8 



shoulders the principal responsibility of determining the health 

 and environmental effects of the chemicals that they manufacture, 

 and you and I have talked about this on a number of occasions. 



What is your assessment of the burden that the industry has 

 now, and do you have an opinion on whether industry shoula bear 

 a greater burden in the future? 



Dr. GrOLDMAN. Well, let me review what we've accomplished in 

 the way of testing since the inception of the program 18 years ago. 



Three hundred and eighty six chemicals have gone into testing 

 through TSCA section 4 proposed rule making, 255 chemicals we've 

 decided not to test, 24 chemicals have been tested through nego- 

 tiated testing agreements, 121 have been involved in final rule 

 making, 35 in enforceable consent agreements, and 230 in vol- 

 untary testing agreements. 



Senator Reid. Is the 121 part over the 386 total? 



Dr. Goldman. Yes, the 386 were those that were proposed. 



Senator Reid. And the 121 is part of that number? 



Dr. Goldman. Yes, 121 is part of that number, and so I think 

 that what we see here is that we haven't made the kind of progress 

 in achieving testing that had been expected, I think, by those who 

 originally drafted TSCA. I do believe that more of the burden needs 

 to be shouldered by the industry. 



I think that where we've been the most successful of passing 

 along the burden has been through the SIDS project with the Orga- 

 nization of Economic Cooperation and Development. Where the 

 OECD has reached an agreement on 240 chemicals that needs have 

 screening level testing of which I believe the U.S. companies are 

 shouldering the burden for something like 50, and that I believe 

 has been a good process because that allows the burden to be 

 shared by all of the companies throughout the world. I think that 

 in the United States that part of what has been the problem has 

 been that our rule making process has been very cumbersome, and 

 we have to face an enormous amount of transaction costs with legal 

 challenges that are posed with each and every rule. It's almost as 

 if, though, we have to, first, prove that chemicals are risky before 

 we can have the testing done to show whether or not the chemicals 

 are risky. 



Senator Reid. TSCA takes a chemical by chemical approach. It 

 assumes that the EPA can, to one extent or another, review these 

 individual chemicals and regulate those with severe risks. 



In your opinion, did TSCA give the EPA an impossible mission, 

 and further, is chemical by chemical the wrong approach to manag- 

 ing the chemical risks? 



Dr. Goldman. Well, we have decided that that is not the best ap- 

 proach to managing chemical risk. I would say that in many cases 

 we believe that the use cluster approach is probably a better ap- 

 proach, and what that has to do with is the recognition that the 

 chemicals are performing a certain function, a valuable function in 

 society, and that what we probably really ought to be looking at is 

 how Qo we best form that function and reduce the risks to health 

 and the environment. 



Senator Reid. As you know, TSCA's focus has been primarily on 

 chemical manufacturers and processors. You've talked about ex- 

 panding this to encompass the chemical users also. 



