I did a little study of exactly who has jurisdiction over PCBs at various points, and on page 3 of my testimony I go through that. I point out that the Department of Agriculture has responsibility for looking for PCB in meat and poultry, the FDA for looking for PCBs in whole eggs, USDA for PCBS in cracked eggs, FDA for PCBs in fish meal, EPA for PCBs in pesticides, and so forth.

Looking at this conflict of jurisdiction with regard to PCBs, I begin to wonder exactly how much is left for this particular proposed legislation to cover. That is one of the reasons why I am concerned about the exclusion from jurisdiction of this bill of pesticides.

A second reason is the fact that the legislation, as far as it goes, is a vast improvement over existing pesticide law and the proposed pesticide amendments to the Federal Insecticide Act which are now pending before the House Agriculture Committee as described in the House Committee's Print No. 3. I will not go into the detail on these points. I have listed them here in the testimony.

The only point that I want to mention specifically here is the interpretation or the definition of "imminent hazard" as it is stated in the bill before this committee and as apparently is going to be stated in the bill that emerges from the House committee. The House draft requires a finding of "substantial adverse effects" as a likely result of continued use of a pesticide before suspension action can be taken against it.

The bill S. 1478 as amended requires only that there be a "reason to believe" that continued use will result in "serious damage" to human health or the environment. That distinction may seem subtle, but it is very important. I think it should be made clear that in the definition of "imminent hazard" in S. 1478 as amended that this definition does encompass serious potential hazards such as an increase in the incidence of birth defects or cancer which may develop months or years after an individual is exposed to a chemical.

There has been a lot of litigation on that point. At this point the law is interpreted somewhat more broadly than the Department of Agriculture did in the past, but I think you can still use some clarification as defined in this act.

While the requirement for premarket clearance of hazardous substances is commendable and the test standards you set out in section 203 are really an excellent step on the whole, you must remember the effectiveness of test procedures depends on the competence and the impartiality of the testers. This bill still permits the manufacturers of hazardous substances to conduct their own testing. It preserves the conflict of interest which has led to abuses in the past and will lead to abuses in the future.

Under the proposed legislation the maker of the hazardous substance, through its own laboratories or by contracts with independent testing laboratories, arranges for the testing necessary to satisfy safety criteria established by EPA. The incentives and opportunities for abuse are obvious. The commercial laboratory, anxious to retain its industry contracts, has the incentives to choose a testing methodology which will reveal the least negative characteristics of the chemical. The chemical company has incentives to avoid a laboratory which is embarrassingly thorough in its tests.

More important than that, even if the laboratory does perform the EPA test conscientiously, there is much more discretion here than the average citizen would believe. The maker of the chemical, not the laboratory that tests it and not EPA, decides exactly which data to submit to the Government.

The problem of biased and incomplete safety data will not be solved until the direct connection between the chemical industry and the testing laboratories is broken. One way to avoid this conflict of interest is for the Administrator of EPA to be responsible for the conducting of all tests on hazardous substances submitted for premarket clearance. The Administrator could then assign the required testing to laboratories certified and inspected by EPA. The test data would go direct from the laboratory to EPA, leaving no opportunity for a company to screen out data which might imperil the marketing of its product.

I point out in the testimony that this proposal would not lead to vast and new Federal expenditures and laboratories. Basically it transfers from the maker of a substance to the EPA the assignment and regulating of testing contracts. There will have to be some additional laboratory facilities probably, but it would not be a massive expense as some of the critics of this proposal have suggested.

That is the end of my prepared statement.

Senator SPONG. Thank you very much, Mr. Wellford.

Since you do have to leave, I will ask you a question or two before we hear from the rest of the panel.

In your statement you mention some additional potential problems that may be present from the contamination of eggs with PCB. Could you give us an idea of how a use restriction under these bills might have prevented the widespread contamination of poultry products that has occurred in the recent past?

Mr. WELLFORD. Yes. Basically, and I think Monsanto recognizes this, at least I understand that they have, even in a closed system, which as we have seen from Dr. Risebrough's testimony, closed systems are not really very closed, even in a closed system PCB's should not be used in any kind of plant environment where either food or feed which is fed to animals which produce food could be contaminated.

