?
And if so, could we be provided with that information?
Mr. Jones. Simply technical analysis as opposed to any kind
of policy analysis.
Senator Inhofe. All right. Internally?
Mr. Jones. Yes, that is right, provided to Senator
Lautenberg's staff.
Senator Inhofe. I see. All right. Thank you very much.
Thank you, Madam Chairman.
Senator Boxer. Thank you very much, Senator.
Senator Lautenberg.
Senator Lautenberg. Thank you. We have looked at these
things and tried to evaluate where we are. I never liked this
thing.
[Laughter.]
Senator Boxer. We need to hear you.
Senator Lautenberg. I will shout.
[Laughter.]
Senator Lautenberg. I mentioned that Senator Snowe and I
recently sent a letter to the EPA, signed by 24 of our Senate
colleagues, applauding EPA's current actions on flame
retardants. The letter also expressed concern that EPA's
authority to address these toxic flame retardants is limited
under our current chemical safety law, the Toxic Substances
Control Act.
Does EPA's limited authority under TSCA prevent the agency
from providing the kind of protection that Americans want for
their health risks of flame retardants?
Mr. Jones. Thanks, Senator Lautenberg. I believe that it
does. As I stated this morning and at other hearings, the
burden is on the EPA to determine that these products are not
safe. So, had we the authority to insist that the manufacturers
demonstrate safety before they are on the market, I think it
would significantly increase our confidence and the American
public's confidence that these products that are on the market
are safe.
Senator Lautenberg. Americans have among the highest blood
concentrations of chemicals in the world. How does EPA's legal
authority to address risk from industrial chemicals compare to
authority on other countries, the Euro countries and other
countries around, our neighbor, Canada? How do we compare with
our maintenance of the best protections that we can develop
compared to these countries?
Mr. Jones. Thank you, Senator. Without at all making
comparisons about the adequacy of other countries systems, it
is pretty clear that Canada and the European Union have
significantly more robust processes in place. They generally
require the generation of health and safety data for chemicals
that are sold on the market.
Senator Lautenberg. Chemicals that are manufactured in the
European Union? And the significance?
Mr. Jones. As long as, if it sold in the European Union,
whether is it manufactured there or not, the generation of
health and safety data.
Senator Lautenberg. The EPA has determined that PBDE flame
retardants, and you said this, may be persistent,
bioaccumulative, and toxic to both humans and the environment.
What can we do to help those who are--have signs of the
chemicals in their bodies at this point? We know that there is
an effect that is negative on pregnancies. Is there anything
that we can do to help ameliorate the conditions that these
people find themselves in?
Mr. Jones. Well, I think the most important thing we can do
is what has happened and to keep that, the direction it is
going in, the right direction, which is that those chemicals
have been removed from the market. We are fortunate that the
manufacturers of them have voluntarily agreed to remove them
from the market. And so one of the things that we are doing to
backstop that is to put in place a significant new use rule
which should keep other manufacturers who may not have
voluntarily agreed to such restrictions from entering the
market without coming to the agency first where we would have
to do a complete assessment.
Senator Lautenberg. So, it is fairly obvious then, Mr.
Jones, is it not, that companies realize a that there is a risk
to people in our society from exposure to these chemicals, and
second, is there not, in your judgment--and if I am stretching
you, please say so--that to assume that the manufacturers would
welcome an opportunity to have a uniform standard across the
country that, so that there are a continuum of State decisions
that may vary from State to State?
Mr. Jones. As a general matter, I have learned over my
career not to try to speculate into what goes on in the minds
of----
Senator Lautenberg. Oh, that is too bad.
Mr. Jones. But I will say in conversations I have had with
manufacturers they are struggling with the patchwork of
regulations that is developing in the United States.
Senator Lautenberg. Thank you.
Senator Boxer. Thank you.
Senator Crapo.
Senator Crapo. Thank you, Madam Chairman.
Mr. Jones, I would like to ask first a couple of questions
to you about EPA's position on Senate Bill 847. In your
testimony at the Appropriations Subcommittee at which you
testified last week, it seemed that you endorsed Senate Bill
847 through your comments but did not use the specific words of
support or endorsement. And for that reason, I think we need to
clarify where the EPA and the Administration stand on the bill.
Can you tell us whether the EPA has, in fact, take a formal
position on Senate Bill 847?
Mr. Jones. Senator Crapo, thanks for the question. The EPA,
nor the Administration, has not taken a position on Senator
Lautenberg's bill.
Senator Crapo. Does the Administration plan to do so at any
time soon?
Mr. Jones. I am not aware of any plans for a statement of
an Administration position on that bill at this time.
Senator Crapo. Has the Administration convened an
interagency review of the legislation? Or do you know if that
is intended to take place?
Mr. Jones. The Administration has not convened such a
group.
Senator Crapo. All right. Thank you.
Also, just to move on to another topic, at your testimony
last week before the Senate Appropriations Committee hearing,
you stated that the EPA might have made a different pre-
manufacturing notice determination in 1995 about the new flame
retardant chemicals if TSCA has required the submission of more
robust hazard exposure and use data to assess their risks.
Can you explain to me a little more specifically what you
referred to there that could have been provided but was not
allowed to be sought under current statutory authorities?
Mr. Jones. Sir, as I mentioned, the burden is on the agency
to determine whether or not we think a new chemical meets the
standard. And because we did not have data on the persistence
of the bioaccumulation, we were using models that we had to try
to estimate that. Unfortunately, for those particular compounds
those models proved to be ineffective, so they did not flag the
persistence and the bioaccumulation of the chemical.
As a general matter, for chemicals coming in that are new
that are persistent and bioaccumulative, because those two
features tend to create problems over time, we insist on a much
more robust health and safety testing. So, had we known they
were persistent and bioaccumulative, we would have required the
manufacturer--we would likely have required the manufacturer to
generate health and safety data before entering the
marketplace.
Senator Crapo. But you had no authority to obtain that
information?
Mr. Jones. We did, but as I said, if we do not know of the
persistence and the bioaccumulation, and in this case our
models were not good at predicting it, we did not because the
practice was if you do not have persistence or bioaccumulation
we are not going to insist on the generation of that data.
Senator Crapo. So, if the models were defective and did not
tell you the information you should be seeking, but you did
have statutory authority to obtain that information had you
known, is it not a problem with the models?
Mr. Jones. Well, one could say it is a problem with the
overall structure. If the models are failing us across the
board, that would put us in the position of requiring everyone
to generate health and safety data before they are on the
market.
Senator Crapo. So, what, I guess what I am trying to get at
is what do we need to do statutorily to fix that problem?
Mr. Jones. We think that the statute needs to turn the
burden around for the manufacturer to provide the agency the
information necessary to demonstrate safety of the compound.
And there are plenty of ways that can be done. Generally
understanding characteristics like persistence,
bioaccumulation, and toxicity is a key part of that.
Senator Crapo. TSCA Section 7 provides EPA the authority to
regulate imminent hazards caused by chemical substances. Do you
agree that is a pretty broad authority under Section 7?
Mr. Jones. I have to admit, Senator Crapo, I have not spent
much time with Section 7 in my tenure at EPA. So I do not feel
prepared to answer that.
Senator Crapo. OK. As I review it, it appears that it is a
pretty broad authority, and I am not aware of whether the EPA
has ever even exercised its Section 7 authority. Again, I am
getting at the question of what authorities the EPA does have
now to achieve the necessary evaluation that you describe. So I
would appreciate it if you would provide me with further
information after you meet back with your staff.
Mr. Jones. Sure. I would be happy to.
Senator Crapo. That is all I have, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Lautenberg [presiding]. Senator Merkley.
Senator Merkley. Thank you very much, Senator Lautenberg.
And I must say that I was very struck by the Chicago Tribune
story that laid out a history in which it noted that use of
these flame retardants really gained steam when the cigarette
industry was looking to provide an alternative focus for the
public in terms of home fires and get away from the cigarette
in the sofa explanation. Then, after the retardants started to
become widely used, of course, those who make the retardants
enjoyed the possibility of continuing to promote their use by
engaging in kind of very dramatic testimony about children
dying in fires.
And what this article in the Tribune speaks to is that, and
I will just quote the first paragraph or couple of paragraphs
here, before California lawmakers last year, the burn surgeon
drew gasps from the crowd as he described a 7-week-old baby
girl who was burned in a fire started by a candle while she lay
on a pillow that lacked flame retardant chemicals.
Now, this is a tiny little person, no bigger than my
Italian Greyhound at home, said Heimbach, gesturing to the
baby's size, approximately the baby's size, half of her body
was severely burned, she ultimately died after about 3 weeks of
pain and misery in the hospital. His passionate testimony about
the baby's death made the long-term health concerns about flame
retardants voiced by doctors and environmentalists and
firefighters sound abstract and petty.
But there was a problem with this testimony. It was not
true. Records show that there was no dangerous pillow or candle
fire. The baby he described did not exist. Neither did the 9-
week-old patient who Heimbach told California legislators died
in a candle fire in 2009. Nor did the 6-week-old patient that
he told Alaska lawmakers was fatally burned in a crib in 2010.
