NTA was advanced as a possible phosphate substitute. However, NTA, which is an active chelating agent, has not been adequately studied in terms of its effects on heavy metal uptake and distribution in plants, animals, and particularly man. The limited data available do not rule out the possibility that NTA is a carcinogen. Indeed, the data strongly suggest the need for further research in this area. Until such time as adequate data on NTA are available through appropriate biological and environmental studies, it should not be used in detergents.

Certain of the non-phosphate detergents now on the market contain ingredients that, if accidentally ingested, aspirated, or introduced into the eyes, may be extremely injurious to humans, particularly to children. These particular products utilize materials as a substitute for phosphates that are highly caustic and that clearly constitute a health hazard, which phosphates do not. Laundry detergents are usually left around homes in areas readily accessible to small children who cannot read warning labels. The FDA is evaluating to what extent existing authorities such as the Hazardous Substances Act and the Poison Prevention Packaging Act can be used more fully to protect public health.

The Environmental Protection Agency program will identify those bodies of water throughout the United States which have a eutrophication (aging of lakes through nutrient stimulation) problem due to phosphates and will determine the source of these phosphates. EPA will work with States and municipalities to upgrade sewage treatment when this is necessary to prevent or reduce eutrophication. The President's proposal for water pollution control will provide funds to assist municipalities in providing phosphate removal in the critical

areas:

In view of the unacceptable health risks of many phosphate substitutes and the plan for reducing phosphates in municipal wastes, States and their political subdivisions should reconsider policies that unduly restrict the use of phosphates in laundry detergents.

There are no simple solutions to these problems. As with many issues of public policy, mutually desirable goals are often in conflict. The Administration is firmly committed to protecting the health of the American public and to improving the quality of the natural environment. The conclusions announced today represent the best accommodation of these two important goals. The government urges industry to continue research to develop detergents that meet these national goals.

LETTER FROM RUSSELL E. TRAIN TO MILES W. KIRKPATRICK, CHAIRMAN, FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION

DEAR MR. KIRKPATRICK: In my statement to the Commission last April, during its hearings on a proposed trade regulation rule concerning disclosure of the phosphate content in detergents, I indicated that the Administration would provide a more explicit statement on the health and environmental aspects of detergents before the conclusion of your proceedings. On the basis of the tests and studies then underway, we are now in a position to present updated conclusions on measures to deal with the health and environmental problems associated with detergents.

I am enclosing a copy of the joint announcement to the press on these subjects on September 15 by the Council on Environmental Quality, the Department of Health, Education, and Welfare, and the Environmental Protection Agency. On the basis of that statement, I would like to offer the following comments with respect to your proposed rule that would require manufacturers of detergents to provide a caution as to the deleterious effect of phosphates in detergents on water quality and to require disclosure of phosphorous content.

We recommend against the kind of warning label proposed by the Commission for two reasons. First, the use of any such label must be considered in light of the fact that some of the commonly available substitutes to phosphate detergents are highly caustic in nature, posing a significant health hazard, particularly to small children. We are concerned that a warning against the use of phosphates may have the effect of increasing the use of these caustic products and thus increasing health hazards.

Second, a statement such as that proposed by the Federal Trade Commission is not fully representative of the facts. For example, phosphates are not the limiting nutrient, and hence a pollution problem, for a number of communities and

in certain important types of water bodies. Phosphates are rarely the limiting nutrient in salt waters and rapidly flowing rivers. Therefore, if any warning statement were made, it would need to be set out in sufficient detail to describe accurately a very complex number of factors that cause eutrophication. Anything less would be misleading. To deal with all the health and environmental aspects of detergents on a label would be very difficult. In view of complexities such as outlined above, we do not favor a warning or caution label such as the Commission has proposed.

With respect to the other facet of your proposed rule, we note that phosphate detergent products already contain a disclosure of phosphorous content as a result of manufacturers' actions on a voluntary basis. Evidence to this effect appears in the record of your proceedings. Accordingly, it does not seem necessary to require labeling which is already being accomplished voluntarily. So long as the manufacturers of detergent products provide such labeling, we recommend against a FTC requirement. Of course, if the voluntary statement of phosphate content is materially false or misleading, either by itself or in the context in which it is presented, the FTC could take appropriate action.

Sincerely,

THE TOXIC SUBSTANCES CONTROL ACT OF 1971

AND AMENDMENT

FRIDAY, OCTOBER 15, 1971

U.S. SENATE,

COMMITTEE ON COMMERCE,

SUBCOMMITTEE ON THE ENVIRONMENT,

Washington, D.C.

