38 



aged in light of environmental, technological, and market con- 

 straints; and, importantly, the most environmentally preferable 

 material should be used for each application. 



A similar refocusing of TSCA in light of our more sophisticated 

 environment knowledge should be initiated. Toxicity should not be 

 the only environmental end point considered to the exclusion of all 

 other environmental impacts. The point, I emphasize, Mr. Chair- 

 man, is not to deregulate toxics, but to expand our consideration 

 of the environmental impact of materials to match our increased 

 understanding of environmental perturbations. 



Accordingly, TSCA should be refocused. It should produce data 

 and support a regulatory structure which help us understand and 

 move toward sustainable material use in our economy. Not just tox- 

 icity but sustainability. That should be the goal of our environ- 

 mental materials policy. And while TSCA and the EPA will be crit- 

 ical to developing and deploying such a policy, other government 

 organizations must become involved — the Department of Commerce 

 and NIST, the Department of Energy and the National Labs, the 

 Department of the Interior and the Bureau of Mines, for example. 



In my written testimony, I have also discussed some of the more 

 particular concerns chemical users have with TSCA as currently 

 implemented. We are concerned about the breadth and ambiguity 

 of what the EPA considers a "processor," which carries with it sig- 

 nificant regulatory responsibilities as compared to a "user." We are 

 also concerned about the lack of de minimis provisions in many 

 TSCA programs which result in substantial regulatory burdens 

 being placed on transactions involving insignificant amounts of 

 common industrial materials for no apparent resulting environ- 

 mental benefit. 



But I think these issues can be resolved if, as I suggest, we avoid 

 oversimplistic approaches and recognize that what we need to 

 strive for in our environmental policy is sustainable use of mate- 

 rials. TSCA integrated with Federal programs at DOE, NIST, and 

 elsewhere should be an important statutory support for such a 

 broad government policy. 



Mr. Chairman, I'm ready to respond to any questions. 



Senator Reid. Thank you. 



You were present in the room when I asked questions of Dr. 

 Goldman and the other three panelists. Do either of you have any 

 comments in regard to the questions that I asked those panelists? 



Dr. Allenby. I have one from a user perspective, Mr. Chairman. 

 I think that it is important to recognize that there is a difference 

 between chemicals that are in use and chemicals that are new from 

 the user perspective. Frequently, chemicals in use, as opposed to 

 new chemicals, are already embedded in existing technological sys- 

 tems, be they manufacturing processes or whatever, including cap- 

 ital equipment that is designed based on that chemical. So froni a 

 practical point of view, the economic impacts can be very signifi- 

 cant with a chemical in use as compared to a new chemical. That 

 does not mean that they should not be looked at if appropriate, but 

 it does mean that there are a number of other considerations which 

 differentiate between the two. 



Mr. CONDRAY. I would like to comment, if I could, on the dif- 

 ference between the new chemical program and the existing chemi- 