Heimbach is not just a prominent burn doctor. He is a star
witness for the manufacturers of flame retardants. His
testimony, the Tribune found, is part of a decade's long
campaign of deception that has loaded the furniture and
electronics in American homes with pounds of toxic chemicals
linked to cancer, neurological defects, developmental problems,
and impaired fertility.
Then the article goes on to note that the industry often
points to a Government study from the 1980s as proof that flame
retardants save lives. But the study's lead author, Mr.
Babrauskas, said in an interview that the industry has
distorted his findings and that the amount of retardants used
in household furniture does not work. The fire just laughs at
it, he said.
So, here we have kind of testimony that the retardants do
not work, testimony that the retardants cause all of these
other kinds of problems, testimony that the amount in the
American baby has doubled roughly every 2 to 5 years since--I
believe it was since 1980. Is this not exactly the type of
problem that the EPA is there to watch for? And I just heard
you testify that we did not look into it, and yet we have these
blood studies that show that it was doubling every couple of
years in the body. Certainly, that must speak to the
bioaccumulative presence.
Has the EPA been asleep at the switch, and has it woken up?
Mr. Jones. Thanks, Senator Merkley. As I mentioned earlier
today, one of the major classes of flame retardants, PBDEs,
have been phased out in the United States. There is one last
chemical that is at the end game of its being phased out. But
that was done through a voluntary agreement with the
manufacturer for a couple of reasons. One is that it was very
hard for us to get the health and safety data that we needed to
evaluate those compounds. And then, taking a chemical off the
market under TSCA has proven to be incredibly difficult for the
Government. We were fortunate in this case that the
manufacturers were willing to take those compounds off the
market.
There are a number of other flame retardants that are on
the market, and we are going to begin to assess their safety in
the next fiscal year, 2013, including two of the flame
retardants mentioned in the Chicago Tribune story. So EPA has
not been living up to, I think, what the American public
expects, but I think a good part of that has to do with the
challenges that the Toxic Substances Control Act creates for
us.
Senator Merkley. When you said that several had been phased
out, there are several different versions of this, the Octa
version and the Deca version. Is that what you are speaking to?
These different versions?
Mr. Jones. Penta and Octa have been phased out. Deca is in
the end of its phase-out right now.
Senator Merkley. One of the things that is pointed out is
that infants are particularly susceptible to this because they
are crawling around on the carpet, and the carpet collects the
dust from various products that have this as well as some of
the carpets themselves have it in it. And so a child being very
close to the carpet, playing on the carpet, breathing inches
away from the carpet, is far more exposed than an adult. Is
this an issue that you have studied and looked into?
Mr. Jones. Ultimately the assessments that we do for these
compounds are going to include that route of exposure that you
have described which is that the compound often either leaches
out or from rubbing comes off of the originally treated
material and ends up in house dust and often can end up in
carpet or on floors and thus lead to a hand-mouth exposure.
Senator Merkley. Thank you.
Senator Boxer. Thank you, Senator.
Senator Vitter.
Senator Vitter. Thank you, Madam Chair, and thank you,
Administrator Jones.
As I mentioned in my opening statement, I think a big
hurdle we face in this area generally is a dramatic erosion of
broad-based confidence over several years in the science
agencies like EPA uses. And I mention as a prime example of
that this NAS study that underscored the inadequacy of that
science. And it implicated pretty broadly the IRIS process. And
as I also said, the EPA essentially acknowledged this and
through Dr. Paul Anastas committed to major core reforms to
address that in the IRIS process.
Since then, what are the major core reforms to the IRIS
process that have been implemented by the EPA? What are they,
and how do they address these concerns and this erosion of
confidence?
Mr. Jones. Thanks, Senator Vitter. The principal reform
that the agency has already embraced is increasing the public
participation associated with IRIS reviews. Internally, we are
also broadening the offices outside of ORD that participate in
IRIS assessments. You may or may not know that the Office of
Research and Development manages the IRIS process as opposed to
my office.
Senator Vitter. I am aware of that. But go back to the
first thing you said. Public participation. What do you mean by
that? How does that attack the problems I cited?
Mr. Jones. Transparency has been one of the tools the
agency has long relied on to ensure the integrity of our
scientific processes. And so allowing people who are not
employees of the agency to look at our work and give us their
feedback we have found to be a very effective means to ensuring
the integrity of our science processes.
Senator Vitter. So, you are talking about peer review?
Mr. Jones. Both peer review as well as just broad public
comment.
Senator Vitter. And what truly independent peer review is
now mandated in the IRIS process?
Mr. Jones. I am not familiar with the specific requirements
that the IRIS program has put in place for independent peer
review. We are--the compounds that our offices work with them
on have all had internal peer reviews associated with them.
Senator Vitter. OK. Well, let me just underscore that a lot
of folks would not consider that robust and adequate. Usually,
peer review means very independent peer review, clearly outside
the academic institution or the agency that something is
emanating from.
Also related to this, as you know, the last omnibus
appropriation bill mandated further reviews by National Academy
of Sciences about this further contracts. Can you tell us the
status of those NAS reviews and contracts?
Mr. Jones. I am not familiar, Senator Vitter, with the
status of contracts related to the appropriations requirements.
Senator Vitter. OK. If you can have someone follow up and
add that to the testimony because that goes directly to my
concerns? Thank you.
Senator Boxer. Colleagues, we have been joined by two
colleagues. I think we are going to move to the panel, and then
I will call on Senator Carper first, then Senator Cardin, then
we will go back and forth.
Is that OK with you, Senator Vitter?
Senator Vitter. Yes.
Senator Boxer. OK. Thank you. So, we thank you very much.
We are very honored to call forth panel No. 2. Hannah
Pingree, a Former Speaker of the Main House of Representatives,
speaking to us as a mom. She will discuss State efforts to ban
certain flame retardant chemicals. Dr. Heather Stapleton,
Assistant Professor of Environment Chemistry at the Nicholas
School of the Environment at Duke. She will discuss the science
on the health effects of certain flame retardants. Those are
both majority witnesses.
Two minority witnesses. Marshall Moore, Director,
Technology, Advocacy and Marketing, Great Lakes Solutions, a
Chemtura business. They will speak about chemicals, including
flame retardants. William Rawson, another minority witness,
Partner, Chair, Environment, Land and Resources Department,
Latham & Watkins, attorney for chemical manufacturers including
of flame retardants.
And Tony Stefani, President, Founder, San Francisco
Firefighters Cancer Prevention Foundation. This is a majority
witness, and I am proud, a Californian, who is a cancer
survivor. He will discuss local efforts to help firefighters
who are exposed to chemicals during and after fires, including
with medical monitoring.
We are going to start with Hannah Pingree. We welcome you.
STATEMENT OF HANNAH PINGREE, MOTHER, FORMER SPEAKER OF THE
MAINE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
Ms. Pingree. Chairwoman Boxer, Senator Lautenberg, Ranking
Member Inhofe, and members of the Committee, my name is Hannah
Pingree, and I thank you for this invitation.
I am here as the Former Speaker of the Maine House. I am
also here as the mother of a young daughter, and I am 6 months
pregnant. I am here on my own behalf, but I also work as a
consultant for Safer Chemicals, Healthy Families, the national
coalition working to protect our kids from the health impacts
of toxic chemicals.
I have been involved in chemical regulation issues for
nearly 10 years as a legislator and advocate. But today, as a
parent, I am more concerned than ever about the current state
of chemicals in our products.
Today we know that the umbilical cord blood of every
American pregnant woman tested shows multiple chemicals such
that our babies are born into this world with toxins in their
bodies that we know can harm their health and their
development.
At the age of 30, I participated in a study of 13 Maine
people called Body of Evidence in which I was tested for 71
chemicals. I had the second highest levels of phthalates and
mercury in our study. My mercury levels were above the safety
standard for protection of a developing fetus, and I had levels
of flame retardants, arsenic, PFCs, and BPA. They were all
cause for concern. As a lifelong resident of a small, offshore
island with no major industry or pollution, without a doubt the
chemicals in me came from products in my home and the food that
I eat.
These results also arrived in the midst of our Maine
legislative work to ban flame retardants in which experts from
the industry told us that these toxins do not buildup in
people's bodies above the safety threshold. Our study suggested
that they were wrong.
Because of the failure of TSCA to regulate thousands of
chemicals in our products, States across the country have been
forced to step in to protect public health. Since 2003 more
than 150 policies in 30 States have been passed to limit
exposure to toxic chemicals. The vast majority of these laws
were passed with overwhelming majorities of Democratic and
Republican legislators and Governors.
Across the country, lawmakers experiences with the chemical
industry in passing these laws echoed those detailed in the
spring Chicago Tribune expose which revealed a pattern of
unethical behavior. Legislators were misled and even lied to
about the health impact of chemicals and the ability of flame
retardants to prevent fires.
In Maine, I sponsored successful bills to ban brominated
flame retardants, known as PBDEs, in both 2004 and 2007. In our
first interactions with industry, their concerns, their experts
argued that these chemicals were safe and that our health
concerns were alarmist. Today we know that these flame
retardants are associated in delays with brain impacts in kids,
reproductive problems, and cancer risks. A new study just
released has linked exposure to these chemicals during
pregnancy with increased autism risk.