The subcommittee met, pursuant to recess, at 10 a.m., in room 1114, New Senate Office Building, Hon. William B. Spong, Jr., presiding. Present: Senator Spong.

Senator SPONG. The hearings will come to order.

At our last hearing on October 1 we learned that the Surgeon General's advice of September 15 for the housewife to go back to phosphate-based detergents was subject to some qualifications.

Among the qualifications were that there are relatively safe nonphosphate substitutes such as soap, that some phosphate detergents are more caustic than those that are nonphosphate, and that some differ considerably in their phosphate content.

Today we want to consider whether the generalization called for on September 15 was the correct generalization.

We had been scheduled to hear this morning from Senator Gaylord Nelson of Wisconsin. Unfortunately, Senator Nelson will not be with us this morning, but we will admit into the record at this point a statement he has submitted.

(The statement follows:)

STATEMENT BY HON. GAYLORD NELSON, U.S. SENATOR FROM WISCONSIN

Mr. Chairman and Members of the Environment Subcommittee, I appreciate the opportunity to appear before this Subcommittee to discuss the legislative proposals dealing with the control of toxic and hazardous chemicals entering the environment, and, in particular, to testify on the subject of synthetic detergent pollution.

Eight years ago tomorrow, on October 16, 1963, the Senate was debating S. 649, the Federal Water Pollution Control Act. At that time I prefaced my remarks on a specific portion of that legislation, which dealt with the control of detergent pollution, with the following statement:

"In an age of almost continual cold war crisis, with a civil rights revolution exploding in our backyards, with serious economic and social problems all around us, it may seem easy and convenient to postpone solutions to a problem which we always have with us-the problem of our own destruction of our natural resources."

"But the solution to this problem cannot be postponed. It grows worse every day and every hour. And if we continue to delay facing up to it, we may discover some day that it is too late that our natural resources have been destroyed to such an extent that they can never be restored again.

Eight years later, on October 15, 1971, these thoughts are still an accurate assessment of the manner in which we continue to approach the degradation of

71-179 O 72 pt. 2 - 7

our nation's lakes and waterways. This is particularly true in our attitudes and actions regarding detergent pollution.

As growing amounts and varieties of pollutants and waste products foul the waters of America-adding toxic poisons and excessive nutrients-we placidly continue to play environmental "brinksmanship" with this critical natural resource. After yet another summer of bacterially contaminated bathing beaches and floating masses of foul algal blooms in our lakes and rivers, we still have refused to take the prohibitive and preventive actions that are necessary to insure that the nation's water supplies are not irretrievably damaged.

Of primary importance is the fact that we are still without the institutional capability of taking any appropriate preventive or prohibitive actions. In the case of our capability to deal with long-standing problems of detergent pollution, we are still solely dependent upon industry's (quote) "voluntary" (unquote) efforts while the federal government conducts a rotating series of government press conferences as this unpleasant subject is passed like a hot potato from agency to agency.

Recognized sources of water pollution continued unabated in 1971. Consequently, even less is being done to anticipate future harmful or toxic substances before they enter the environment. As a result, we remain unable to take prospective preventive action, but must react to a series of crisis situations. It would also seem that our governmental agencies are only begrudgingly moved to activity on problems of environmental contamination after the damage has been done.

This is an extremely short-sighted and costly method of public administration of our natural resources. The safety and environmental integrity of our natural resources cannot remain dependent upon eleventh hour ad hoc decisions.

The past and present history of industry and federal government efforts to control the adverse health and environmental effects of synthetic detergents is a glaring and acute example of the failure to provide measured institutional structures and procedures capable of developing answers for a known, specific, reoccurring and chronic environmental problem.

The detergent controversy has been sputtering and foaming for over a decade without resolution and the issue involves the health and environmental safety of all synthethic detergent ingredients, not only the present controversy over phosphates and their replacements.

I became concerned about this problem a little over ten years ago when, as Governor of Wisconsin, it was brought to my attention that almost one-third of the shallow wells in Wisconsin were polluted by detergents. Subsequently, a special investigation by several agencies of the State of Wisconsin revealed a vast amount of information on this problem.

In each of the five Congresses since I entered the Senate in 1963, I have sponsored legislation to control detergent pollution, and, of course, here we are again today discussing what has become a very familiar subject over the years.