In this case Monsanto apparently made some efforts to keep PCB's out of these environments, but in the use restrictions which are available to the Administrator of EPA under the pending legislation there would be a chance to make this perfectly clear as a regulation and to make it clear that anyone who disobeys that regulation would be subject to Federal penalties.

Presently, if East Coast Terminal-I have no idea of what their knowledge was in this case-knew that Monsanto did not want them to use PCB's in their kind of plant but decided to do it anyway. There are no present sanctions that can be brought against East Coast Terminal for that use.

Under your legislation, assuming that the administrator of EPA did issue such a restriction, there would be penalties. Then this kind of incident would likely be avoided.

Senator SPONG. As is apparent in S. 1478, the administration has opted for a system for pretesting of new chemical substances rather than a requirement of preclearance. In your testimony you urge that the committee include pesticides under this regulatory scheme. With

the recent release of your book on pesticides regulation you have a great deal of knowledge that we can benefit from this morning. In your estimation, is there any difference in the need for preclearance system for pesticides and for toxic substances as was suggested yesterday by Chairman Train?

Mr. WELLFORD. I see no difference at all. In the first place, I am a little bit disturbed by the semantics here. I think that pesticides are toxic substances in the same way that PCB's are. Whether PCB's are used in pesticides or heat transfer units. Their risks are somewhat largely the same.

All the premarketing testing procedures to anticipate human and environmental haards that have been worked out over the years for the pesticides, even though they are still somewhat inadequate, should definitely be applied to toxic substances. I think it is really amazing they have not been in the past.

I do not want to push my volume-"Sowing the Wind" on you, but I do discuss the subject in the book.

Senator SPONG. Thank you very much for your appearance here this morning.

We would be pleased to hear from the remainder of the panel in any order that they wish.

STATEMENT OF LINDA BILLINGS, SIERRA CLUB

Miss BILLINGS. Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, I am Linda M. Billings, assistant to the Washington representative of the Sierra Club, a national conservation organization with nine offices and over 130,000 members in 35 chapters throughout the United States. I appreciate the opportunity you have extended to speak on legislation to control pollution by toxic substances, specifically the administration's proposal, S. 1478, and amendments to S. 1478 offered by you, Senator Spong.

The Sierra Club and many other conservation organizations have on many occasions expressed concern about and protested pollution of our environment by chemical substances such as pesticides, mercury, lead, sulfur, nuclear materials, and oil, to name just a few; and they have called upon the Government to take measures to halt these abuses. Too often it has been a call to action after the fact, and the problems have exposed gaps in Government's ability to control pollution from unanticipated sources, as was the case with mercury or lead.

Therefore, the proposed legislation, and amendments, which considerably improve the legislation and definitely must be included, are welcome as attempts to close these gaps. But problems with toxic substances have also occurred where mechanisms for Government regulation do exist, and in reality what we are faced with is a proposal for further fragmentation when too much fragmentation already exists. The titles "Federal Hazardous Substances Act," "Hazardous Consumer Products," and "Toxic Substances" are misleading, for this legislation contains important exceptions for toxic substances which are equally as serious problems and also need Government action.

I am referring specifically to section 209 of the amendments (section 207 of the original bill), entitled "Relationship to Other Laws." Excluded are economic poisons (pesticides), foods, food additives. drugs,

cosmetics, and nuclear materials. Serious problems exist now from toxic substances in these excluded categories, and reforms in the current laws and regulations are clearly needed. Further, they are currently regulated by producer-oriented committees and departments. The needed reforms have been slow to occur or nonexistent.

For example, reforms in the regulation of pesticides have been needed for years. The current law is not truly adequate and administrative procedures have been found to be wanting. Many of the chemicals used are toxic to man and other animal life. Important evidence is accumulating of other serious hazards linked with reproductive failures and birth defects. Further, the abusive use and overdependence on chemical means of pest control poses future serious problems such as: creation of resistent species; contamination of food sources; elimination of useful predator species; lowering of productivity through elimination of pollinating bees; and lowering productivity of sea foods. Clearly these are effects from toxic substances and they pose a real threat to health and well being.

