In view of this, it is imperative that toxic substances control legislation provide for a comprehensive review of the environmental safety of all chemical substances. The major obstacle to such review is the tremendous number of substances to be studied and the work overload which would be placed on both the industry and the government to handle them all at once. While both H.R. 7229 and 7664 respond to this problem by placing restrictions on the number of substances that could be subjected to pre-market notification and testing, H.R. 7548 calls for the review of all substances over a period of several years, according to three priority groupings. The Federation supports the latter approach although we are concerned about the lack of direction or guidance to the Environmental Protection Agency as to what those priorities should be, how they are to be developed, and what opportunity would exist for public critique of them. A major advantage of H.R. 7548 over both other House bills as well as the Senate bill is its inclusion of a well-developed definition of "unreasonable risk." Problems of judgement are inevitable in any effort to weigh risks to human health or the environment against benefits of a substance's use to the consuming public or the environment. However, the definition's inclusion of substances which induce, or have been found to induce cancer, birth defects, gene mutations, or any irreversible, or serious pathology in levels within a substantial safety margin to human or environmental exposure establishes a long-needed federal policy on the protection of the public from such insidious threats to health. At the same time, by illustrating specific cases of risks which are unacceptable under the law, the definition establishes parameters which will guide both EPA and manufacturers in weighing other kinds of risks against benefits. A very important provision of H.R. 7548 which is not contained in the other bills is Sec. 5(e), which would enable citizens to have an input into the review process in identifying those substances which are most in need of testing and possible control. As has been experienced in EPA's implementation of Sec. 307(a) of the 1972 Amendments of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act, a reluctance on the part of the Agency to fulfill its responsibilities for the regulation of toxic substances can lead to a very narrowly defined pool of substances. Sec. 5(e) will provide not only for public input, but also for Agency response to assure the best possible public understanding of the administrative decision-making process. Another important provision of H.R. 7548, which is absent from the other bills, is Sec. 5(d). It provides for EPA approval by rule of the manufacture or importation of a new chemical substance. Without this clearance requirement, the protection of public health and the environment against unreasonable risks becomes discretionary. The development and review of testing data can become ends in themselves if the Agency is allowed to let substances slip through unchecked because of a work backlog or administrative indifference. The purpose of toxic substances control legislation is to assure both industrial and regulatory accountability for the safety of chemicals to which humans and the environment are exposed in ignorance. Sec. 5(d)'s clearance requirements provide for that accountability. In addition to these particular provisions of H.R .7548, we all give special support to Sec. 7's provision for suspension orders in cases of imminent hazard; Sec. 8's reporting requirements; Sec. 9's definition of the relationship of this legislation to other federal laws; Sec. 22's provision for citizens' civil action; and Sec. 24's provisions for employee protection and assistance. In our judgement, these sections are essential to both the collection of data and EPA's efficient exercise of its regulatory authority. Mr. Chairman, I would like to thank you for the invitation to present our views on this legislation to the Subcommittee. Sincerely, THOMAS L. KIMBALL, NATIONAL WILDLIFE FEDERATION (33rd Annual Convention, Washington, D.C., February 28-March 2, 1969) RESOLUTION NO. 7-USE OF TOXIC CHEMICALS Whereas, chemicals of varying types and compositions aid the production of fruits, vegetables, grains, and timber and help curtail diseases by controlling harmful or undesirable pests; and Whereas, chemicals are in widespread use for reducing snow and ice traffic hazards on highways; and Whereas, some chemicals are dangerous to humans, wildlife, aquatic life, and/or other creatures because of their lethal qualities or harmful effects upon reproduction and other factors; and Whereas, some chemicals are long-lasting and present added dangers through accumulations in the environment; and Whereas, these dangers should be reduced to a minimum through alternate means such as biological controls and through the development of more selective and less persistent chemicals; and Whereas, there is a growing and legitimate concern about contamination of the environment in manners affecting the health and welfare of all living things, including man; and now, therefore, be it Resolved, That the National Wildlife Federation, in annual convention assembled Feb. 28-March 2, 1969, in Washington, D.C., hereby urgently recommends that Federal, State, and local governmental agencies and private organizations and individuals stop the use of offending chemicals when any of the following conditions are proven to exist: 1. they are having an adverse effect upon humans or plants and animals; and, 2. when toxic materials are accumulating in an environment. Be it further resolved that strict supervision be provided for the use of all such chemicals capable of damaging human health. ENVIRONMENTAL HAZARDS AND THE BURDEN OF PROOF Whereas, the hazardous environmental and human health effects of many pollutants and commercially-manufactured chemical substances cannot be proven because they do not become manifest for several years or even decades following introduction into the environment; and Whereas, thousands of chemical substances are manufactured commercially and used each year without publicly reviewed pre-market testing of their acute and subacute toxic effects; and Whereas, thousands of tons of pollutants discharged into the environment each year are unregulated because their suspected hazards to humans and the environment cannot be proven immediately; and