In 2007 I brought forward a phase-out of the flame
retardant Deca used in everything from TVs to mattresses to
upholstery. The bill attracted more money and deception than
any other piece of legislation during my tenure in the House.
The chemical industry paid for weeks of TV and newspaper ads as
well as radio, mail, and robo-calls. Their front group, called
Keep America Fire-Safe, paid for ads that claimed that Maine
legislators were seeking to weaken fire safety accompanied by
B-roll of a burning house.
Despite their campaign, few Mainers contacted us. And
despite their name, the industry had no support from fire
safety groups. Both the Maine fire chiefs and our firefighters
union were among our most passionate supporters.
The industry flew in a man for the public hearing who had
been seriously burned as a child. When questioned by committee
members, he admitted that his burns were not caused by a lack
of flame retardants and that he was a paid witness for the
industry. Their goal was only to mislead and to shock. Luckily,
those tactics were offensive to Maine legislators. In the end,
the Deca ban was supported by unanimous vote in the House and
the 32 to 2 vote in the Senate and signed by our Governor.
We learned in Maine and repeatedly across the country that
this industry's primary tactic is to deny and mislead, hide
health information, and then agree to voluntary phase-out of
the chemical. The industry, after denying any health concerns
in Maine in 2007, agreed in 2009 to a U.S. phase-out of Deca
for virtually all consumer uses.
The challenge of sorting out chemicals in our products is
overwhelming as a parent. Before my daughter was born, my
husband and I researched crib mattresses, and after reading
countless Web sites and blogs, we spent a couple of hundred
extra dollars for a mattress free of flame retardants. Keeping
a child safe in their bed should not take extra research or
money.
Despite our decision to buy a green mattress, we still have
our old couch in the living room and our mattress in our bed,
both likely treated with several pounds of flame retardants
each. Whether it is our couches, our kids toys, our car seats,
there is no required disclosure or warning signs about
chemicals and their health impacts. And that is why we moms and
parents across the country need leadership from you, our
Federal leaders. We need safe products for our kids and our
families.
In closing, I want to thank Senator Lautenberg for
championing the Safe Chemicals Act, Senator Boxer for her
leadership, and I want to thank my two Senators, Senators Snowe
and Collins both for joining the bipartisan call for an
overhaul of the nation's chemical safety laws.
The system has been ineffective since the passage of TSCA
in 1976, the year I was born. I understand that this Committee
will consider the Safe Chemicals Act tomorrow, and for the sake
of my kids' health, your children and grandkids and millions
across the country, I urge this Committee to take immediate
action to remedy our broken system.
Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Pingree follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Senator Boxer. Thank you so very much.
We will hear from the next majority witness, Dr. Heather
Stapleton, Associated Professor of Environmental Chemistry,
Environment Sciences and Policy at the Nicholas School of the
Environment at Duke University.
Welcome.
STATEMENT OF HEATHER M. STAPLETON, PH.D., ASSOCIATE PROFESSOR,
NICHOLAS SCHOOL OF THE ENVIRONMENT, DUKE UNIVERSITY
Ms. Stapleton. Good morning. I wish to thank Senator
Lautenberg, Senator Crapo, and Senator Boxer and the other
members of this Committee for inviting me to testify here
today.
I am Heather Stapleton, an Associate Professor of
Environmental Chemistry at Duke University. For the past 10
years, I have been conducting research on flame retardant
chemicals, and today I would like to talk to you about my
research and what we know about human health risks.
Current scientific evidence demonstrates that the U.S.
population is exposed to flame retardant chemicals used in
consumer products at levels that are approximately 10 times
higher than levels in European and Asian countries, most likely
due to difference in our flammability standards.
According to research conducted by the Centers for Disease
Control and Prevention, 99 percent of the U.S. population has
flame retardant chemicals in their bodies. Studies have also
shown that children have much higher body burdens of these
chemicals compared to adults. This is a concern given that
health studies found that higher body burdens of these
chemicals were associated in reductions in IQ and motor skills
in children, lower birth weights in infants, changes in hormone
levels, and a reduction in a woman's potential to become
pregnant.
In my opinion, this evidence warrants changes in the way
these chemicals are currently applied to consumer products and
highlights a need to reduce our exposures in vulnerable
populations such as infants and children.
I would now like to summarize several key findings from my
research. It is impossible for an average person to avoid
exposure to flame retardants. The primary route of human
exposure to these chemicals is from inadvertent ingestion of
dust particles in the home which is more pronounced for infants
and young children that are more vulnerable to chemical
exposures.
Over the past 8 years, we have analyzed hundreds of samples
of indoor dust collected from different regions of the U.S.,
and today I have not found one sample that does not contain the
flame retardants known as PBDEs.
An average consumer also does not have the choice or an
option to buy products that are free of flame retardants. There
are no labels indicating whether or not a flame retardant
chemical has been applied. The only way to determine if a
product is treated with these chemicals is to take a sample of
that material and chemically analyze it in a laboratory using
very expensive analytical equipment. This allows us to
determine the chemical structures of these flame retardant
formulations which are often proprietary and also allows us to
determine their concentration in the products.
My research team has analyzed over 100 samples of
polyurethane foam collected from residential furniture
purchased in the U.S. and found that more than 85 percent is
indeed treated at levels that can be as high as 10 percent by
weight of the foam, as are most baby products that are
considered furniture items. This includes nursing pillows,
sleep positioners, baby mats, car seats, and others. Infants
spend almost 24 hours a day in intimate contact with these
items, and no risk assessments have been conducted to determine
the level of exposure an infant receives during use of these
products.
The two most common flame retardants detected in furniture
and baby products on the market today are chemicals known as
chlorinated tris and Firemaster 550, replacements for the now
phased out PBDEs. Chlorinated tris is considered a probable
human carcinogen, and the Consumer Products Safety Commission
estimated that a child's exposure to chlorinated tris from
residential furniture would be 5 times higher than the
acceptable daily limit. This assessment did not include
children's exposure to chlorinated tris from baby products
which would increase this exposure.
In addition, a very recent study conducted by my colleagues
and I found that exposure to Firemaster 550 in rodents resulted
in obesity, changes in hormone levels, advanced puberty, and
altered behavior at a level that was more than 10-fold lower
than what the chemical company stated was the lowest level at
which any adverse effects would be observed.
Our research also shows that these same two flame
retardants are now found in more than 95 percent of the U.S.
homes, and levels in indoor environments are just as high as
the levels of PBDEs, implying that exposure levels are the
same.
These points highlight what I call the chemical conveyor
belt. When one chemical is phased out, another similar chemical
is often used as a replacement, and we know less about its
potential effects than a chemical it replaced.
History has shown us that if often takes millions of
taxpayer dollars and several decades collecting data on these
new chemicals before we realize there is a health hazard. We
should, in my opinion, consider how this process could be
reformed.
In closing, I would like to urge this Committee to strongly
consider legislation that would reduce our children's exposure
to flame retardant chemicals that have known health effects
which can be done without compromising fire safety as was
demonstrated at a hearing last week.
I have dedicated much of my scientific career to testing
consumer products for these chemicals to provide information on
sources within the home, and as a result I have received
numerous e-mails and phone calls from average Americans asking
where they can find flame retardant-free products or how they
can reduce their exposure. Unfortunately, I cannot provide all
the answers because we still do not yet fully understand how
many products are treated or exactly what chemicals are used in
all applications.
In my opinion, both as a scientist and as a mother myself,
consumer products should be labeled to indicate specific
chemical treatments to provide consumers a choice, particularly
when it involves the use of suspected carcinogens in baby
products.
Last, I would just like to note that my research has been
funded by the National Institutes of Environmental Health
Sciences and the National Science Foundation.
I thank you for considering my testimony.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Stapleton follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Senator Boxer. Thank you very much.
And now we turn to our two minority witnesses, the first of
whom is Marshall Moore, Director, Technology, Advocacy and
Marketing, Great Lakes Solution, a Chemtura business.
And you can speak about the manufacture, including of flame
retardants. Go ahead.
STATEMENT OF MARSHALL MOORE, DIRECTOR, TECHNOLOGY, ADVOCACY AND
MARKETING, GREAT LAKES SOLUTIONS, A CHEMTURA BUSINESS
Mr. Moore. Thank you, Senator Boxer, Senator Lautenberg,
and the Committee.
Flame retardants have received a lot of attention recently,
some of which is inaccurate and misleading. So, I want to be
very clear. Chemtura stands by its products. And we have acted
proactively with EPA and others to lead our industry in the
introduction of greener alternatives because of a corporate
commitment to continuous improvement. That is why we are
participating fully in this hearing.
I will emphasize three points. One, flame retardants are
effective in reducing the flammability of synthetic materials.
Two, EPA has conducted an extensive assessment of new flame
retardants to ensure that they are safe for use. And three,
Chemtura acts proactively to develop new flame retardant
products with improved environmental profiles.
Our scientists are working every day to find better, safer,
and greener ways to mitigate the age old risk of fire. By
adding flame retardants to polyurethane foam, which is highly
flammable when left untreated, manufacturers have been able to
comply with the nation's strictest furniture flammability
standard, California Technical Bulletin 117. For over three
decades, flame retardants have enabled manufacturers to meet
this standard by reducing the flammability of their products.
