40 



And that's been difficult because the EPA is basically mandated 

 to some extent by the statute and other inputs that they have to 

 respond to the crisis of the hour, if you will, and so their resources 

 tend to get drained to the crisis rather than having the time to 

 really systematically approach the priority issues. 



So on the existing chemical side that's where we at CMA are en- 

 couraging the agency, to put in place a systematic approach, let's 

 take the existing data, and where data is needed to fill in the gaps 

 in the systematic approach, let's generate it and go forward. Dr. 

 Silbergeld made reference to the OECD program. In many ways 

 the OECD program is a systematic approach. It picks out some 

 high priority materials, takes high production volume as a surro- 

 gate for exposure, and says OK let's start working on these. As Dr. 

 Silbergeld pointed out, we in industry have supported the OECD 

 BIDS program, and that's a systematic way that the EPA could use 

 to help with its enormous problem in dealing with the existing 

 chemicals. 



Dr. Allenby. I guess, if I could, Mr. Chairman, I would also 

 want to comment on the EPA concept of user cluster, which I think 

 OPPT needs to be commended for. When we look at a chemical in 

 a manufacturing industry, in a manufacturing context, we don't 

 look at it as a single entity. We look at it as providing a function. 

 So we look at the range of functions that we need, and that gives 

 us a range of choices of materials, and then we try to select the 

 best one. What we're doing now is we're putting environmental 

 characteristics in as one of the criteria for determining which mate- 

 rial is the best for particular uses. 



That leads us to ask a number of questions, such as what is the 

 energy that is embedded in this material, what is its recyclability, 

 what are its characteristics — a number of not just environmental, 

 but technical questions that very strongly define its environmental 

 impacts across its life cycle. It's a very, very complex process. Even 

 a company like AT&T doesn't have a lot of the data that are nec- 

 essary, but we need those kinds of data as well as a more tradi- 

 tional data on toxicity because they all feed into an overall assess- 

 ment of what material is environmental preferable. 



Senator Reid. How do you both feel about switching the burden 

 of proof to the manufacturer rather than with the EPA? 



Mr. CONDRAY. Let me comment, if I might. As I pointed out, 

 there is now a burden on the manufacturer within the EPA new 

 chemical program. If through the structure activity or if through 

 the policies that the agency has for screening chemicals they have 

 concern about the chemicals. 



Senator Reid. But that isn't my question. 



Mr. CONDRAY. I understand. 



Senator Reid. My question is I believe that — and we'll just limit 

 this to new products now. 



Mr. CONDRAY. Okay. 



Senator Reid. The burden should be on the chemical manufac- 

 turer to show that that product is safe. 



Mr. CONDRAY. Very much like it is in the FDA to show that the 

 new pharmaceutical is safe. 



Senator Reid. That's right. 



