12 



Dr. GrOLDMAN. Both the new chemicals and the existing chemi- 

 cals. 



Senator Reid. Yes, but I think it would be possible for us in our 

 reauthorization to set a different standard for new chemicals than 

 we have for existing chemicals. My feeling is that the burden 

 should be upon the chemical manufacturers to show that the prod- 

 uct that they are putting into commerce is safe, and it can be set 

 up in the three categories you've just described or in some other 

 appropriate manner. 



However, let's talk about those chemicals that are in existence 

 now. I believe that we've gone ahead and made our bed, so to 

 speak, and I think we have to lay in it. And I think that it's up 

 to us now to show that any of those chemicals are already on the 

 market. I think it's up to the government to show that they're un- 

 safe. 



How do you feel about that? 



Dr. Goldman, Well, I think that we need to strike a balance be- 

 tween how we look at new chemicals and existing chemicals. I 

 agree that for the chemicals that are currently in commerce — ^there 

 are far more costs that are associated with making changes in how 

 we use those than there would be for a new chemical that's pro- 

 posed. 



However, I also believe that a number of the chemicals that are 

 currently in commerce were put into commerce during the time 

 when we had far less sophistication about chemicals and about 

 chemical uses, and I think our strategy needs to empower the 

 agency, needs to empower the public and the industry to reduce the 

 risks that are involved with using those chemicals. 



There are a number of approaches to doing that: 



One is certainly to have more aggressive testing and to get more 

 information about those that are at high volume and that are likely 

 to be hazardous; another is to take a stronger pollution prevention 

 approach, and I think the third approach is the approach of getting 

 more information out to the public, to the States, and to the indus- 

 try about what we know about those chemicals. 



Senator Reid. Why do you think there have been so few regula- 

 tions under section 6? 



Dr. GrOLDMAN. I think that the issue of section 6 has been one 

 that — I'm just finding my sheet here that gives exactly which ones 

 we've done. 



Senator Reid. Take your time. That's fine. 



Are there really so few unreasonable risks of chemicals that we 

 have had this small number of regulations? Is it too difficult to jus- 

 tify that finding or is it the difficulty of controlling risks for those 

 particular measures stated in section 6? 



Dr. Goldman. I think that it has been difficult to meet the re- 

 quirements of the statute in terms of being able to justify the find- 

 ing. I also think that the 1991 decision by the Fifth Circuit Court 

 of Appeals exerted a dampening effect on the agency's ability to do 

 more section 6 rules. It placed a very strong burden on the agency 

 for basically working through every possible note on the decision 

 about all of these alternatives and costing all of those out, which 

 is a burden that makes it very difficult to proceed with further sec- 

 tion 6 rules. 