The introduction of this standard coincided with a dramatic
decrease in the number and severity of house fires according to
data compiled by the National Fire Protection Association. A
number of labs have replicated these results, most recently at
Southwest Research Institute.
In a study funded by the National Institute of Justice, Dr.
Matthew Blais tested foam treated with flame retardants to meet
the California standard. He concluded, ``The use of California
Technical Bulletin 117 foam increases the fire safety of home
furnishings by delaying the onset of free burning conditions
and reducing the total energy released by the event.''
Scientific data show the relative risk associated with our
flame retardants is extremely low and is far outweighed by the
societal benefits of this advancement that reduces the number
and severity of fires.
From an environmental perspective, EPA required rigorous
review of TBB, a component of Firemaster 550. This product was
designed to provide the same or better flame retarding
properties in furniture foam as earlier products but with an
improved environmental profile. Chemtura submitted 15 studies
to EPA during the assessment of TBB. These included studies
designed to assess the potential exposure of consumers and the
persistence and potential for bioaccumulation. Based on these
studies, our scientists concluded, and EPA agreed, TBB is less
persistent and less likely to bioaccumulate than the product it
replaced.
In the years that followed, Chemtura conducted additional
environmental fate and toxicity studies. They indicated that
the levels at which observed effects would be expected are
orders of magnitude higher than the predicted exposure levels.
That is, the risk is minimal.
The product was subject to Government restrictions until
EPA received those studies, a process that took more than 13
years. Chemtura will be submitting 17 additional studies, all
conducted for registrations in other regions, as part of EPA's
TSCA Work Plan Chemicals Program. We welcome the opportunity to
work with regulators to conduct a fresh, objective, and
scientific review of this data as well as studies conducted by
academic researchers.
Based on our experience, the evaluation of new chemical
substances under TSCA has been effective and thorough. Yet, we
believe that TSCA can be modernized to be more efficient, to
use current scientific technologies, and to reflect our
improved understanding of how chemicals interact with the human
body and the environment. You have our commitment to help in
this effort.
In conclusion, Chemtura has fully complied with chemical
management regulations while also leading the industry in the
introduction of greener alternatives. We have shown our
commitment to continuous improvement by voluntarily replacing
older products with new options that are better, safer, and
greener.
Everyone in this room wants the same thing, reduced risk of
fire, greener chemistry that results in efficient products with
reduced environmental impact, and a regulatory process that
promotes innovation. Chemtura is proud to have led the industry
in introducing products that meet the most rigorous fire safety
standards while protecting human health and the environment.
Thank you once again for the opportunity to appear before
you today.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Moore follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Senator Boxer. Thank you, sir.
And now we turn to the second minority witness, William
Rawson, Partner, Chair, Environment, Land and Resources
Department, Latham & Watkins, attorney for chemical
manufacturers including of flame retardants.
Welcome.
STATEMENT OF WILLIAM K. RAWSON, PARTNER AND CHAIR OF THE
ENVIRONMENT, LAND AND RESOURCES DEPARTMENT IN WASHINGTON, DC,
LATHAM & WATKINS
Mr. Rawson. Madam Chair and distinguished members of the
Committee, good morning. Thank you for inviting me to testify.
I have co-authored a book on the Toxic Substances Control
Act and have practiced environmental law for 25 years. I have
been asked to testify today by Albemarle Corporation, a
domestic producer of flame retardants, and ICL-IP, an Israeli
company that imports flame retardants.
I have a strong appreciation for EPA's mission and have
worked closely with many EPA managers and staff over the years.
I have great respect for their efforts in support of EPA's
mission.
All major stakeholders agree that amendments to TSCA are
needed. To make progress toward amendments, we need to find
common ground. Executive Order 13563, signed by President
Barack Obama last year, states a regulatory system must protect
public health, welfare, safety, and our environment while
promoting economic growth, innovation, competitiveness, and job
creation. TSCA amendments should meet those objectives.
The Executive Order directs each agency to ``propose or
adopt a regulation only upon a reasoned determination that its
benefits justify its costs'' and to ``tailor its regulations to
impose the least burden on society consistent with obtaining
regulatory objectives.''
My testimony focuses on TSCA Section 5, which governs
approval of new chemicals; Section 4, which governs testing of
existing chemicals; and Section 6, which provides authority to
regulate existing chemicals.
The strength of Section 5 lies in its flexibility, which
allows EPA to raise or lower the bar according to the
properties of each proposed new chemical. Since TSCA was
enacted in 1976, the company seeking approval of a new chemical
in every case has either agreed to EPA's data requirements and
restrictions or withdrawn its pre-manufacture notice. Several
thousand chemicals have been approved with restrictions or not
approved at all. There has been no litigation under Section 5.
Section 5, in my judgment, is doing a good job of meeting the
objectives of the Executive Order.
The Senate bill would mandate a new round of EPA review for
every new use of a previously approved chemical and every
significant increase in use of an existing chemical. The
implications for EPA's overburdened resources, for EPA's
ability to prioritize, and for industry's ability to innovate
would be very significant.
Section 4. EPA has two ways under TSCA Section 4 to require
toxicity testing of existing chemicals, a risk-based approach
and an exposure-based approach. Case law shows that the burden
is very low. The Section 4 criteria, in my judgment, provide a
sound basis for deciding what testing is necessary to protect
human health and the environment.
Why are there not more test rules? One reason is that
industry conducts a large amount of testing voluntarily. Also,
many chemicals have been evaluated for testing under TSCA and
have been determined to be a low priority for testing or not to
need any testing at all.
The Senate bill would not require EPA to consider potential
for exposure before determining the need for testing. EPA has
stated, ``The level, frequency, and duration of exposure of a
chemical should always be considered when determining the
necessity of additional testing.''
Section 6. The asbestos rulemaking did not fail because of
the statute. It failed because of errors in the rulemaking.
This is explained in my testimony. Section 6 requires the EPA
to adopt the ``least burdensome requirements necessary to
address the identified risks. The Executive Order directs
agencies to use the least burdensome tools for achieving
regulatory ends.''
The unreasonable risk standard in Section 6 is not unique
to TSCA. The Federal pesticide statute has a similar standard.
The Executive Order directs agencies to ``take into account
benefits and costs, both quantitative and qualitative.'' The
proposed reasonable certainty of new harm standard and proposal
to require EPA to consider exposure from all sources, including
those outside of EPA's jurisdiction, is not workable for all
chemicals regulated under TSCA.
The Senate bill would make a decision by EPA that a
chemical fails to meet the safety standard immune from judicial
challenge. Even arbitrary and capricious decisionmaking could
not be overturned. That is very troubling.
All stakeholders recognize the need for EPA to prioritize
its resources. A rational prioritization scheme with reasonable
timelines would give the public greater confidence that
significant risks are being addressed in a systematic and
timely manner.
We need to understand which perceived shortcomings of TSCA
derive from the statute and which derive from implementation.
Proposed solutions should match the problems. Amendments should
produce better decisions, not just easier decisions.
The companies have committed voluntarily to end production
and importation of Deca-BDE without EPA taking any action under
TSCA Section 6. Substantial testing has been conducted by the
companies without the need for any test rule under TSCA Section
4. The companies support EPA's efforts to promulgate a
significant new use rule under TSCA Section 5 that would apply
to imported articles containing Deca-BDE.
In conclusion, notwithstanding the voluntary phase-out, the
companies believe that Deca-BDE is a safe flame retardant.
Health Canada recently released a draft health assessment
document----
Senator Boxer. Mr. Rawson, will you wrap up, please?
Mr. Rawson. May I just complete the last sentence, please?
Senator Boxer. Sure.
Mr. Rawson. Health Canada recently released a draft health
assessment document that found adequate margins of exposure
including for children.
Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Rawson follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Senator Boxer. Thank you, Mr. Rawson.
Our final witness is Tony Stefani, President, Founder of
San Francisco Firefighters Cancer Prevention Foundation. He is
a majority witness. He is a cancer survivor. He is going to
discuss local efforts to help firefighters who are exposed to
chemicals during and after fires including with medical
monitoring.
Welcome.
STATEMENT OF TONY STEFANI, FOUNDER, PRESIDENT, SAN FRANCISCO
FIREFIGHTERS CANCER PREVENTION FOUNDATION
Mr. Stefani. Thank you, Chairman Boxer, and good morning.
My name is Tony Stefani. I am a retired captain from the
San Francisco Fire Department with 28 years of service. I would
like to begin by giving you a brief history of myself and our
foundation.
I spent the last 13 years of my career as a captain at
Rescue 1, I am proud to say one of the busiest companies in the
United States. After 27 years on the job, I was diagnosed with
transitional cell carcinoma, a rare form of cancer, in my right
renal pelvis. I was told by my physician at UCSF it is normally
found in people that are exposed to chemicals or in the
chemical industry.
During my treatment and recovery, two more firefighters
from Station 1 contracted transitional cell carcinoma, only a
more common form, bladder cancer. It also seemed like every
month we were going to a funeral of another firefighter that
had succumbed to some form of this hideous disease.
In 2006, with the complete support of the department's
administration and Firefighters Local 798, I formed a nonprofit
foundation, the San Francisco Firefighters Cancer Prevention
Foundation, that has been dedicated to the early detection and
prevention of cancer in both our active and retired
firefighters.
