30 



are actually present in the environment, in the food chain, and 

 within human tissues. It seems to me unconscionable not to under- 

 stand fully the chemicals that are present, for example, within the 

 human ovary. And if there are significant data gaps on those exist- 

 ing chemicals, it seems to me that that's a rational signal for prior- 

 ity testing. 



Senator Reid. This is in keeping with what Congressman Synar 

 said: number one, priorities; number two, the criteria after you es- 

 tablish these priorities, and then you would have to have some 

 built-in timetable, as I recall he said; and then I think the last 

 thing is that there would be in effect teamwork among the different 

 statutes. 



Dr. MuiR. Senator, I offered a little different idea than has been 

 expressed in any of the testimony thus far as to how this particular 

 problem might be tackled. My view is that we need to develop con- 

 sensus as to what's appropriate and not appropriate in general to 

 do with materials. These are use categories, by which decisions can 

 be made and responsibilities assigned. 



For example, there should be a norm that persistent bio-accumu- 

 lative toxic chemicals ought not to be used in dispersive uses. 

 There are several such categories that should be reflected as social 

 policies, and those could be included in a statute as a general duty 

 that chemical producers and users should follow, much as the Oc- 

 cupational Safety and Health Act establishes a general duty to 

 business to provide a safe working environment. 



If we don t have something like that, if we end up with the EPA 

 still required to prioritize and carry the burden of analysis and 

 with action only through promulgated rulemaking, then we're not 

 going to be tackling very many problems over the next decade. 



So I think the basic burden, even with respect to existing chemi- 

 cals, needs to fall where it belongs, and that's on the people who 

 produce and use these chemicals in particular applications. I be- 

 lieve that a general duty clause in the new TSCA might be a way 

 not only to have that norm as a goal, but also as enforceable policy. 



Senator Reid. Thank you. Dr. Muir. 



Dr. Silbergeld, how do you feel about that? 



Dr. Silbergeld. I guess I'm concerned about such general prin- 

 ciples and 



Senator Reid. Are they better than what we have now, which is 

 no principles? 



Dr. Silbergeld. It's tempting to think so, but I'm not certain be- 

 cause I do believe that the world of chemicals will always be com- 

 plex, and there always will be complex judgments made in evaluat- 

 ing risks individually or in groups, and also in comparing risks in 

 terms of making rational judgments as to substitution. And I think 

 that's an important burden that should be sustained within TSCA 

 that is a consideration of great importance particularly in an era 

 of pollution prevention. 



I am not certain that general norms would encourage that proc- 

 ess or would impede it. 



Senator Reid. How could it impede it? 



Dr. Silbergeld. Well, one might find, for example, that the spe- 

 cific use of a persistent bio-accumulative substance frees one from 

 enormous uses and dispersions of highly toxic, although rapidly de- 



