We also are in the process of identifying the most important things that we think need to be continued. Of course, all of us in this project are in farm States, and we have a different interest than anybody that has testified this morning, because we have no vested interest whatsoever in either promoting or selling or regulating pesticides. Our interest is in maintaining agricultural productivity in this country.

Mr. Higbee put his finger on one of the most pressing problems that I see in Texas, and that is the inflationary and increasing cost of products based on petroleum chemicals. Since 1972, the prices of these products have increased 100, 200, and 400 percent.

We are in a State in which natural gas is deregulated, and the cost of gas for irrigation and other farm purposes is increasing greatly. When you add all these costs to the farmers that are involved, for example, in the Great Plains of this country, we are absolutely headed for disaster if we do not change our way of doing business.

Senator LUGAR. I think that is right. You are really trying to minimize the use of pesticides. You have talked about controlled use. Dr. ADKISSON. We are trying to optimize it for the farmers. Senator LUGAR. Well, I would think that this would be of considerable value in the total EPA program. At least I, for one, would want to commend this idea to them, and I suspect the chairman shares my enthusiasm. He has probably been at it longer than I have.

Dr. ADKISSON. I would be very pleased if you would do that. Senator LEAHY. I think it has a great deal of merit. I would like to see us have hearings, hold briefings, or otherwise, on this. I am glad you were able to testify. I am glad this will be part of the record. It will be expanded on by this subcommittee. I suspect all of us share that interest.

Dr. ADKISSON. Well, sir, I am privileged to be here, and if you have hearings, any of our group from any of the universities would be pleased to come and assist you in any way possible.

Senator LEAHY. Thank you very much.

Dr. ADKISSON. Thank you.

Senator LEAHY. The next witness is John Hall, who is vice president of resource and environment, National Forest Products Association. Again, I am going to have to remind not only myself, but everybody else here to speak up. Every time I say that we are going to speak up, the reporter has a look of relief on her face. And then, within about 5 minutes, all our voices drop down to where that look changes to one of justifiable concern. We will try to keep it up there for you.

Again, as in the past, Mr. Hall's statement will be included for the record.*

And, also, for the record, you are joined by

Mr. HALL. Mr. Bruce Grefrath, manager of environmental quality for the National Forest Products Association.

Senator LEAHY. Would you spell your name, sir?
Mr. GREFRATH. G-r-e-f-r-a-t-h.

*See p. 133 for the prepared statement of Mr. Hall.

STATEMENT OF JOHN F. HALL, VICE PRESIDENT, RESOURCE AND ENVIRONMENT, NATIONAL FOREST PRODUCTS ASSOCIATION, ACCOMPANIED BY BRUCE GREFRATH, MANAGER, ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY

Mr. HALL. We represent the forest products industry, timber landowners and growers, harvesters, and also, the manufacturers and distributors of solid wood products. In this country we lose about $500 million worth of timber annually from death due to insects and disease and from the lost growing potential of these stands of timber until they are replanted.

To put that in perspective, that is about the value of the timber which is sold from the federally owned national forests, annually. That is a significant amount of timber that is lost.

Senator LEAHY. That is a very graphic way of putting it in perspective.

Mr. HALL. There are problems in the seed orchards and nurseries. which provide the reforestation material for forest management. Part of the difficulty is that we are a minor or special user of chemicals. We have high value crops. The volume of pesticides that we use is fairly small, which means that the chemical manufacturer is hard put to go through the rigorous proof and the economic costs of certifying new chemicals for use in forest management.

In fact, with one exception, no chemical has ever been developed initially for use in forest management. We have been a residual user of those chemicals which have been developed for agricultural purposes and for which some benefit in treating a forest pest has later been determined. Because of this two aspects of the EPA process are of concern to us, and appended to my statement are two suggested amendments.

The first one deals with the research and development necessary for registration of pesticides. We recommend that section 3 (c) (2) of the act be amended to include or at least authorize EPA to accept a different degree of proof which recognizes the anticipated patterns of use, the extent of use, and the level and degree of potential exposure both of the chemical to man and to the environment. These, we think, would be a helpful way of decreasing the economic cost.

