the premarket notification period on the basis of an insufficiency of information with respect to health and environmental safety data. Being able to specify what constitutes an insufficiency would clearly be in the interest of the agency. It would also aid the chemical industry as well in knowing with greater precision how to comply with the act.

While the authority now exists for EPA to develop interpretive rules, in the absence of specific rulemaking authority, judicial review of these kinds of rules could well become protracted in an enforcement proceeding because of the greater scope of judicial review accorded them.

Rulemaking authority is provided in other statutes administered by EPA, including the Federal Water Pollution Control Act, the Clean Air Act, and the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act. There is no good reason why the authority should not be provided here as well.

The danger of serious chemical contamination incidents has been increasing due to the enormous growth of the use of chemicals and chemical products in the United States. In just the past 10 years the production of synthetic organic chemicals has expanded by 233 percent. There is no reason to believe our reliance on the use of chemicals will wane in the future.

Enforcement of the Toxic Substances Control Act is imperative to enhance our ability to prevent toxic chemical pollution. Yet no system is infalliable. Passage of S. 1531 is needed to provide a mechanism for compensating victims of toxic chemical pollution when and if our safety mechanisms fail. Evidenced by the Michigan PBB disaster, toxic chemical-affected individuals cannot rely upon either existing social service programs or the courts to provide relief.

STATEMENT OF HON. WILLIAM D. FORD, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF MICHIGAN

Mr. FORD. Thank you Mr. Chairman for the opportunity to express my thoughts to the Subcommittee on Consumer Protection and Finance of the House Interstate and Foreign Commerce Committee regarding the growing and unpredictably dangerous problem of chemical contaminations.

To emphasize the problems and dangers of a chemical contamination, I would like to take this opportunity to expand upon one chemical contamination I have followed closely and one that is very important to all Michiganites. This incident involves the chemical polybrominated biphenyls (PBB). Briefly, the contamination occurred in Michigan when bags of the toxic fire retardant, Firemaster, which contains PBB, were inadvertently added to livestock feed in place of a dairy feed supplement and thus placed in the food chain.

There are two primary areas of concern I would like to address in dealing with this chemical contamination. First, there is the health area. Unfortunately, the effects of PBB on human health are not completely known. A comprehensive study conducted by a team of environmental scientists, under the direction of Dr. Irving J. Selikoff of the Mount Sinai School of Medicine in New York, made several startling discoveries.

Under Dr. Selikoff's direction, the team examined more than 1,000 contaminated farm residents. Among the 638 adults examined, the following findings were recorded: Roughly 2 percent had bromine acne, a skin condition known to result only from exposure to chemicals in the halogenated family, (PBB is a member); over 16 percent complained of gastrointestinal problems; nearly 21 percent had unusual skin conditions; over 27 percent of the group displayed some form of joint problems, and many complained of arthritic-like symptoms at unusually young ages; 32 percent stated that their health had deteriorated, and 37 percent displayed some form of neurologic disorder, including disorientation, memory loss, lack of coordination, and memory blackouts.

These findings prompted further studies. Experiments with rodents conducted by John A. Moore, Acting Associate Director of Research Resources for the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences in North Carolina, revealed that PBB can cause immunological damage. As you well know, a damaged immunological system weakens the human body's ability to fight off disease and infection thus making a contaminated person more susceptible to further health problems.

The largest statewide health survey in U.S. history involving some 6,000 people is scheduled to assess PBB's effects on Michigan's 9 million residents. This study will, for the first time, include the testing of individuals from metropolitan areas such as the Detroit metropolitan area to analyze the effects of the contamination. Some reports indicate that nearly everyone in Michigan has come into contact with PBB.

The second area of concern deals with the economic effects of the PBB contamination. The latest count shows over 30,000 head of cattle, 4,600 hogs, 1,400 sheep and poultry totaling 1,500,000 have been destroyed as well as nearly 865 tons of feed, approximately 18,000 pounds of cheese, 2,630 pounds of butter, 34,000 pounds of dry milk products, and nearly 5 million eggs, because of PBB contamination. As you can easily see, Mr. Chairman, economic losses resulting from PBB contamination have totaled millions of dollars. Besides the direct economic losses of farmers, which have been estimated between $10 and $20 million, losses can also be attributed to the loss of income to the beef industry due to the Canadian embargo on Michigan beef; the State legislature lowering PBB safety levels, and a general decline in consumer confidence in food products. Signs such as "No Michigan Beef" and "Iowa Beef Only" were common in retail and fast food stores.

In many cases, farmers who have sought to recover their financial losses through the judicial system have met with delays and legal obstacles and many of these farmers are still awaiting settlement for losses. One case, now in its 13th month, which is a Michigan record, is expected to set the precedent for similar cases. Settlement of this case, (Tacoma v. Farm Bureau et. al.), however, is not expected for some time. It is estimated that the nearly 270 personal injury cases will not be resolved for at least 3 years. In the meantime many of the farmers who are waiting for settlement continue to experience economic hardship due to prior contamination.

Although some property damage suits have been settled, other farmers who have animals at lower levels of contamination generally have not been able to receive any settlement, even though their animals may be in very poor health.

According to experts in toxic substance litigation, exceedingly long delays are an inherent part of the process. In fact, delays are often a strategic maneuver on the part of defendants in this type of litigation.

Mr. Chairman, I am not prepared to place a price on the discomfort and anxiety the PBB contamination has caused many Michigan farmers and others affected by this terrible incident.

This is not an isolated incident. The potential for chemical contaminations is great. According to the Department of Agriculture, at lease 30 instances of chemical contamination, involving 24 States and costing approximately $100 million, have been recorded since 1969. Mr. Chairman, I would like to present this list for the record.

