Document qd5D1JQ7pyBggOv8v3vwMJ2yE

KFMARXS BY T1D-, HONORABIE RUSSRI.r. E. TKAJN ADMINISTRATOR, U.S. DWIRONMENTAI, PROTECTION AQ-NCY PKHBARH) FOR DFl.IVEKY BEFORE IMF: NATIONAL PRESS ClUB THURSUAY, FEBRUARY 26, 1976, 1:00 P.M. Testing Chemicals, Not People: Bringing the Chemical Threat Under Control W.H. Auden once remarked that: "Today in the technologically advanced countries . . . wc have little to fear frcm nature; our only serious protdaw is man . . . Hie mastery over nature has, as it were, brought man back to the same point at which he stood when he was utterly helpless before her." There are, however, sene differences. It is, to begin with, no longer the creatures and forces of the natural world that most threaten us: it is no longer even such historic diseases as the pox or the plague; it is, instead, such strange new creatures of our own making as "bischlorcnethyl ether" and "nitrosandnes" and "polychlorinated biphenyls" and "polyvinyl chloride." They are all around us -- in our air, our water, our food, and in the things wc touch. When they hit us, wc don't feci a thing. Their ill-effects may not show up until decades later, in the form of cancer -- or even generations later, in the form of nutated genes -- wticn it is, often, too late to undo the damage. Most Americans had no idea, until relatively recently, that they were living so dangerously. They had no idea that when they went to work in the morning, or when they ate their breakfast -- that wticn they did the things they had to do to earn a living and keep themselves alive and well -- that when they did things as ordinary, as innocent and as HONS 060700 -2esscntial to life as eat, drink, breathe or touch they could, in fact, be laying their lives on the line. They had no idea that, without their knowledge or consent, they were often engaging in a grim game of chemical roulette whose result they would not knew until many years later. They had no idea until, increasingly over recent years, they picked up the morning paper or turned on the evening news and learned of saic new chemical hazard they had boon exposed to, often for years and almost always unwittingly. Increasingly, as well, they learned al.out the appal 1ingly high death rates as a result of cancer and saw people they knew and loved go through the awful agony of a death by cancer. As a result, I think, the American people are deeply concerned both over the pervasive presence of chemical contaminants throughout the environment and over the high death rates frem cancer. And they may even make the connection between the two. But I do not think there is, among the public at large, any real understanding of the precise nature and extent of the hazards posed by chemical contaminants -- as causes not only of cancer but of other serious ills and afflictions -- or of what we can and must do to deal with them. let me highlight seme of the most important points wc should keep in mird about chendcals and their effects upon human health and life: 1. Over the past few decades, and especially since the end of World War 11, we have released into the environment a vast volume of entirely new chemical compounds with little or no knowledge of their health effects and virtually no effort to determine those effects and to regulate the release of many chemicals that might bo hazardous. MCNS 060701 -32. Wc have reaped enormous benefits frcm these chemicals -- irdood, fran the truly marvelous advances in chemical knowledge and teclinology that we have achieved throughout modem times. Wc must measure these benefits, not only in the economic terms that are apparent to us all, but in health terms as well. Hie fact Ural wc are the first generation in human history to be virtually free of the major infectious diseases is, in no small degree, a result of the application of chemical advances to modern medicine and modern life. 3. The World llealth Organization estimates that between 60 to 90 percent of all cancers are the result of environmental factors -- in the broadest sense of that phrase. National Cancer Institute studies have shown that the highest cancer rates in the country occur in areas with the heaviest concentrations of industrial chemical use and activity. Yet of all the chemical agents in the environment, probably only a very small fraction is responsible for that large share of cancer. Indeed, the odds are that only a relatively small portion of the chemicals in our environment pose any serious health threats. 4. It may take only lirnited exposure to contract cancer. It typically takes anywhere from 15 to 40 years after that exposure for the first onset of cancer to occur.' Because of that long latency period, we have reason to believe that the full impact of the chemical explosion wo have experienced over the past 30 years has only begun to show up in our cancer statistics. Yet already, the experts tell us, one out of every four Americans new alive will ultimately contract saie form of cancer. MONS 060702 w 45. A large and growing share of the diseases that cripple and kill us are caused by environmental factors -- again, in the broadest sense of that phrase. These diseases are going to take an increasingly heavy toll upon our liven and well-being, unless and until we stop trying to deal with them by treating them after they occur, and start taking serious steps to prevent them from occurring in the first place. Our national health care effort must increasingly stress the prevention rather than the treatment of disease, and effective measures for the assessment and control of potentially dangerous chemicals and other agents before they enter the environment must be a key element in this