Senator LEAHY. What you are looking for, in effect, is for the EPA to recognize your use as being different from that of an agricultural use, and while it may even be using some of the same products because of the use, the application should be different.

Mr. HALL. Right. We have two items. One, the use of pesticides in forest nurseries. Seed orchards, and forests is very minimal. Forestry is not like an agricultural crop where a chemical may be applied several times in a life span. If chemicals are used more than once in the 40- to 80-year lifespan of a tree, it becomes uneconomical.

The exposure to man, the applicator, or to the environment from the use of pesticides in forestry is small and EPA should have the authority to demand data for registration commensurate with the amount of pesticide used.

Further, there might be some opportunity for collective registrations where several forest insects could be combined under a unit registration rather than each insect being covered separately or each species of tree covered separately.

Our second point is the definition of "inconsistent with the label." You have heard testimony on this point already today. And we, again, recommend that the EPA have authority to discontinue the PEPS policy—the so-called Pesticide Enforcement Policy Statement-which, in effect, recognizes a violation of the label but says, "go ahead and do it, we will not prosecute you."

We have provided suggested language here for section 2 (ee) which would recognize the authority to use a chemical if you are using it in dosages less than the amount and applications less frequently than that suggested in the label so long as health hazard problems were met. This concludes our recommendations to the committee.

Senator LEAHY. You have a concern, also, I understand, about the availability of the minor use chemicals, the present standards. Mr. HALL. Yes.

Senator LEAHY. Thank you.

Senator?

Senator LUGAR. The only question I want to raise is on your amendment on data in support of registration. You have asked that, "in the development of separate standards, the administrator shall consider the economic factors of potential national volume, extent of distribution, impact of cost," and that sort of thing, which is commonsense. I suppose the problem always with this is that, conceivably, you could have a toxic agent that is very serious, even if the application is relatively small. And we do not get back, precisely, to the Delaney amendment problem, but it would sort of edge back to it in a way. If you have a danger, it is a danger, regardless of the extent. And how do you meet that argument, generally?

Mr. HALL. Mr. Grefrath will respond to that question.

Mr. GREFRATH. The important thing to remember here is that the basic product probably has been already registered in agriculture. And all we are doing is adapting it for our specific use.

For example, there is a product registered for use in seed orchards. Test data that was submitted to support registration of this product only related to trees up to 9 inches in diameter, and so EPA would not register it for use on trees over 9 inches in diameter. This is the type of problem that we are trying to eliminate with this amendment. Senator LUGAR. Thank you.

Senator LEAHY. Thank you very much.

Mr. HALL. Thank you.

Senator LEAHY. Our next witness is Dr. Philip Spear, the executive director of the National Pest Control Association, Vienna, Va. Dr. Spear's testimony will be made part of the record.*

Correct me if I am mistaken, Dr. Spear, that your association has been in favor of the original FIFRA legislation, thought it was good legislation, but feels that the way that is has been administered and

*See p. 135 for the prepared statement of Dr. Spear.

handled is not consistent with the original legislation, expecially in the areas of application and areas of labeling. Is this correct?

Dr. SPEAR. Precisely so.

Senator LEAHY. And what, basically, are the changes you would ask us to make?

STATEMENT OF DR. PHILIP J. SPEAR, ACTING EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, NATIONAL PEST CONTROL ASSOCIATION, VIENNA, VA. Dr. SPEAR. The changes that have already been referred to earlier, having to do with definitions distinguishing use from distribution and sale. I think I could support the comments that have been made by several speakers on that subject. This is a fundamental and an extremely important concept to have clarified for our association.

Senator LEAHY. Is your association unanimous in that?

Dr. SPEAR. I can recall no dissent, because we are totally users. The area of industry that we represent has to do only with use.

Senator LEAHY. Does that create quite a problem for you; I mean, the way it has been administered?