INCIDENTS OF MAJOR CHEMICAL CONTAMINATION OF LIVESTOCK AND POULTRY SINCE 1969

New York.

1971 Poultry

1,000,000 PCB.
2,500,000 Do.
50,000 Do.
2,500 Dieldrin.

3,000,000 PCB.

150,000 Dieldrin. 78,000 Do. 90,000 Do. 2,000,000 Chlordane. 88,000 Dieldrin. 20,000 Do. 25,000 HCB.

Do.

567,000 PCB.

1Approximate.

Source: USDA.

Mr. FORD. It is estimated, Mr. Chairman, that 500 to 700 new chemicals enter commerce in significant quantities each year. Hazardous waste generation, including radioactive materials, is increasing at an annual rate of 5 to 10 percent. In addition, the potential dangers of pollutants, once discharged, combining with other toxants to produce a deadly substance, are immeasurable. Because of the nature of the manufacturing industry and its growth in technology, a serious, unassessed risk to every Ameri

can's health has been created. Not one home, neither yours nor mine, is immune from the dangerous effects of a chemical contamination.

The major fear in a chemical contamination is the possible effects on the food chain. Once the food chain is infiltrated, the contamination can easily spread, affecting millions of Americans. This occurs when potentially toxic chemicals never intended to be used in agriculture are placed in the food chain through animal feed or crops.

Mr. Chairman, problems from PBB still prevail in Michigan. Obviously, both the State and Federal Government are not adequately organized and structured to deal swiftly and effectively with such chemical problems. The Federal Government has developed a plan to deal swiftly with natural disasters. I believe the same must be done with chemical contamination disasters.

Congressman Ruppe and I have introduced a bill, H.R. 9947, which provides the mechanism to combat the economic and physical hardships caused by chemical contaminations.

To combat the health problems, this measure calls for grants to operate medical facilities and programs to study the effect of the contaminant on livestock and human beings and for the treatment of human beings. This is a necessary provision because once a person is infected, the toxic chemical must be removed from the body as soon as possible to minimize the potential for health problems.

The bill will also authorize the EPA to make payments to individuals for actual medical expenses above their insurance coverage. This will help those individuals who do not have or cannot afford insurance.

To prevent undue economic hardships, this measure allows for quick action by the State. Once a chemical contamination has occurred, the bill allows the State to identify the chemical, to condemn the contaminated food and livestock and promptly compensate those harmed by the chemical. Then the State attorney general could proceed in court against the chemical offender, if there were a legally liable party.

Once the State has taken these steps, it can apply for Federal compensation of up to 75 percent of the State costs from the Environmental Protection Agency so that the individuals and the State do not suffer further financial pressures while legal action is proceeding. After a court decision is made, any money judgment would be returned to the State and Federal government in proportion to the amount expended by each party.

Mr. Chairman, the Senate has passed its companion version of this bill, S. 1531, and I urge the Subcommittee on Consumer Protection and Finance to consider H.R. 9947 as soon as possible. It is unfortunate that a disaster has to occur before Congress will focus its attention on a problem. The PBB contamination in Michigan is the worst chemical contamination in our Nation's history and its effects have been devastating. Hopefully, Congress will learn from this unfortunate tragedy and create a comprehensive plan to protect the public from future chemical contamination.

Thank you.

Mr. ECKHARDT. Now, Mr. Soble, you come forward please. I think you have already been identified, but for the record you might identify yourself again.

STATEMENT OF STEPHEN M. SOBLE

Mr. SOBLE. My name is Stephen Soble, I am statute editor for the Harvard Journal on Legislation.

Mr. Chairman, I would like to thank you and the committee for inviting me to testify on the Toxic Substance Pollution Victim Compensation Act, H.R. 9616.

H.R. 9616 provides a system for the compensation of victims of toxic substance pollution. However, this bill is also designed to deal with the larger problem of alleviating the ill-effects of toxic substance pollution which effect American Society at-large. The impact of toxic substances on human health, as discussed by Mr. Brodhead today, presents the Congress with a problem which no legislation has adequately addressed: How can our society regulate a substance when its eventual health effects may be currently unknown? Thus, H.R. 9616 is designed to do more than just provide compensation: It provides a means by which manufacturers of toxic substances can exercise a high degree of self-regulation in their use of toxic substances thereby making our world safer and healthier in which to live.

Since, I understand, this committee will explore the regulatory approach of H.R. 9616 and other aspects of the bill in forthcoming hearings, I shall limit my remarks this morning to a general description of the operation of the compensation system under the bill.

At the outset, I would note that the compensation system of H.R. 9616 does not establish a system of direct Federal grants. It does not set up a revolving fund, nor rely on bonds, low-interest loans, or other stopgap measures. H.R. 9616 is a comprehensive compensation system which was designed to complement the Toxic Substances Control Act, compensate actual victims of toxic substance pollution, and encourage the maximum level of safety in the manufacture and disposal of toxic substances, consistent with a sound national economic policy.

Structurally, this bill establishes two independent administrative agencies the Administrative Board for Compensation of Victims of Toxic Substance Pollution, known as the ABC, and the Office of Ombudsman for Victims of Toxic Substance Pollution, or the Ombudsman.

The ABC serves as the central agency of the system, doing most of the system's work. The Ombudsman is intended to guide the efficient and fair implementation of the act.

In brief, the system operates as follows: A person who, in consultation with an authorized physician, has reason to suspect that he is suffering from a toxic substance pollution-related disease, may file a claim with the ABC. Authorized physicians are physicians licensed under the laws of any State who have met the requirements of the ABC to qualify as an authorized physician.

After an injured person files such a claim, including a medical report, with the ABC, the ABC may then classify the injured person as a claimant. Under this broad standard, most persons who