Since its inception, we have conducted five major cancer
screenings, and through these screenings we have identified
five retired firefighters and one active firefighter with
various forms of cancer. And at the time of these screenings,
these individuals were not aware they had this disease.
Our foundation has also been involved in three studies. The
first was published in 2007 and was conducted by the Department
of Urology at UCSF Medical Center, and it identified bladder
cancer rates in the San Francisco Fire Department greater than
the population in general and of a major concern for the entire
firefighting profession.
Firefighters are exposed every day in the same manner as
the general population is to the effects of flame retardants
that escape from household products and settle in dust, whether
it be in their workplace or in their homes with their families.
But once a firefighter enters a burning building, it is a
completely different set of circumstances.
Firefighters are fully aware that we work in a chemical
cocktail every time we enter a building on fire. Does that
hinder the fire extinguishment? The definitive answer there is
absolutely not. It is our job to extinguish the fire, preserve
life and property, and the job gets done.
The firefighter's biggest fear is what occurs once the fire
is extinguished and the overhaul process begins. It is during
this period of time where off gassing occurs. Products of
combustion have been extinguished, but the emission of toxic
gases continues. We are now aware that even if all personal
protective equipment remains in place on firefighters,
brominated and chlorinated fire retardants have the ability to
permeate this equipment. Additionally, if this equipment is not
properly decontaminated immediately when returning to quarters,
firefighters risk continual exposures every time they don them.
A question that lingers in our profession right now is do
these chemicals combine synergistically with other toxins in
the atmosphere at a fire and actually exacerbate their
carcinogenic properties? What we do know is that our rates of
contracting various forms of cancer is increasing. We also are
fully aware that these flame retardant chemicals bioaccumulate
in our blood, our fat tissue, and in mother's milk.
Chairman Boxer and honorable members of this Committee, I
have before me a study that is soon to be released, and I have
been given permission to talk about certain aspects of this
study. The title of the study is Halogenated Flame Retardants,
Furans, Dioxins and Other Persistent Organic Pollutants in the
Serum of Firefighters from Northern California.
The firefighters from Northern California that the study
refers to is a cohort of 12 firefighters from San Francisco.
These firefighters willingly gave their blood after two
separate working fires in the city, and the study examined the
levels and patterns of halogenated compounds in the serum of
the firefighters and compares contaminant concentrations in
this cohort with those in the general population and other
studies in the United States and worldwide.
The study of our firefighters showed polybrominated
diphenyl ethers or PBDEs over 30 percent higher than the
general population of California and over 60 percent higher
than the general population of the United States. We had one
firefighter with a PBDE level 11 times greater than the average
of the general population, and the PBDE concentration in the
San Francisco firefighters were 20 to 30 times higher than the
levels found in the general population of Japan, Hong Kong, and
the United Kingdom.
Last Tuesday, I received an e-mail from Dr. Susan Shaw, one
of the lead scientists of the study. In this e-mail, she states
despite the small sample size, the paper reveals a wealth of
information about the exposure of firefighters to a wide range
of harmful chemicals during firefighting. It provides evidence
that firefighters are exposed to cancer causing dioxins and
furans, their congener profiles for brominated dioxins and
furans, polybrominated diphenyl ethers, and perflourinated
chemicals that are clearly indicative of exposure during
firefighting.
Another issue that we have to address in regards to flame
retardants in chemicals is the rising cases of breast cancer we
are seeing in our female firefighters in San Francisco. We have
over 200 female firefighters in our department, the largest of
any major metropolitan department in the United States.
Senator Boxer. Excuse me. I am going to have to stop you
there, and I will ask you questions about this as I go.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Stefani follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Senator Boxer. What we are going to do, first of all, thank
you all. We are going to start with Senator Carper. We are
going to each have 10 minutes to question so we can really get
to some of the issues here.
Senator Carper.
Senator Carper. Thank you. I will not use all of this.
Thank you very much for allowing me, and thank you all for
joining us today.
First question is pretty simple, and I only ask that you
keep your responses brief. But if you could, each of you, just
share with us, maybe the single most important lesson that you
all have learned or gained from your experiences in really
focusing on this U.S. chemicals issue that you think we can
learn from or benefit from. Just one. Single best.
Would you like to go first?
Mr. Stefani. Is that question posed----
Senator Carper. For the whole panel.
Mr. Stefani. I think what we have learned----
Senator Carper. Just be brief.
Mr. Stefani. What we understand right now is that these are
important chemicals that have to be dealt with because of this
bioaccumulative process that is actually proven in medical
science right now.
Senator Carper. OK. Thanks. Did you want to say something
else?
Mr. Stefani. No.
Senator Carper. OK, fine.
Mr. Rawson.
Mr. Rawson. I think we should think of TSCA as providing a
framework for making good decisions. But I do not think we
should count the number of test rules promulgated or the number
of Section 6 rules promulgated when deciding how effective it
is. I think what we should look at is how can we best get EPA
the information it needs, how can industry and EPA and other
stakeholders work together to meet the objectives of TSCA.
Senator Carper. All right. Thank you.
Mr. Moore.
Mr. Moore. In the context of the discussion on flame
retardants, I think what I would most like to say is that, I
guess, as a scientist, also as a father, I think in terms of
looking at the risk of fires versus other risks in society. We
cannot forget the risk of fires and the statistics showing that
it is a clear and present risk and we have to take that into
consideration in the entire discussion about the review of the
risks and hazards associated with flame retardants, fires, and
the use of those chemicals.
Senator Carper. All right. Thank you.
Ms. Stapleton. Dr. Stapleton.
Ms. Stapleton. Just in regards to flame retardants and
based on the research data I have collected and then what I
have read in the peer reviewed literature it seems apparent to
me that the potential health effects and other disadvantages of
using these chemicals potentially outweigh any purported
benefits that some industry members claim that they have in
terms of their applications in some consumer products.
Senator Carper. OK. Thank you.
Ms. Pingree.
Ms. Pingree. Thank you. Good question. I think as a former
State legislator I would say our experiences in Maine, as
highlighted by the Chicago Tribune and other States, what we
learned is that the chemical industry does not always tell the
truth. And they will do a variety of means to beat back
regulation of chemicals, especially considering they are making
considerable profits selling these chemicals.
And in Maine, we had an industry front group. We had many
of the companies represented at this table, the American
Chemistry Council, spending huge amounts of money misleading
legislators and doing whatever they could to deny that, for
example, the chemical Deca had both health impacts and was
building up in people.
So I have great respect for all the folks up here, but I
really would say as a parent I do not trust these companies to
tell the truth about their chemicals, and I do not think the
American public or you, as Senators, should either.
I think that is my No. 1 learning, and I hope that that has
been made clear through my testimony today.
Senator Carper. OK. Thanks so much.
Madam Chairman, I am going to ask unanimous consent to
enter a statement for the record, and I have a couple of
questions I would like to submit for the record. I am supposed
to be in three places at once, so I am going to slip out.
Senator Boxer. Oh, my goodness.
Senator Carper. I appreciate you all being here and for
this conversation today and the work that Senator Lautenberg
and certainly Senator Inhofe and others have done on this
issue.
Thank you.
Senator Boxer. Thank you. Senator Carper, thank you for
coming by, because I think the question you asked was very
important, I thought.
I have a lot of questions, so if I run out of time I am
going to take a second round. So, I am going to get to all of
you.
I will start with Ms. Pingree. Your testimony contains a
letter from the Professional Firefighters of Maine to the
American Chemistry Council that expresses shock and concern
about an array of disturbing actions by member companies of the
American Chemistry Council including the creation of a phony
fire safety group, a phony fire safety group that lobbied on
behalf of the industry.
The letter asks the American Chemistry Council to expel
three companies, Albemarle, Chemtura, and ICL, for their
unethical behavior. Do you know if the ACC has responded to
this letter or if they have committed to expel these members?
Ms. Pingree. I will say there is another letter in my
testimony also from a group of State legislators and
legislative leaders from around the country of which I signed
that made a similar request following the Chicago Tribune
story. And we received a response to our legislator letter. I
do not know if there was a response made to the firefighter
letter.
The response we got from Cal Dooley, the head of the
American Chemistry Council, was that they were going to let the
member companies respond on their own. They thought that there
were some misleading facts out there in the Chicago Tribune
story; they were not prepared to take this action despite their
own ethics and responsibility code that they said that they
abide by.
In fact, the American Chemistry Council in that same letter
said we are not involved in these State legislative battles so
we will leave it to these folks to respond on their own----
Senator Boxer. So, they took no responsibility.
Ms. Pingree. They took no responsibility, yes.
Senator Boxer. For this phony group that said they posed as
a fire safety group.
Ms. Pingree. Yes.
Senator Boxer. And it included Mr. Moore, so I am going to
ask Mr. Moore, following up, who was on this fire safety group
that actually was an honest broker?
Mr. Moore. In terms of Citizens for Fire Safety, Citizens
for Fire Safety is an organization in which we were a founding
member and have been a member of. Like many organizations,
trade organizations, professionals were hired to organize it
and run the organization.
Senator Boxer. So, wait a minute. The chemical companies
were a member of the fire safety group. This was your
credential. You are a chemical company, but you are suddenly
considered some kind of advocate for fire safety and expert on
that? Is that what you did by joining?