new 6hift toward preventive medicine. To expand on these points: There are today more than 2 million different knewn chemicals; every year, this list grows by an estimated 25,000 new ccnyounds. There are today more than 30,000 chemicals in actual ccnucrcial production; every year, this list grows by sene 1000 new compounds. Of the more than 2 million known chemicals, only a few thousand have- been tested for carcinogenicity and -- aside from those . used in food additives, drugs and pesticides -- only a few hundred have been adequately Vested. Wc knew, in fact, very little about the health effects even of the 30,000 chemicals already in commercial production. VJc have no way of systematically screening the chemicals that do go into production; wc have no way of knowing precisely which chemicals go into production every year. In other words, wc not only don't knew whether MGNS 060703 -5wliat's going out there is dangerous -- wc don't even know what's going out there. We have, however, learned one thing: it's what we don't know that can really hurt us, even kill us. Long after the.y have been loosed upon the world and the public at large, wc have learned what an appallingly wide range of disease and death can be caused by chemicals -- they can attack the liver, the lung, the kidney, the centra] nervous system; they can cause cancer, infant mortality, and genetic damage. Wc have learned, for example, that: -- mercury, lead and cadmium can attack the centra] nervous system; -- carbon tetrachloride and chlorinated phenols can destroy the liver; -- ethylene glycol and cadmium sulfate produce kidney disease; -- asbestos and beryllium often lead to lung disorders; -- vinyl chloride and arsenic cause cancer. Wc have seen our fish contaminated by phthalates, our cattle poisoned by polybraminated biphenyls, and our horses killed by dioxin. Fluorides have destroyed forest seedlings, chloramines have killed oysters, and zinc has damaged our wheat crops. And now the fluorocarlons nay be threatening the ozone belt. When 1 became the first Chairman of the Council on Environncntal Quality in February, 1970 -- almost exactly six years ago -- my very MQNS 06CJ04 -6first directive to our etna]] staff was to develop a legislative proposal for coping with the class of problems presented by chemical and other Contaniinants. A year later, in February, 1971, this legislation, known as the Toxic Substances Control Act, was submitted by the President to the Congress. Twice, over the past five years, the Senate and the House have passed versions of this legislation, but have been unable to agree on the sane version. Last week, the Senate Ccnnerce Ocnmittec reported out Toxic Substances Control legislation for action by the Senate. In the House, the legislation is being considered by a subcannittec of the Interstate and Foreign Camerce Ocmvdttec. Over the five years since such legislation was first proposod, wo have introduced into the ocmncrcial market an estimated 5000 new chemicals. Vte have done so without any systematic, advance assessment of their potential impact upon public health or our ecological resources. Vfc find ourselves 6till without the authority we need to cope with such long standing problems as those posed by polychlorinated biphenyls. Last week, you may recall, it was announced that, for the first tine in history, tire Hudson River will be closed to camercial fishing because it is cent 'irtted by these chemicals. In the Great lakes, ccrmcrciaJ aiv3 sports fisheries that are being restored as the result of massive pollution clean-up efforts are new being threatened by PCH contend nation. Mb remain almost entirely unable to discover how harmful a ocn^ound can be until years after it has beccne a rather canmonplace item in our everyday life, even a significant factor in our economy. And, over and over again, we find ourselves engaged in an extremely difficult and HONS 060705 -7drawn-out struggle to protect the public frcin a hazard to which It has already been exposed wliile at the sane tine trying to avoid putting people out of business or out of work. Polyvinyl clUorlde, for example, was first introduced camcrcially sane 40 years ago. It is the backbone of much of our plastics industry. Its manufacture, according to industry figures, accounts for one percent of our Gross National Product. Vet it was not until 1974 that wc discovered four cases of an extremely rare form of liver cancer among workers in a poly vinyl chloride plant in Louisville. Not until later did we find among these workers excessive cases of more oaninon forms of cancer as well. Only in the last decade or so have we developed the scientific skills and analytic techniques that would enable as to anticipate these effects of vinyl chloride, and a Toxic Substances law enacted several years ago would hardly have helped us prevent this problem. But the odds are that, until wc enact sudi legislation, we will be confronting more and more such situations in the future -- and we can be absolutely certain that, until we enact such legislation, we will be unable to prevent them frail occurring. I might add that our experience with vinyl chloride as well as with such chemicals as asbestos and, most recently, Kepone underscores the fact that it is on the job and in the workplace that the hazards posed by such chanicals are most immediate and acute. It is the workers, and the families of workers, in the shops aid factories where such chemicals arc made and used who boar the brunt of the chemical threat and would benefit most from the early enactment of toxic substances legislation. MOMS 060706 -8Tho plain fact is that, had the Toxic Substances Act been enacted