Whereas, the unchecked manufacture, use and/or discharge of such suspected substances exposes plants, animals, and humans to long-term, serious risks which include cancer, birth defects, and tumors; now, therefore, be it Resolved, That the National Wildlife Federation, in annual convention assembled March 14-16, 1975, in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, hereby urgently recommends as a national policy that publicly supervised testing of all chemical substances be required prior to their commercial manufacture and introduction into the environment; and be it further Resolved, That, where evidence of an unreasonable risk to human health and/or the environment is found to be presented by the manufacture, use, and/or discharge of such substances, their manufacture, use and/or discharge be prohibited or adequately restricted until their safety is proven; and be it further Resolved, That the burden of proof of safety shall rest with the manufactures, users, or dischargers of such substances. REILLY TAR AND CHEMICAL CORP., Hon. LIONEL VAN DEERLIN, Chairman, Subcommittee on Consumer Protection and Finance, House Office Building, Washington, D.C. DEAR MR. VAN DEERLIN: I am pleased to submit herewith comments for inclusion in the record on proposed Toxic Substances legislation. These comments reflect our Corporate, and my personal concern that this legislation, particularly H.R. 7229, while having a desirable objective will, if enacted, be economically ruinous to small companies such as ours. We believe that this legislation is unnecessary; that existing federal laws and regulations (many of which are only now being fully implemented) thoroughly protect man and the environment from toxic materials. It is important to recall that when this type of legislation was originally proposed many of these laws and regulations did not exist or were not being enforced. Today, 58-551-75- -31 however, there is a massive network of federal regulatory schemes which when fully enforced will achieve the objectives of toxic substances control. Therefore, we oppose any further federal regulation which would superimpose additional restrictions and costs on our business without a corresponding public benefit. Our detailed comments, attached, are primarily directed at H.R. 7229. If Congress believes a new law in this area is necessary, we favor H.R. 7664 as being the most manageable, reasonable, and economic approach. H.R. 7664 will be strengthened by two amendments to Section 9: 1. Add new sub-sections (a) (4) exempting intermediates, and (a) (5) exempting test market and laboratory chemicals. 2. Making the word "law" in sub-section (b) (line 5 of page 29) plural, i.e., "laws" to make clear that all other federal laws taken together are to be considered. It should be noted that even the H.R. 7664 approach will be a substantial economic burden on our Company, our industry and our national economy. Your consideration of these matters will be greatly appreciated and we stand ready to assist you further in any way we can. Very truly yours, Attachment. T. E. REILLY, President. STATEMENT OF REILLY TAR CHEMICAL CORPORATION CONCERNING THE TOXIC SUBSTANCES CONTROL ACT Reilly Tar & Chemical Corporation is pleased to submit these comments for the record and for your thorough consideration. Reilly Tar & Chemical Corporation operates six plants across the United States, in Indiana, Ohio, Illinois, Tennessee, Texas, and Utah, with a payroll of approximately 550. Annual sales of products are in the $40-$60-million range. Major products include coal tar pitches (used in the aluminum, roofing, and road paving industries), enamels and primers (for protection of gas, water and petroleum pipelines), cresote oil (used in the preservation of railroad ties, utility poles and marine installations), and pyridine chemicals (important intermediates serving the rubber, pharmaceutical, photography, and agriculture industries). During its 80-year history, Reilly Tar & Chemical has been a leader in its fields, thanks in large measure to an active and intensive research and development program. While we agree with the stated objective of Toxic Substances legislation, to protect human health and the environment from unreasonable risks posed by .certain chemical substances, we vigorously oppose present H.R. 7229 as being much too broad in scope and too restrictive on industry. We believe any legislation of this type must include carefully and narrowly drawn sections, covering only those few gaps which currently exist in regulatory authority. As drafted, H.R. 7229 will result in an unmanageable and unforceable program. There are currently 3 million chemicals registered in Chemical Abstracts. Many of these may have several current or potential uses. Historically, hundreds of new chemical substances are introduced into commerce each year; thousands more are synthesized in laboratories. Our Company alone has two dozen new chemicals in the deevlopmental stage at any given time and introduces as many as six of these into commerce annually. Yet many of these, for one reason or another, never reach commercial volume. In order to monitor and test new chemicals or new uses of existing chemicals as required by H.R. 7229 will require an enormous E.P.A, bureaucracy and more toxicologists than are available in this country. Furthermore, it is often impossible for a producer of chemicals to know or foresee the subsequent uses industrial customers will make of its chemicals, and of potential chemical changes which may occur in or be made to the original product. As a result, a producer would not be able to determine, prior to sale, what long-range effects its products might have. In addition to being unworkable, the implementation of H.R. 7229 is largely unnecessary. Authority currently exists in other environmental statutes, occupational safety and health laws, and hazardous materials laws to insure protection of human health and the environment. We believe that any toxic substance legislation should clearly state that its authority is to be used only when all other federal laws have been shown to be inadequate to accomplish the protection deemed necessary. H.R. 7664 is explicitly clear in this regard. The principal concern we have on H.R. 7229 is economic. Although without knowing the precise protocols which might be established, it is impossible to predict accurately the full cost of testing. Our toxicological consultants estimate costs