Mr. Moore. Yes, Senator Boxer, we are members of that
organization. As a provider of flame retardants we do have----
Senator Boxer. You do not see a conflict of interest? Let
us just talk between us and make believe no one is listening.
You make these products and yet you do not see an ethical
problem with being on a group that says you are for fire
safety? You do not see an ethical problem, a conflict of
interest in that?
Mr. Moore. Respectfully, Senator, I do not see a conflict
of interest in that.
Senator Boxer. Well, you ought to take a little lesson in
ethics if you do not see it.
Now, your testimony states that your company has acted
proactively to fully comply with EPA's chemical management
regulations. You talked about that today. We fully complied.
But last month your company was assessed a $56,000 penalty for
failing to comply with the reporting requirements of TSCA and
EPA regulations for manufacturing two brominated flame
retardant chemicals in 2005. Why did your testimony fail to
mention this? Why would you say you fully complied when you did
not?
Mr. Moore. Senator, my understanding of the that particular
case if that there were clerical errors at the time of the----
Senator Boxer. That there were what? I am sorry.
Mr. Moore. There were errors in the reporting at the time
of that reporting which occurred several years ago. The penalty
that was assessed was a reduced assessment because of our
proactive cooperation to correct those errors.
Senator Boxer. But you were assessed a $56,000 fine, were
you not?
Mr. Moore. That is my understanding, yes, Senator.
Senator Boxer. Well, I think if you are going to say that
you complied you should have mentioned that. Just in fairness.
Mr. Moore, your testimony cites a 1988 study conducted by
the U.S. Department of Commerce to support your claim that
adding flame retardant chemicals to household items are
effective fire protection. Now, the Chicago Tribune cited the
study's lead author who said that the chemical industry has
grossly distorted the findings of the study. That--the study's
lead author said the chemical industry distorted the findings
of the study and that flame retardants in home furnishings
offer little or no fire protection.
Do you not think it is time that the chemical industry
stopped grossly distorting the study's findings? When the
author says that is what you are doing? Do you not owe people
an apology?
Mr. Moore. With all due respect, Senator, we have not
distorted the findings of that study. You will find----
Senator Boxer. Whoa, whoa, whoa. The author said you did.
Who is a better source? The study's lead author said the
chemical industry has quote unquote grossly distorted the
findings of the study and that flame retardants in home
furnishings offer little or no fire protection. Why are you not
apologizing for grossly distorting the study? I do not get it.
Mr. Moore. Senator, if you would refer to my written
testimony, the exact conclusions from that study are presented
in those findings. There were several other authors at NBS,
which is now NIST, that participated in that study. I have
personally spoken to some of those scientists who have assured
me that the conclusions of those studies are as valid today as
when they were published and that study is still available
through NIST.
Senator Boxer. Well, if I wrote a study, and people took it
out of context and distorted it, I think the right thing to do
is to say I am not going to use it any more. But that--it is an
ethical question. You have to live with yourself over it.
Dr. Stapleton, when flame retardants persist in the
environment, can they slowly break down into other chemicals?
And during and after fires, can they more quickly break down
into other chemicals? And can these other chemicals be more
toxic than flame retardants?
Ms. Stapleton. Yes. When speaking about PBDE flame
retardants, there is evidence suggesting that the Deca-BDE can
break down in the environment to Penta- and Octa-BDE which are
known to be more bioaccumulative and potentially toxic.
In addition, when these chemicals are present in consumer
products and they do burn, they can form what are known as
brominated dioxins and furans, which are much more toxic than
the parent compounds and are linked to cancer.
In addition, I would just like to comment that peer
reviewed studies have also demonstrated that the presence of
these chemicals in consumer products leads to the generation of
more soot, smoke, and carbon monoxide when they do burn which
one could argue actually increases fire hazards.
Senator Boxer. And Doctor, I would assume you believe that
the substitutes for these chemicals, as they come out, you
would believe they should be tested thoroughly.
Ms. Stapleton. I do think we need more data on them, and
that is something my colleagues and I are trying to provide,
more data on the potential health effects from these chemicals
in relation to the current exposure levels that are occurring
in the general population, particularly for children.
Senator Boxer. And of course, that is the essence of
Senator Lautenberg's bill, which is to make sure that these are
safe before they are routinely used.
And we have people like our heroes, our first responder
heroes like Mr. Stefani here who beat back cancer. And he
describes--and I am going to ask you--one of the main concerns
that firefighters have following a fire is during the overhaul
process when the fire is extinguished by burned material at the
site, and you have this off gas. Can you explain what you mean
by off gas?
Mr. Stefani. Sure. The products of combustion that have
been extinguished, if you can actually visualize this, you are
in a room and you would have still some smoke weeping. But
there are also toxic gases that you cannot see. We have what is
called Combustion Gas Indicators and these indicators are
capable of picking up various toxic gases, usually about four
of them. The problem herein lies that they do not pick up the
100 plus other chemicals that we are confronted with.
And once these CGI monitors deem the atmosphere to be
cleared, the incident commander can have firefighters remove
some of their self-contained breathing apparatus and continue
the overhaul process and actually increase the level of
exposure. But the problem is that even if this self-contained
breathing apparatus is taken off, we are now told that these
chemicals do have the ability to permeate parts of this
equipment, even though they are in place.
Senator Boxer. Well, Mr. Stefani, firefighters put their
lives on the line every day, and I do not believe that you
should have to risk the long-term health effects of being
exposed to these dangerous chemicals and because there are
certain people in this society who seem to put their business
interests ahead of safety.
You started to talk about female firefighters, and I would
like to ask you about that. Could I put that whole study into
the record? Is that all right?
Mr. Stefani. Absolutely.
Senator Boxer. All right. We will do that. But is there--I
understand that in San Francisco these breast cancers have come
forward in female firefighters. Are there researchers looking
into this rate and doing some studies on it?
Mr. Stefani. We have just put a panel together, and we are
going to address that issue. One of the things that we have
come to find is the women in the fire service have not been in
for a large--long period of time, maybe 30 to 40 years right
now. And there have been no studies that we know nationwide of
female firefighters. We are in the initial stages right now of
putting that exact study together.
Senator Boxer. That would be very helpful. Would you keep
this Committee informed as you go forward?
Mr. Stefani. Yes, Senator.
Senator Boxer. Thank you.
Senator Lautenberg.
Senator Lautenberg. Dr. Stapleton, studies have found that
children born in this country have higher levels of toxic
chemicals than those in other countries. What is it that puts
newborns at risk at the level that we have with flame
retardants in their bodies? How does that take place?
Ms. Stapleton. Animal exposure studies have demonstrated
that when you expose young animals, developing organisms, that
these are very critical, sensitive time points when their brain
is developing that the effects can manifest into adulthood and
be more pronounced that if you expose them, let us say, during
adolescence or adulthood.
So, the concern is that the ability of these chemicals to
influence the way that our neurons develop, the way that they
differentiate, the communication between brain cells which can
lead to problems with neural development which are reflective
of studies that I have seen of the effects on children such as
reductions in IQ and problems in gross and fine motor skills in
the U.S. population.
Senator Lautenberg. So, have these exposures taken place in
the development of the fetus that the mother passes on?
Ms. Stapleton. Yes. Studies have demonstrated that when a
pregnant woman or a pregnant animal is exposed to these, they
are transferred to the developing fetus through placental
transfer and through lactation. So, when a mother breast feeds
her child, they are exposed to those chemicals as well.
Senator Lautenberg. Ms. Pingree, you make a point in your
testimony that the States are running around trying to ban
these fire retardants and flame retardants. Would you not think
that if EPA had the authority to address these chemicals under
TSCA that the States could be relieved of a burden knowing that
they are doing the right thing and leveling the playing field,
no matter what State you are operating in?
Ms. Pingree. That is a good question. Certainly, State
legislators have started to act on this issue and have acted
for the last 10 years because of the failure of the Federal
law. I think our interests at the States is to respond directly
to our citizens who we represent, and if there is a public
health interest, the State legislator will work toward
protecting that public health.
Certainly, if the EPA had had authority starting in 1976 to
really regulate these chemicals and protect public health, and
we did not see a chemical like Deca on the market that we knew
was bad for people's health, or PBA or one of the hundreds of
chemicals that we know are of concern, the States would not
have to take action. But that being said, the States will
continue to take action until we are confident that public
health is protected.
In the case of Deca, which I talked about, it was--a phase-
out was agreed to in 2009. In 2010 I actually proposed a bill
because they had agreed to stop using it in certain products,
but there was a new use. They started using it in huge
quantities in plastic pallets, pallets that were used to
transport food, all kinds of consumer items, and we knew that
these pallets were already leaching Deca onto the packages,
into the environment. So, the challenge is, we know, that even
when we took action in Maine, it led to the industry trying to
figure out another use for that chemical in another place.
So, the States will certainly, I am sure--slow action if
the Federal Government is able to act to a degree that we know
protects public health. But until then, I think the States will
keep acting.
Senator Lautenberg. Mr. Rawson, I noticed that in the
letterhead on your testimony, that you describe yourself as
Partner and Chair of the Environment, Land and Resources
Department in Washington, DC. It then lists Latham & Watkins.
