20 



should at least function as a vigilant gatekeeper over the entrance 

 of new chemicals into the environment in order to prevent them 

 from joining an increasing list of unknowns. This objective has not 

 been accomplished. You've already heard data on the percentage of 

 new chemicals that actually have data submitted with them, and 

 the very small percentage for which the EPA has attempted to elic- 

 it further data. 



The new chemicals notification system, as implemented by the 

 EPA over the past 18 years, essentially operates in the absence of 

 real data. Now the EPA has developed an ingenious and often valu- 

 able approach based on structure activity relationships and other 

 non-data based methods of analysis. Certainly, the experience and 

 knowledge gained from this approach should be preserved and inte- 

 grated into a reauthorized TSCA. 



However, as a study undertaken by the EPA and the European 

 community demonstrated, this structure activity approach works 

 best when combined with a database evaluation system — that is, a 

 system that actually utilizes information from toxicity testing. 



Based on the success of the OECD program related to existing 

 chemicals, we feel that there is no rational objection to a require- 

 ment of at least the SIDS test as a prerequisite for new chemical 

 notification under section 5 of TSCA. The EPA's review would then 

 be based upon actual data and decisions as to the need for further 

 testing would be rationally focused on those end points or data 

 gaps revealed by such data. The EPA should no longer be placed 

 in the position of having to meet an initial burden of suspicion in 

 order to get these preliminary data. 



The third tool that TSCA granted to the agency was the signifi- 

 cant new use rule provisions of TSCA. This allowed the agency in 

 theory to review significant changes in the use or production pat- 

 terns of already approved chemicals. In a sense, one could consider 

 it a safety net by which we would be able to return to and recon- 

 sider the appropriateness of levels of use and types of exposure for 

 chemicals about which we had reason to be concerned but which 

 under the initial conditions of production and use did not give rise, 

 because of exposure information, to sufficient concerns for actions 

 to be taken. 



The SNUR program has failed to foster a truly preventive pro- 

 gram toward chemicals. As far as we can tell, SNURs having de- 

 ployed by the EPA when it was decided not to invest resources and 

 stronger regulatory actions. 



I would like to conclude by reemphasizing the statements of oth- 

 ers, and that is that Congress must address the theoretical frame- 

 work under which TSCA operates in two respects: 



One is to insure that the language of section 9 and elsewhere in 

 TSCA does not create a barrier to the use of the integrative powers 

 of TSCA. TSCA has been relegated to being used, when it is used 

 at all, as a gap-filling statute, and a very long process of parceling 

 out responsibilities among agencies and different statutory authori- 

 ties has contributed to the extraordinary delay and consideration 

 of specific chemicals. 



I, myself, find it incredible that in 1994 we hear from the EPA 

 that they are permitting industry to test formaldehyde. This is a 

 chemical which we began to consider in this country, I believe, 20 