might run from $25,000 to $250,000 per test; costs way beyond our means. Since there are ten tests prescribed under H.R. 7229 the total economic impact on the small chemical producer will be positively devastating. Many will not survive. This economic impact will be both inflationary and recessionary. The enormous costs of testing will drive up the prices of both new and existing products. This will affect nearly every consumer product made and will also make the introduction of new products prohibitively expensive. As can be seen from the attached table, our Company had twenty-eight chemicals in the developmental stage in 1972 (a typical year). These 28 products were sold, mainly for testing or experimental purposes, to 186 customers. But, of these 186 sales, 114 (61%) were in amounts of twenty pounds or less. Obviously it is economically infeasible to expand upwards of $1-2 million to test a chemical before selling twenty pounds or less per year. The economics of H.R. 7229 will with certainty bring our research program to a grinding halt. Aside from being inflationary, H.R. 7229 would also have a recessionary effect. It will impede dramatically chemical research and development in the United States. Research, if carried on, will be removed to Europe or other areas where severe restrictions do not apply, thus creating loss of jobs and income in the United States. It will also give European and other foreign companies who can obtain and test small quantities of chemicals and advantage over U.S. manufacturers in the developing, testing and marketing of new products, further eroding U.S. leadership in the chemical industry, and the U.S. chemical industry's historical favorable balance of trade. Research and development is historically the one part of corporate budgets which increases in a recession, for R&D provides the basis, the underpinning, for economic recovery. This year is no exception; R&D in the chemical industry is up almost 20% over last year. Yet if H.R. 7229 passes into law in its current form, one certain result will be virtually to freeze the state of chemical technology in the United States and thus retard economic recovery in our industry and those industries it serves. The currency of progress in pharmaceutical, chemical, plastic, fibre and rubber industries is the free and broad interchange of substances in laboratory, developmental, and intermediate quantities. The impact of H.R. 7229 would be to retard or eliminate the research, development, and commercialization efforts of America's most viable industries. The thrust of this legislation, implicitly or explicitly, is to require a producer to show his product will not cause any toxic effect on man or the environment. In essence, we are being asked to prove an absolute negative, which is logically impossible. In our own experience, we have had promising new processes or products disapproved because it could not be shown that no toxic effect was possible, despite the fact all available scientific testing showed no such effects. Even table salt is composed of toxic materials, and is itself on the Toxic Substances list. And, what of the thousands of inks, dyes, and paints (especially those newly mixed in your neighborhood hardware store) covered by "mixtures?" Are these products covered by this legislation to be prohibited from commerce until it is proved they cannot, under any circumstances, be harmful to man or the environment? Clearly this legislation must be carefully worded and narrowly directed. H.R. 7229 is not. H.R. 7664 is better, but could be strengthened by the amendments stated in our letter. To apply this standard to the extraordinarily broad coverage mandated by this legislation will effectively halt technological progress, not only in the chemical industry, but also in those industries it serves, such as pharmaceuticals and medicine, consumer products, transportation, food processing and the like. Any toxic substances control legislation, to be feasible and workable, should provide exemptions for those chemicals which are intermediates, (i.e., sold only within the industrial process), catalysts, or which are supplied or sold only for research, testing, or as laboratory reagents. The exemption for intermediates was included in the bill which passed the Senate previously (S. 426, 93d. Congress). H.R. 7229, despite its apparent desirable objectives, will, if adopted in its present form, be fatal to many small chemical producers, who make up the bulk of the United States Chemical industry. If these small firms are forced to close or to sell or merge with industry giants, it will only further concentrate economic power in the country. For all these reasons, Reilly Tar & Chemical Corporation urges the defeat of H.R. 7229. If legislation in this area is really required, we believe H.R. 7664 to be the best approach. 1972 DEVELOPMENTAL PRODUCTS 1 Now in commercial stage. Large number of 400-lb orders reflects transition from developmental stage. NOTE The nature of the intermediate supplier's business is to produce a lage number of low volume products for a limited number of industrial users, who in turn react the intermediates into consumable products. In the developmental stage, this effect is clearly shown, as indicated by these figures. Few, if any intermediate manufactureres could afford to test new chemicals with such limited markets. SHELL OIL Co., Houston, Tex., July 30, 1975. Re: House bills H.R. 7229, H.R. 7458, and H.R. 7664, "Toxic Substances Control Act." Hon. LIONEL VAN DEERLIN, Subcommittee on Consumer Protection and Finance, Committee on Commerce, U.S. House of Representatives, Washington, D.C. DEAR MR. VAN DEERLIN: Shell Oil Company urges the Subcommittee to give thorough consideration to the following views and to their accommodation in a redraft of the bill before it is finalized for committee action. We request also that this letter be included as part of the public record in connection with hearings by the subcommittee. As a large manufacturer and marketer of chemicals and petrochemicals, we are firmly committed to the prevention of undue risk of harm to human health and to the environment as related to human health from exposure to toxic chemicals. We would support appropriate legislation dedicated to that end, but we are strongly opposed to both H.R. 7229 and H.R. 7548. As presently drafted, these bills would provide little discernible increase in protection beyond that available |