five years ago when it was first proposer!, we would be a lot farther ahead in dealing with sane potentially very serious hazards: -- Wc would have begun to reverse the spread of polychlorinated biphenyls wliich are new destroying sore of our valuable fisheries; -- Wc would already have, as wc now do not, reliable test informa tion concerning the effects of vinylidene chloride which is widely used throughout the plastics industry; -- Wc would have a greatly improved data base for determining the extent to which benzidine-derived dyes reconvert to free benzidine, a well-known human carcinogen, when these widely-used dyes are accidentally ingested or absorbed; -- Wc would have taken a number of steps to clarify the chronic effects and, as necessary, to limit exposure to tris 2,3-dihrceopropyl phosphate, which has mutagenic effects in microbial systems and is widely used as a fire retardant in textile products, including children's pajamas. 1 do not think any of us is under the illusion that there is, or is ever goint -o be, any such thing as a simon-pure, anti; ^ocall" safe world. I do not think any of us imagines that there is, or is ever going to be, a real world without very real risks. But there is absolutely no reason why wc cannot -- there is, in fact, every reason why we mist -- take sensible steps to exercise sate intelligent and effective control over the risks that we ourselves create. The basic aim of the toxic substances control legislation before the Congress is to help us gain MCNS 060202 -9that kind of control -- to help us protect human health by bringing down to reasonable levels the risks that chemicals pose wtdle preserving their benefits. We are not talking, in other words, of getting rid of all risks fran chemicals, but rather of finding out wiiat the risks are and, eventually, of renewing "unreasonable" risks. We are saying that, whatever we do with these chemicals, we ought to knew what we're doing before wc do it, and wo ought to do it with our eyes wide open. We are saying, more specifically, that before people are unwittingly arid unwillingly exposed to a chemical that could hurt or kill them, wc take the trouble to find out what the health effects of that chemical might be, and wc insist that the public interest be taken fully into account in the process by which wc determine those effects and decide whether, or in what circumstances, we "go public" with that chemical. Wiese decisions to test and go public cannot -- as they new are -- be left sirply and solely in private hands. Hie pul die at large is deeply and directly affected by these decisions, and it must have -- s- it now docs not -- a very real say in the process by which they are made. He toxic substances legislation new before the Congress v Id, for the first time, give the public that say. As you might suspect, there is sane disagreement about scnc of the details of the legislation before the Oongrcss. Hie Administration strongly supports toxic substances legislation, but wants to make certain that it docs not impose unnecessary red tape upon industry or government. Inevitably enough, environmentalists are concerned that the legislation MOMS Q6C7G8 -10will not be nearly strong enough; and industry, or at least seno segments of it, is concerned tliat it will be strong enough bo strangle the industry. Sad as it may scan, dull and undramntic as it may appear, the truth lies scnicwhere in-between. The differences in detail about, and among, the different pieces of legislation before the Congress are far less important than the fact that their ocmion aim is to give public health far more of the weight that it deserves in the decisions by which chemicals enter and spread throughout the human environment -- the cceum aim of giving the American people not only the opportunity to understand and assess the risks and benefits of these chemicals, but a decisive voice in sorting out these risks and benefits. The legislation before the Congress would give us the authority, wliieh we do not new have: . -- to get better information about the health and ecological effects, the distribution, the uses, the kinds and levels of exposure, of both known and new chemicals; -- to help prevent hazards and harm to human health and the environment frem chemicals before wo make major econavdc investments in them; -- to balance the various costs, risks and benefits involved before deciding whether, or under what conditions, a potentially hazardous chemical should be introduced into the environnent; -- to help coordinate the presently fragmentary and piecemeal Federal approach to toxic substances. HONS 060709 -11- I consider it of urgent importance that the Congress act now -- in this session -- to enact effective toxic substances legislation, tonain- ing differences should be resolved as rapidly as possible. But it is more important to get legislation on the books new than it is to seek perfection. There will be time to improve legislative authority later as wc gain more experience. But we can no longer afford to wait for the basic authority to deal effectively with the problems of chemical pollution. Wc have done a great deal over the past several years to improve the regulatory process at EPA -- in particular, to make it far sore open and equitable. Our decisions are subjected to more searching scrutiny, more critical review, frem sources inside and outside the Agency and the government, than those of any other agency. Wc have made a strenuous and increasingly successful effort -- most recently in developing our Drinking Water regulations and in setting minimum standards for procurement under EPA grants for the construction of wastewater