Is that a position of great responsibility, Partner and
Chairman of a department within the law firm?
Mr. Rawson. I am a partner in the firm. Thank you. I am a
partner in the firm. We have a very large environmental
practice. We have a Global Department Chair who is based in Los
Angeles, and I am the local Department Chair. I am the Chair of
the practice in Washington, DC.
Senator Lautenberg. I must say that there is a subtle
implication here that this is some part of either Government or
otherwise, but do it as you may, I do not think it lends
particular credibility. But that is up to you.
And we hear the appeals that go on to say that everybody is
dealing in good faith and that the Albemarle Corporation, our
Chairman noted, had some problems. How do you explain that
these problems occurred? I was not sure I got the answer
before.
Mr. Rawson. With apologies, I do not understand your
question.
Senator Lautenberg. OK. Was there a fine imposed on
Albemarle Corporation for a reason?
Mr. Rawson. This might be a question that should be
directed to the person to my right if you are referring to the
fine that Senator Boxer was----
Senator Lautenberg. I am sorry. Yes, you are right.
Mr. Moore, you did deal with it, and you described it as
clerical error that caused this problem.
Mr. Moore. Yes, Senator. I was not personally involved in
the resolution of this, but I do understand that there was an
error--again this goes back to 2002, 2006--just a simple error
in the reporting. But our representatives that worked with the
EPA worked proactively to resolve this and in recognition of
our proactivity in resolving this, got a--the penalty was
reduced.
Senator Lautenberg. Mr. Stefani, your testimony is really
important. I was amazed at the number of firefighters that are
represented by the organization that you are talking about,
290,000. Is that the number of firefighters that the
organization represents?
Mr. Stefani. No. The San Francisco Firefighters Cancer
Prevention Foundation, our foundation, is based in San
Francisco, and it is both retired and active firefighters that
we deal with.
Senator Lautenberg. Some years ago, we had an incident in
Elizabeth, New Jersey, when firefighters went into a building
aflame, and what happened is the exposure to the chemicals that
were stored in this facility and the uniforms that the fireman
were wearing actually began to melt.
Thus, I wrote a law that was called the Right to Know Law,
and the consequence was that there was a substantial--and that
was in 1986--there was a substantial reduction in the amount of
toxic emissions that were coming from these companies. And I am
not surprised when you talk about your experience and how heavy
a burden it was on you and what the ultimate outcome was for
having to go into these situations and face these chemical
presence as it is.
So, I thank all of you for being here and testifying. But I
must say that the unwillingness of our two friends in the
middle of the table to acknowledge that there can be value in
getting testing to protect the people who are subjected to
these influences in the environment. And I would think that the
companies that you talk about or talk up would want to be part
of an effort to reduce the risk to the people in our country
from the fire retardants for which substitutes are apparently
available.
Thank you.
Senator Boxer. Thank you, Senator.
Senator Whitehouse.
Senator Whitehouse. Thank you, Chairman, and thank you for
holding this hearing and Senator Lautenberg for his long
standing leadership in this area. This obviously hits home in
Rhode Island because researchers at the University of Rhode
Island have found these PBDEs throughout Narragansett Bay with
concentrations highest near Providence where most of our
population lives.
And from Dr. Stapleton's findings, it seems to be
consistent with the national findings. She says that the
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention have said that 99
percent of the U.S. population has flame retardants in their
bodies. U.S. adults have body burdens that an order of
magnitude higher than European and Asian countries and that
studies have shown that children clearly have much higher
exposure and body burdens of flame retardants compared to
adults.
Could you tell me, Dr. Stapleton, kind of go--take it back
a step, why does a chemical bioaccumulate? Have we not
developed processes as organisms for processing chemicals
through our bodies?
Ms. Stapleton. Well, certainly we have enzymes or proteins
in our body that are capable of metabolizing certain compounds.
However, substantial data exists to show that there are certain
chemical features that are resistant to metabolism. And in the
case of PBDEs, those structures are clearly represented. They
are very non-polar, they are halogenated, they are quite large,
they have what we call a high hydrophobicity factor, a low KOW,
which leads to this bioaccumulation potential and resistance to
metabolism in the body.
Therefore, some of these PBDEs are estimated to have what
we call a half-life, or the time it takes for the
concentrations of these compounds to decrease in the body by 50
percent, of up to 7 years. So, it takes a long time before the
levels will drop.
Senator Whitehouse. And from a layman's point of view or
from a more general point of view, are new and manmade
chemicals more likely to be difficult for the human body to
process than ones that have been--ones that we have adapted to
over years, generations of exposure?
Ms. Stapleton. Well, this is a little outside my area of
expertise as I am a chemist and not a toxicologist or a
physiologist. But I can say that typically our bodies are not
used to processing these chemicals for sure, and they can lead
to more increased exposure or accumulation in our tissues.
However, some of the chemicals in PBDEs are a classic
example of this heavy structure that is actually very similar
to hormones in our body, which is what results in what we
believe are--is responsible for their potential toxicity. PBDEs
have a structure, a chemical structure, that is very similar to
thyroid hormones, for example, which is one of the reasons they
are known to effect thyroid hormone regulation.
Senator Whitehouse. Now, when you were looking into your
research, you have indicated that claims about confidential
business information inhibited your ability to do the research
that you are trying to do. Could you elaborate a little bit on
what limitations you experienced?
Ms. Stapleton. Certainly. Well, with the growing evidence
that the PBD concentrations were increasing in human tissues,
many academic researchers were interested in conducting
exposure studies or trying to identify the primary routes by
which people are exposed and identify what the most common
sources were in our homes or to which we come in contact with
on a daily basis.
And unfortunately, these products, as I said, they are not
labeled. When speaking with the Polyurethane Foam Manufacturers
Association, for example, several of them have told me that
sometimes they do not even know what chemicals they are putting
into their products that they manufacture in terms of
furniture.
The only way we were able to determine what chemicals are
actually used, are found in products on the market today, was
by taking samples of those products and spending a lot of money
and using very expensive equipment to analyze them in my
laboratory. We found many of them to have proprietary
chemicals, but with the technology today, we can determine what
those structures are. Now we are beginning to assess exposure
to those new chemicals and trying to determine what the
potential health hazards may be.
Senator Whitehouse. So one could hypothesize that if one
were concerned about a competitive business motive for
protecting this information, it would be within the realm of
most major corporations to be able to afford the kind of
testing that you did. So, they would really have no problem
being able to figure it out. It is independent testers who do
not have access to that kind money that are most disabled by
the confidential business information claims.
Ms. Stapleton. That is correct. In this day and age it is
not that difficult to determine what the chemical structures
are in all of these different products.
Senator Whitehouse. So, if a big company wanted to do what
you did they could do it pretty readily?
Ms. Stapleton. Yes.
Senator Whitehouse. But a researcher, it is a real handicap
for.
Ms. Stapleton. Well, this is why we are doing this,
determining what their structures are so that we can determine
what the levels are in our indoor environments and what the
levels or the exposure levels are for children and then run
some toxicity studies with them.
Senator Whitehouse. Mr. Moore, what dangers at what levels
of exposure exist with respect to the flame retardants that
Chemtura manufactures?
Mr. Moore. First, we manufacture a wide variety of flame
retardants. With respect to the ones we are discussing today,
Firemaster 550 and TBB within that, we have conducted over 30
studies for regulatory agencies as part of the pre-
manufacturing notification review of TBB. Those studies were
reviewed, submitted to EPA, 15 of those studies were required
by EPA. The assessment of those found that the relative risk of
those are extremely low and were acceptable for safe use in
their application.
I would like to comment on your other question, if I may.
Senator Whitehouse. Well, let me try to get an answer to my
first question. Does Chemtura concede any danger from its--from
these two flame retardants that you have identified?
Mr. Moore. Again, in terms of the expected exposures, in
2006 EPFC published expected exposures or predicted exposures
of TBB and those are much lower than any level that was
predicted to have any sort of an effect. So, in those terms,
the answer to your question would be that no, those are----
Senator Whitehouse. They are perfectly safe. OK.
Ms. Pingree, I wanted to go to a section of your testimony,
and I would like to highlight it. Maine does not have
disclosure laws, you said, that would allow us to understand
the full magnitude of the spending against your bill to
regulate these flame retardants.
We know that the chemical industry hired many of the
State's top paid lobbyists and public relations groups. They
proceeded to pay for several weeks of high saturation
television and newspaper advertising across the State urging
defeat of a chemical ban. They ran 27 full-page ads in the
State's largest newspaper, and in addition to weeks of
television ads, they purchased radio spots, direct mail to
voters, and paid robo-calls. Was this all done through the
front group?
Ms. Pingree. Yes.
Senator Whitehouse. Or was some of it done in the name of
the chemical companies?
Ms. Pingree. In Maine, it was all done through a front
group called Keep America Safe which has been replaced by
Citizens for Fire Safety.
Senator Whitehouse. The chemical industry front group which
did all of this, right, at the time was called Keep America
Fire-Safe, since renamed Citizens for Fire Safety. As you said,
despite their name, during their time before the Maine
legislature, the chemical industry and its allies had no
support from State fire safety groups or fire professionals.
