45 



we have held five oversight hearings and requested numerous GAO reports on 

 TSCA-related subjects. 



Unfortunately, whatever the subject of the hearing or report, the findings were 

 always the same — TSCA has largely failed to live up to its mission. In fact, the Act 

 is EPA's biggest under-achiever. 



Of all the major environmental statutes of the 1970s, TSCA has changed the 

 least. Its original missions and requirements have remained the same for the past 

 18 years, even though TSCA has been used as a vehicle for additional responsibil- 

 ities which fit nowhere else in EPA — such as the regulatory programs for asbestos, 

 radon and lead-based paint. 



Yet in some ways TSCA is EPA's most modem statute. Congress enacted TSCA 

 "to prevent unreasonable risks of injury to health or the environment associated 

 with the manufacture, processing, distribution in commerce, use, or disposal of 

 chemical substances." In other words, pollution prevention — a very advanced idea 

 for 1976. 



Under the terms of the Act, the Agency was given "the means for discovering ad- 

 verse effects on health or environment before manufacture of new chemical sub- 

 stances", and was given a wide range of tools for regulating problem chemicals, be- 

 fore manufacture, from warning labels to outright bans. 



At least on paper, TSCA contains strong provisions for dealing with new and ex- 

 isting toxic chemicals. Section 8 contains EPA's broadest authority for requiring in- 

 dustrial reporting and recordkeeping, an authority which has been borrowed by 

 other programs and agencies whose information-gathering powers had proved less 

 effective. Section 4 gives the Agency the power to require tests on any of the over 

 60,000 chemicals in existence when the law was enacted, and section 6 sets up a 

 scheme for regulating those existing chemicals which present an unreasonable risk 

 of injury to health or the environment. 



So why has the Act proved such a disappointment and what can we do to make 

 it work for the public? 



First, EPA has issued only about two dozen test rules in 18 years for existing 

 chemicals and almost none since 1989. Comparatively few chemicals have been iden- 

 tified as potentially harmful, fewer have completed testing, and almost none has 

 been subjected to any form of regulation. Even worse, as our subcommittee's 1992 

 TSCA oversight hearing showed, when a problem is found, there is no guarantee 

 that EPA will take timely action on it to protect public health or the environment. 



In one case examined during that hearing, EPA had received test data in 1984 

 on a chemical to which 800,000 workers were exposed at high levels. But it was 7 

 more years before EPA sent the test summaries on to the Occupational Safety and 

 Health Administration (OSHA). 



The section 8 information provisions are weakened by overly burdensome Con- 

 fidential Business Information requirements. In fact, it is easier for a contractor in 

 EPA's mail room to get clearance to see TSCA data than it is for a Governor. And 

 company claims of confidentiality have even extended to articles from the New York 

 Times and advertisements. 



EPA badly needs to set priorities for which of the 60,000 existing chemicals it 

 should test. And once chemicals are tested, EPA needs better criteria to decide 

 whether to take regulatory action. Only a small percentage of chemicals on the list 

 will even need screening data and even fewer will need a complete set of tests. 

 Clearly, the current Act is not getting the job done and Congress is going to have 

 to consider mandating timetables for testing and evaluation. 



Congress must also address the issues raised by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 

 Fifth Circuit's decision in the Asbestos case, or else risk having an unworkable pro- 

 gram for existing chemicals under section 6. 



Section 5's new chemical program is TSCA's greatest success story. But we need 

 to review the program to get the most usefiil data while encouraging the use of safer 

 products. And we may need a way of taking a second look at these chemicals in the 

 future if they are made in large volumes. 



Finally, at a time of limited funds for EPA we must insure that TSCA works well 

 with other EPA programs. TSCA and the Toxic Release Inventory (or TRI) must fit 

 together. The TRI should serve as an early warning system for TSCA, alerting the 