treatment plants -- to get all the major interested and affected parties actively and effective ly involved throughout the process of developing a regulation. We also have the most open and rigorousjarocess of economic impact analysis I performed by any agency of the Federal government. | It is along those lines, according to those processes, that wc would exorcise our authority under toxic substances legislation. If the legislation docs not require it, I would -- on my cwn -- appoint an Advisory Ccnnuttec which is broadly representative of all major interests to help advise us on implementation of the Act. , HONS 060710 .1 -12- It Is unfortunate that sane scgnents of the chemical industry, which originally took an extremely constructive approach towards the legislation, have taken to actively lobbying against it. I do not believe that either the public interest, or the interests of the industry, are well served by charges that the legislation could -- in the words of One industry sjokesman -- "cripple" the chemical industry and give the Administrator of El'A "near-dictatorial authority over the introduction of new chemical products." The only real "crippling" that is going oti is the kind which this legislation would try to prevent -- the crippling of wtio knows how many Americans every year wto contract cancer or sene other affliction after exposure to sane hazardous chemical agent. Nor has it been on the "near-dictatorial authority" of the EPA Administrator that so many such agents are introduced into the environnent without any effort to find out what their health effects are, much less let the public have any say about whether or not, or in what circumstances, it is willing to be exposed to thorn. Let there be no mistake: the only kind of authority the legislation before the Congress would give us, and the only kind of authority we would intend to exercise, is the authority to'act reasonably and responsibly in the public interest -- and that includes the very real interest the public has in a healthy and productive chcmi ca1 i ndustr y. The choidcal industry has annua] sales of over $100 billion. Wc have estimated that the annual costs to industry ns a result of this legislation would range between $79 million and $142.5 million. The HONS 060711 -13ManufacLuring Chemists Association has estimated costs ranging from $360 million to $1.3 billion a year, with "start-up" costs of over $100 million. Dow Chemical Company estimates an annual cost of $2 billion. At the request of Congress, the Genera] Accounting Office (GAO) analyzed and assessed these different estimates. The GAO concluded that the Dow Chemical estimates were the "least reliable," and that the EPA estimates were the "most reliable" -- although they believed EPA's figures were about 30 percent too low. In testimony before Congress, a GAO spokesmen said that "the EPA interpretation is closer than the industry studies to an aocurate picture of what the legislation will entail." Indeed, recent developments suggest that real breakthroughs are being made in the development of faster and less costly testing methods. The GAO further pointed out that none of the estimates considered the costs to society in avoidable arid unnecessary suffering and death as a result of exposure to hazardous chemicals -- the huge expense that society bears because of the failure to invest enough time snd money in determining the hazards of chemicals. I should think, indeed, that industry would reap seme very real benefits from the approach this legislation contemplates. The testing of potentially hazardous chemicals before "going public" with them would let us know, not only which ones are likely to be harmful, but which ones arc not. Since these tests are by no means fail-safe or fool proof, we cannot precisely give a chord cal an absolutely "clean bill of health," but the industry can market and the public can accept it with WOWS 060712 -14far greater confidence than they can new. Moreover, the "preventive" approach would increasingly reduce the likelihood that wc would have to take action against a chemical after industry has invested extensive resources in its production. Far frcin "stifling innovation," the legislation should serve to encourage the industry to turn its remarkable skills and resources toward the discovery and use of less hazardous chemicals. The issue before us is really very clean will we continue to set so lew a value on human life and health that we will refuse to take the thorougUy sensible and modest steps to protect them that the legislation before the Oongress would involve? Will wc, instead, bring better balance to the decisions by which chemicals are made and marketed by giving full weight to public health in reaching those decisions? It is not, as seme have suggested, a question of assurdng that every chemical is dangerous until proven otherwise -- although 1 would find that a preferable alternative to assuming, as we do now, that every chemical is harmless until we care up with a body count and a clear-cut case. It is a question, rather, of honestly and openly acknowledging that wc simply don't knew whether a chemical is dangerous or not and that, before we expose the public to it, we should take at least a reason. ..lc amount of trouble to find out. It is time wc started putting chemicals to the test, not people. It is time we gave the people of this country scnc reason to believe that, every tine they take a breath or eat or drink or touch, they are _ not taking their life into their hands. HONS 060313 ! -15It 1b time that, down here on earth, we took a couple of Email, sensible steps on behalf of human health and life. MONS 060714 If