is extremely important to control the 60,000 chemicals that are out 

 there in our world, and there are not a lot of people really inter- 

 ested in it. I am really grateful that a leader like you has taken 

 .the time in the past to be interested in this issue that, as I said, 

 doesn't gain a lot of notoriety. But it's going to take the work of 

 the Mike Sjmars of the world to change how we regulate chemicals 

 in the world, so I am grateful that you're here and taking the time 

 to come over. I'm looking forward to your statement. 



STATEMENT OF HON. MICHAEL L. SYNAR, U.S. 

 REPRESENTATIVE FROM THE STATE OF OKLAHOMA 



Mr. Synar. Well, thank you, Mr. Chairman, I couldn't agree with 

 you more. I'm disappointed, like you are, about the lack of interest 

 expressed in this room; it doesn't reflect the need and the dimen- 

 sions of this problem, and this important oversight hearing that 

 you're holding today is not only timely, but is critical as we begin 

 to look at the whole question of the reauthorization. 



You know, I've held five oversight hearings on this very subject, 

 and we've had numerous GAG reports, and, obviously, we'll want 

 to make those and other information that we've gathered available 

 to you as you consider this. But you said it best — ^TSCA has failed 

 to live up to its mission. In fact, it's probably EPA's biggest under- 

 achiever. As you said, in many ways, TSCA was the EPA's most 

 modem statute. It was pollution prevention, a very advanced idea 

 in 1976. 



The real question, I think, is: why such a disappointing response 

 by TSCA? 



Well, first of all, the EPA has issued only 30 test rules in 18 

 years for existing chemicals and almost none since 1989, and 

 there's no guarantee as we look at it today the EPA will ever be 

 more timely. 



Secondly — and I think an example is 1984 where we had 800,000 

 workers who were exposed to high levels of a chemical — it took 7 

 years before the EPA sent in the test summary to GSHA. That 

 shows you the failure in terms of timeliness of action by the EPA. 



And, finally, you mentioned in your opening statement the prob- 

 lems with "confidential business information." You know, it's easier 

 for a contractor in the EPA's mail room to get clearance to see 

 TSCA data than it is a governor. In fact, if a governor really wants 

 to find that kind of information, he would be better served reading 

 the New York Times than he would be talking to the EPA. 



What needs to be done? Four things: 



First, the EPA needs to set priorities for which of the 60,000 ex- 

 isting chemicals they should test. 



Secondly, they need to have better criteria to decide whether to 

 take regulatory action. 



Third, they need to consider mandating timetables for testing 

 and evaluation. 



And, fourth, especially at a time of limited funds at the EPA, we 

 need to ensure that TSCA works well with the other EPA programs 

 and more effectively with EPA statutes such as the Clean Air Act 

 and Clean Water Act, so that we can deal with this as an entire 

 industrial facility at one time and try to have more effective pipe- 

 to-pipe solutions. 



