32 



because he's been involved in this as well, and he can correct me 

 if I represent or misconstrue any aspects of it. 



It essentially uses the criterion of production volume as an initial 

 finding of the probability of exposure. Above a certain amount of 

 production, no matter what that production is for, there is a pre- 

 sumption that exposure will occur. 



Senator Reid. Didn't we already establish that production isn't 

 the criteria because 



Dr. SiLBERGELD. It isn't the only criterion, but it's better than 

 none, I would say. It won't capture all of the problems. For exam- 

 ple, there needs to be specific legislation for such obvious problems 

 as lead. 



Having reached that presumption, we then agree that there is a 

 minimum amount of actual information which is essential to mak- 

 ing any further decision — ^whatever that decision might be. That 

 minimum amount of information is embodied specifically in a set 

 of tests which can be conducted and replicated in a range of labora- 

 tories, government industry, wherever, around the world and will 

 produce reliable data that can be interpreted. Those data may then 

 support a variety of nationally specific or internationally har- 

 monized actions, but they then place on the table a reliable and 

 consistent set of information for chemicals about which we would 

 probably all agree there is a need to have that information. 



I would suggest two things: one is it shows that a simple priority 

 rule can work and can cut down the universe into a manageable 

 amount; and, number two, that in a fairly rapid fashion a defined 

 set of data can be acquired. 



Now, the principle of the defined data set could be applied to 

 other prioritization rules including persistent bio-accumulative or 

 any other type of priority one might want to use. So the two parts 

 of the OECD SIDS program can operate separately. I think they're 

 both critically important and the fact that they have been sup- 

 ported by the efforts of U.S. industry and the chemical industry 

 worldwide shows that they are an enormous improvement over our 



Senator Reid. What effect would that have had if that had been 

 in effect with the Fifth Circuit's ruling on asbestos? 



State your name for the record please. And, by the way, I appre- 

 ciate your help on the lead legislation. 



Ms. Florini. Thank you, Senator. 



Senator Reid. State your name for the record. 



Ms. Florini. Karen Florini, Senior Attorney with the Environ- 

 mental Defense Fund. 



The question of changing the immeasurably problematic situa- 

 tion that now exists under section 6 I think is somewhat different 

 than dealing more extensively with getting initial information 

 which is where Dr. Silbergeld was going with that. 



Senator Reid. I understand that. 



Ms. Florini. What we need to do instead is untangle the mess 

 that comes from three factors that now independently exist in sec- 

 tion 6 — ^the substantial evidence burden, the unreasonable risk 

 standard itself, and the requirement of least burdensome alter- 

 native. We have to separately address how to take at least two, if 

 not all of those, off" the table. 