Keep America Fire-Safe even paid for an ad that claimed
Maine legislators were seeking to weaken fire safety
accompanied by video of a burning house. You could imagine what
that would look like. The ad urged the public to call their
legislators and tell them to vote against these proposed
changes for the sake of fire safety.
You also noted that flame retardants bans, your
legislation, were strongly supported by Maine's fire
professionals including the State Fire Chiefs Association and
the major State firefighters union, the International
Association of Firefighters. Both groups, you say, worked
aggressively for the bill's passage, and the firefighters spoke
passionately about the negative impacts of these chemicals on
firefighter health.
I gather there was one group that went with the chemical
industry. It was called the National Association--not Maine
Association--the National Association of State Fire Marshals
which received pro bono work from the public relations firm
that was representing the chemical companies and received
significant financial support from those chemical companies,
and then turned around and lobbied for more stringent State
flammability standards which would require more flame retardant
chemicals. That would appear to be a conflict of interest.
Ms. Pingree. And I will say, speaking directly to the
National Fire Marshals Association, at the time we were working
on our bill in Maine, John Dean, our State Fire Marshal in
Maine, was the head of the National Fire Marshals Association
and was prepared to testify against our bill. He works for the
Governor, and he was somewhat outed for their relationship in
Washington with the flame retardant industry. And he either
ended up testifying neither for nor against or actually
supporting the legislation.
But we had uncovered this relationship which was obviously
a huge conflict for the State fire marshals who at the time
were receiving significant funding from the chemical companies
who produced flame retardants. So, that was a relationship that
obviously was not working for the benefit of public health or
fire safety.
Senator Whitehouse. It just strikes me, Madam Chair, that
this is what Rhode Islanders hate about politics and about the
manipulation of politics. It really has got all of the
ingredients. You have got a lack of disclosure. We just went
through this big exercise on the Disclose Act in Washington to
try to put a little bit of sunlight into who is spending $1
million, $2 million, $4 million to achieve special interest
influence around here, and we were defeated, unfortunately.
You have got a sort of high intensity bombardment of the
public by the special interests. You have got dishonesty in the
way it is done with what looks to me like a phony group that is
set up just for the purpose of pretending to represent fire
safety interests when it truly actually supports chemical
company interest. You have got all sorts of lobbyists and
maneuvers involved. You have got legitimate associations that
have lent themselves to conflict of interest and are now,
unfortunately, perhaps working more consistent with the
conflict of interest than with the true interests of the fire
marshals around the country. And the result was that--what
happened?
Ms. Pingree. Well, I mean, you point out that like the
people in Rhode Island, the people of Maine did not buy it.
They did not call us. They did not tell us to vote against this
bill. And the bill ended passing nearly unanimously in the
House and Senate. Republicans, Democrats, all supported it
because they did not want to be on the wrong side of protecting
kids, protecting pregnant women, protecting people's health.
I think we made a strong case, and despite a lot, a lot of
money, we still won. And so, certainly, that is what we are
hoping to see in your Committee. Thanks.
Senator Whitehouse. So, congratulations. Sometimes the good
guys can win despite all of the machinations of special
interests.
Thank you, Madam Chair.
Senator Boxer. Thank you so much.
If I could just talk about California for a minute. We know
that UC San Francisco studied the blood samples from pregnant
women in California. We, in our State, generally had higher
levels of PBDEs than other women in the United States as well
as Europe and Asia and that the women also had lower levels of
hormones produced by the thyroid.
Now, one theory is that California was an early State that
said we needed flame retardants. So, they are now working on
the details of that study. But it very disturbing.
And I want to thank you, Tony, very much for the work you
are doing. I mean, I am so grateful to you. And all of you for
coming here today.
So, I have a question I want each of you to answer yes or
no. There is no other answer. Just yes or no. And I am going to
start with Hannah.
Do you agree that chemical manufacturers should have to
prove through unbiased studies that their products are safe for
pregnant women, for infants, and for children before they can
sell those chemicals in the U.S.?
Ms. Pingree. Yes.
Ms. Stapleton. Yes.
Mr. Moore. Yes, I agree.
Mr. Rawson. Could you repeat the question?
[Laughter.]
Senator Boxer. Do you agree that chemical manufacturers
should have to prove through unbiased studies that their
products are safe for pregnant women, for infants, and for
children before they can sell those chemicals in the U.S.?
Mr. Rawson. Respectfully----
Senator Boxer. No, not respectfully. Yes or no.
Mr. Rawson. The question cannot be answered without
explanation.
Senator Boxer. Mr. Stefani.
Mr. Stefani. Yes.
Senator Boxer. Thank you. Majority wins. Let me just say
the reason we are having the markup is just to answer that
question. If someone cannot answer that question with an
affirmative response, then they are putting the special
interests before the health of the people, before the health of
their own kids, before the health of the first responders.
You can say, with due respect I am a lawyer, and I see
every side of it. Well, I am married to a lawyer, my son is a
lawyer, my dad was a lawyer. I know that it is a little harder
for lawyers to answer yes or no.
But this one? Do you agree that chemical manufacturers
should have to prove through unbiased studies that their
products are safe for pregnant women, for infants, and for
children before they can sell those chemicals in the U.S.? And
the reason we are having the markup of Senator Lautenberg's
bill is because that is what we are going to do here.
Now, we are going to have a hard time because the chemical
industry and their spokespeople are very strong. We are going
to have a hard time because there is a lot of money on the
line, and you know about follow the money. But at the end of
the day, the people are going to be on the side of making sure
products are safe for pregnant women, for children, for
infants, for firefighters whom they revere. And I am going to
do everything I can.
I want to say thank you to all of you. I know our minority
witnesses lost a little bit of back up for some reason, but I
do not know why, but that is what happened here. So, that is
the situation.
I thank you all. If you have anything further we will keep
the record open for 24 hours if you want to expand on anything
you said here today. Thank you very much.
We stand adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 12:10 p.m., the Committee and Subcommittee
were adjourned.]
[An additional statement submitted for the record follows:]
Statement of Hon. Jeff Sessions,
U.S. Senator from the State of Alabama
Good morning. Thank you, Chairman Boxer and Subcommittee
Chairman Lautenberg, and Ranking Member Inhofe and Subcommittee
Ranking Member Crapo, for calling this hearing on chemical
safety and flame retardants. The impact of chemicals on human
health is an important issue and worthy of serious
consideration. Exposures to chemicals in the home environment
tend to pose greater risks to children than other members of
the general public. Likewise, children are often more
vulnerable to serious injury or death than adults when home
furnishings catch fire.
Last week, Senator Durbin held a Senate Appropriations
subcommittee hearing on this same topic. My colleague Senator
Lautenberg is a member of that subcommittee as well and spoke
eloquently at that hearing on the topic of chemical safety and
flame retardants. Senator Lautenberg, I know this is a priority
for you, and I thank you for your leadership and work on this
issue.
I would agree with my colleagues that Federal laws
governing the use of chemicals--including the Toxic Substances
Control Act and the Flammable Fabrics Act--should be
modernized. But we must do so in a manner that is warranted,
protects public health, employs a transparent science-based
process that takes into account relative risks, provides
appropriate safeguards for intellectual property and
proprietary information, and appropriately considers cost.
The United States has a vibrant chemicals industry
generating over $720 billion each year in products, employing
over 800,000 Americans, and providing millions of other related
jobs. Our nation's chemical sector is a global leader, and we
need a regulatory framework that keeps it that way, while also
protecting public health and the environment.
The testimony of today's witnesses focuses primarily on
concerns with chemical flame retardants. Fire deaths are a
major concern in my State. In 2009 Alabama ranked #3 among the
50 States in the rate of fire-related deaths, with
approximately 21 fire-related deaths per 1 million people. The
national average in 2009 was 11 deaths per million people.
According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention,
``deaths from fires and burns are the third leading cause of
fatal home injury.'' While more progress is needed, the
national fire death rate has declined approximately 20 percent
since 2000.
Studies have shown that flame retardants can be effective
at making homes, clothing, furniture, and electronics less
prone to catching fire--although it is also true that not all
flame retardants are without health concerns. For example, in
2005 the furniture industry voluntarily phased out the use of
PBDEs (polybrominated diphenyl ethers)--a chemical that has
been used as a flame retardant in textiles, plastics, wire
insulation, automobiles, and other applications. Likewise,
around the same time, EPA issued a rule banning the manufacture
or import of two chemicals in the same chemical family as
PBDEs. And presently, EPA has additional rulemaking procedures
underway related to flame retardants. It is absolutely critical
for public health, safety, and economic competitiveness that
any such rules be based on sound science.
Finally, I wanted to read from the testimony of the CEO of
the American Home Furnishings Alliance, who testified at last
week's Senate Appropriations subcommittee hearing on this same
topic. That witness stated, ``[C]ost must be a consideration.
The statistics of residential fires have told us repeatedly
over the years that the residential fire problem in the United
States primarily lies in households with lower incomes, less
education, and a higher proportion of single parents. This
segment of the population is the most sensitive to cost
increases, yet this segment is clearly the most in need of the
protection that safer upholstery will provide . . . ''
Thank you again for holding today's hearing. I look forward
to hearing from our witnesses.
[Additional material submitted for the record follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]