New legislation on the regulation of pesticides has been proposed in both the House and the Senate. So far no action has been taken by the Senate Agriculture Committee, other than to hold hearings. Markup of legislation has begun in the House Agriculture Committee; but it has been proceeding slowly and there is little assurance that adequate controls will emerge. As it now stands, there are not really effective controls over the sale and use of pesticides (even the very dangerous ones); there are no really adequate proposals for testing of products; labeling requirements are incomplete; and proposals to modernize agricultural pest control and decrease depedence on chemicals are not being strongly advanced. Clearly this is an inadequate

response.

Friends of the Earth wish to commend you, Senator Spong for your environment is admittedly a complex matter. Use of chemicals is very widespread, and it is difficult to ascertain total amounts used and discharged. It is also difficult to predict what later combinations of chemicals will occur. Many compounds have long persistence and/or mobility. Other compounds are complicated by different breakdown and residue stages. Geographic areas will differ with respect to their capability to absorb and disperse chemicals. There are often effects on nontarget organisms and animals. Add to these problems, the heretofore inadequate systems of testing, surveillance, monitoring, and control over use and we begin to get a picture of the extremely serious situation with which we are faced today.

The benefits which have accrued to our health and well being from chemicals are not to be denied nor underestimated; however, our future enjoyment of these benefits depends upon wise use and effective controls. The current systems of regulating chemical compounds are fragmented, uncoordinated, incomplete, and producer oriented. They have worked to the detriment and confusion of the general public. The regulation of toxic and hazardous substances should be integrated and standardized, not further fragmented.

The task which this legislation should address itself to is more nearly expressed in section 220 of the amended version. That is, legislation which aims to control hazardous and toxic substances should include all chemical substances and should work toward developing

a standard classification system of chemical compounds and elements. Included should be improved testing protocols and regulations over use and distribution. However, it should be cautioned that, although it is in many respects superior to the currently proposed pesticide legislation and I am referring to the draft of the House Agriculture Committee-as it stands now even in the amended version the proposed legislation is not adequate to regulate the suggested additions, and additional provisions would be required.

In the interest of time I will conclude my remarks; however, I am including here further remarks on the proposed legislation for your consideration.

Senator SPONG. Thank you. They will be received.

(The attachment follows:)

The amended version of S. 1478 contains important strengthening provisions, and since this is the preferred version of the legislation I will address my comments to it.

1. Sec. 202(10) The definition of "protect health and the environment" should be expanded to include potential hazards and risk of hazards.

2. Sec. 203 The proposed regulations for standards for test protocols should be published in the Federal Register.

3. Sec. 204 Certification of chemical substances on the basis of test results is a vital step. Rather than have producers perform the tests (or contract on their own with other labs to perform the tests), a new system should be devised in which labs certified by or administered by the government would perform the tests. Producers would be assessed costs for these tests. This system would be similar to licensing fees.

4. Sec. 206 The definition of imminent hazard should be broadened to include potential or risk of potential hazard.

5. Sec. 209 This has been commented on in text of statement.

6. Sec. 210 The National Academy of Sciences should not be the only source for recommendations of representatives to serve on the Toxic Substances Board, particularly with respect to representatives of industry, consumer, environmental groups, and the general public. The administrator could name these representatives.

7. Sec. 231 State regulations should be allowed to be more strict.

8. Sec. 220 A provision should be added to make the data available to the public.

STATEMENT OF LOUISE C. DUNLAP, ASSISTANT LEGISLATIVE DIRECTOR, FRIENDS OF THE EARTH

Miss DUNLAP. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I am Louise C. Dunlap, assistant legislative director of Friends of the Earth, an international environmental organization, with Washington offices at 620 C Street, S.E. I appreciate this opportunity to testify, and shall condense my remarks.

Friends of the Earth wish to commend you, Senator Spong, for your thorough analysis of the administration bill and for the substantial improvements to S. 1478 offered in your amendment. The Spong amendment clearly provides a legislative mandate for more comprehensive public protection against broad discretionary actions of a weak administrator, as allowed under S. 1478. Although more stringent, your amendment seems to provide industry with more equitable regulations and administrative procedures.

Among the more obvious weaknesses of the administration bill is the failure to provide the administrator with mandatory obligations to promulgate specific sections of the act. Rather S. 1478 is riddled with loosely constructed discretionary authority which would obscure