In 1963, this country was faced with mountains of foam floating on the surface of our rivers and lakes, giving dramatic evidence to the vast quantity and persistent nature of synthetic detergents which were polluting the nation's surface and underground water supplies. Developed about the time of World War II, the soap and detergent industry and the American public did not investigate or recognize the polluting potential of synthetic detergents when they were first put on the market. The rush to capitalize upon the cleaning power of synthetic detergents was the primary goal and by 1963 the industry was marketing close to 4 billion pounds a year.

It was discovered in the late 1950's that because of the particular molecular structure of a component of this first generation of synthetic detergents, the cleaning agents were not easily attacked by the bacteria in sewage treatment systems and broken down into harmless byproducts. Instead, synthetic detergent chemicals passed through our municipal sewage disposal plants and household septic tanks into lakes, streams, underground water supplies and wells. As a result of these non-degradable detergents, foaming rivers, contaminated wells, and fears of damage to recreational resources, aquatic life, and possibly human health became a cause for concern throughout the entire United States In the 88th Congress I joined the distinguished Chairman of the Commerce Committee, Senator Magnuson, and several other Senators concerned with this problem in sponsoring S. 1183. This legislation, which was introduced on March

25, 1963, directed the Secretary of Health, Education and Welfare to study the problems of detergent pollution and develop standards of decomposability which must be met by all synthetic detergents by June 30, 1965. This proposal was incorporated into S. 649, the Clean Water Act of 1963, which passed the Senate by a vote of 69-11 on October 16, 1963 but which was not acted on by the House of Representatives.

I wish to relate a little more of this frustrating legislative history to the Subcommittee as the patterns of industry actions will have a familiar ring. The soap and detergent industry reacted to the 1963 legislative proposal by denying that the mountains of foam presented any kind of a pollution problem which affected the public interest. In fact, statements were made that the foaming might even have some value in acting as a visual tracer for other sources of pollution.

While the industry admitted that detergents did cause some but not all the foaming on lakes, rivers, and at sewage plans, they argued that the problem was basically one of esthetics and denied that the detergents posed any threat to public health or aquatic life.

Claims were also made that legislation to bring detergent pollution under control would impede scientific progress, that the costs of control would exceed several hundred million dollars, and that the legislative deadline of June 30, 1965, could not be met.

In spite of these claims, on April 18, 1963, just three weeks after our bill had been introduced in the Senate, and while similar legislation was before the Wisconsin legislature, the Soap and Detergent Association announced at a public hearing before a committee of the Wisconsin State Legislature that the industry would (quote) "voluntarily" (unquote) undertake to change over to a new kind of detergent by December 31, 1965.

The Soap and Detergent Association was to later inform me that the changeover which earlier had been strenuously opposed as unnecessary and impossible could be achieved by June 30, 1965-that date set in the original Senate bill and the deadline which the industry itself had opposed as unrealistic.

Unfortunately, the detergent pollution problem was not solved by the rapid substitution of the "hard" original component of synthetic detergents known as ABS with a new "soft" detergent chemical known as LAS. While this new formulation was accompanied by impressive claims as to its biodegradability, by March of 1965, when a substantial portion of the changeover from the ABS formulation to the LAS formulation had already taken place, there was growing evidence that the new LAS formulation did not live up to its advertised pollution-free biodegradability.

Thus, on March 10, 1965, I introduced an updated detergent control bill in the Senate, S. 1479. This legislation called for a national advisory committee of experts, including representatives of the detergent industry, to recommend national standards of biodegradability to be met by the cleaning component of all detergents. The express intent of the legislative approach enunciated in S. 1479 was to establish a principle of thoroughly considering the environmental and health implications of a new chemical formulation before it is mass produced and introduced into our environment and to avoid the costly belated reactions after the damage has been done.

As Senator Spong, the sponsor of Amendment No. 338 to the Administration's proposed Toxic Substances Control Act, well knows, we are still fighting in the Congress, and particularly with the Senator's efforts here in this Subcommittee to legislatively establish the principle of thorough pre-market testing of environmental and health aspects of chemicals and products which enter commerce at an ever-expanding rate. I like to refer to this concept as "first time safe."

As was discovered in experience with the first generation of "hard" synthetic detergents in the early 1960's, an environmental or health protection system that is unable to look prospectively but merely allows the substitution of new problems to pose as the solution for old ones is no system at all.

In the last five years of the 1960's attention became focused upon the role of phosphate based detergents in the over-fertilization and accelerated eutrophication of our waterways. And now, as we fumble into the 1970's with the problem of phosphates,we also stumble into the known and unknown dangers of replacing phosphates with chemicals or compounds which have not been thoroughly considered for their health effects or long range impact upon the environment. And