23 



With that type of norm and with public information, we are able 

 through the Toxics Release Inventory and other information to tell 

 what companies are doing, and companies are clear as to what is 

 expected of them. There simply is no equivalent with respect to the 

 production and marketing and use of toxic substances in commerce. 



My own view is that use categories are an important parameter 

 in coming forward with comparable norms for toxics in commerce. 

 We have much greater problems with dispersive uses, for example, 

 than with closed system uses. We have much greater problems 

 with consumer uses than with research chemicals. We have very 

 limited information, and indeed the EPA has limited information, 

 on the uses of chemicals, and I think it will be important to get 

 that information to establish use-based norms. Such norms are 

 needed to place the basic responsibilities for determining unreason- 

 able risk on producers and users, and the basic responsibility for 

 risk management on the part of producers and users. And we need 

 to collect public information to be able to track progress, to make 

 that information publicly available in contrast to current practices 

 and to make our producers and users accountable for following the 

 norms. And I think that we need to make only minor adjustments 

 in the chemical provisions of the Act. 



I would point out that, at the time that the law passed in 1976, 

 among those of us who had spent 6 years working on it as a legisla- 

 tive proposal, I think the consensus was that the testing provisions, 

 the control provisions, and the information provisions represented 

 the state-of-the-art environmental legislation. Those are the provi- 

 sions that clearly have failed under the Act. It was the new chemi- 

 cal provisions that were so contentious through that 6-year period 

 that most of us felt they would have to be revisited — and revisited 

 very shortly — ^because they probably represented a non-viable com- 

 promise. Yet, the new chemical provisions of the Act have been per- 

 haps the most successful aspect of the entire program. 



Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 



Senator Reid. Thank you very much. 



I'm going to ask these questions of the panel, and I'll direct the 

 first question to Mr. Guerrero, but if the other two panelists have 

 a response, I would appreciate your just joining in with a response. 



I understand that in notifications for new chemicals, the manu- 

 facturer submits estimates on exposure and intended production 

 uses. 



Can you gauge how reliable these estimates have been — either, 

 you, Mr. Guerrero, or you, Mr. Smith, or anybody? 



Mr. Guerrero. Thev are exactly that. They're estimates and 

 they can change, and they do change when the manufacturer later 

 on changes the rates of production or change the uses. The 

 premanufacture notices that are given to the EPA are not binding. 

 That is, what they provide to the EPA is the best information at 

 that point regarding how much the manufacturers intend to 

 produce and how the chemical is intended to be used. Production 

 and uses can change significantly and do. 



Now, neither I nor EPA can quantify the extent to which produc- 

 tion levels and uses do change. The EPA has no way of easily get- 

 ting information on the changes in production and use, which clear- 

 ly have an impact on potential for exposure. 