Dr. SPEAR. Indeed, indeed. And it gives EPA inspection authority, which I doubt Congress intended them to have; to treat us as if we were manufacturers or suppliers of products, which make it, according to their views, proper to give us over-the-shoulder inspections, and this is awkward in many situations.

We have no intention of doing wrong, but we would hope that the pressure would be on the bad boys, rather than those of us who tried to do good.

Senator LEAHY. Doctor, tell me about the question of the use inconsistent with the label.

Dr. SPEAR. Our industry combats three or four-at most, a dozenmain and important pests, but, at one time or another, some of the minor pests occur. A new pest may occur, as in the case of your own State some 15 years ago, the face fly suddenly appeared and moved across the country. That was a new pest. If enforcement had been carried on as EPA does now, we would not have been able to use our ingenuity and take the assistance of people like your own Dr. George MacCollum at the University of Vermont to develop and apply the knowledge that we had, until we went through the tortuous process of getting the product labeled for that particular use.

Senator LEAHY. Senator Lugar?

Senator LUGAR. Why do you favor State registration of pesticides? Dr. SPEAR. For flexibility in response to immediate local needs. I was in Hawaii earlier this year. They had some desperate problems, because their situation is unique. But many of our States have more or less unique problems that need to be dealt with and can be handled on the local level.

Senator LUGAR. What is the experience of your association, then, as far as the adequacy or the competence of that sort of registration at the State level?

Dr. SPEAR. Excellent. That is the way pesticides are now being registered. It is being done at the State level, through the 24(c) mechanism.

Senator LUGAR. Thank you.

Senator LEAHY. Thank you very much. I appreciate the statement. Our last witness is Dana K. Griffin, president of the International Sanitary Supply Association, accompanied by Scott Whitney, professor, Environmental Law, College of William & Mary, Williamsburg, Va.

I might add that it is probably one of the most beautiful campuses in this country.

Mr. WHITNEY. Thank you.

Mr. GRIFFIN. Mr. Chairman, we are also accompanied by Joseph Lyman.

Senator LEAHY. Your statement will be placed in the record.*

Probably the best thing to do is ask you in what major areas—you have been here throughout the day-in what major areas do you disagree with the preceding witness, or what major areas do you agree. STATEMENT OF DANA K. GRIFFIN, PRESIDENT, INTERNATIONAL SANITARY SUPPLY ASSOCIATION, ACCOMPANIED BY SCOTT C. WHITNEY, PROFESSOR, ENVIRONMENTAL LAW, WILLIAM & MARY COLLEGE, AND JOSEPH J. LYMAN

Mr. GRIFFIN. Sir, we have no disagreements with what was said, because we are here for a slightly different matter. We are not involved, in our industry, in the pesticides.

Well, let me just give you a very little description of our industry. We are comprised of about 2,000 formulators, and I believe the testimony shows manufacturers, but they are formulators and distributors of various maintenance chemicals and the equipment and the supplies. So, they are used in institutions.

Our products do not find their way into the household, except, perhaps, by theft of the janitor. The chemicals that we are talking about, the disinfectants, are the things that keep this building reasonably fit to inhabit; the rest rooms; in hospitals, to disinfect the floors and the walls and the beds, and all surfaces; in the pools.

Senator LEAHY. But you end up being very concerned about the questions or registration, data compensation?

Mr. GRIFFIN. Yes, because the very products-in data compensation, this is an area that we are not presently concerned with, because in the disinfectant industry, we basically have four basic chemicals, which have been used for many, many years.

And if I may just name them: The halogens, which includes chlorine that is used in swimming pools, so that you can swim in your pool; also used in the dairy industry for rinsing of their products. Now, the phenolics are a disinfectant used throughout hospitals; quaternary ammonium is another type of product, which is a direct competitor of your phenolics; a little newer, and you have as many opinions which one is the best, depending upon the user; and pine oil, one of the oldest disinfectants. I would have to think that, probably, Adam and Eve used a little bit of pine oil someplace along the line.

*See p. 138 for the prepared statement of Mr. Griffin.