52 



premanufacture to premarketing review. We are still evaluating the conclusions of 

 the study. 



Since its inception in the late 1970s, the new chemicals program has worked to 

 balance the environmental concerns associated with new chemical manufacture and 

 use with the desires of business to develop new and innovative products. The pro- 

 gram has a long and successful history of working in a cooperative manner with in- 

 dustry and of implementing customer-oriented processes to provide a fair and expe- 

 dited review of new chemicals while ensuring that their manufacture and use will 

 not present unreasonable risks. 



Over the last 10 years, efforts of the new chemicals program to inform the chemi- 

 cal industry about the criteria used to assess chemicals have encouraged develop- 

 ment of safer chemicals, which is a principal objective of the new chemicals pro- 

 gram. For example, we have made our SAR tools available for public use. This effort 

 has resulted in the development of safer and less-polluting new chemicals, with re- 

 sultant reductions in human and environmental risks associated with the produc- 

 tion and use of these chemicals. 



Section 6 of TSCA 



I would like to take a moment to discuss the potential implications of the U.S. 

 Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals decision to remand the 1989 Asbestos Ban and 

 Phaseout Rule to EPA. This case could pose some definite challenges for us as we 

 investigate other possible actions under Section 6 of TSCA. 



First, while EPA does not contest its obligation to consider whether a proposed 

 action is cost-effective, the court's decision appears to impose a burden of proof on 

 EPA that significantly increased the level of analysis on potential substitutes and 

 on identifying the least burdensome approach for any future Section 6 action. We 

 believe that future regvilatory action under Section 6 may be more resource-inten- 

 sive and may take longer. 



Second, the court's interpretation of least burdensome alternative under Section 

 6 appears to define end-of-pipe solutions, where toxic substances are controlled after 

 they are distributed into the environment, as less burdensome than pollution pre- 

 vention solutions, where toxic substances are reduced or eliminated at their source. 

 This appears to conflict with the hierarchical approach set forth in the Pollution 

 Prevention Act, which, as you might expect, established an opposite solution prior- 

 ity. Furthermore, end-of-pipe controls should not be given preference over pollution 

 prevention, as indicated in the court's opinion, because end-of-pipe controls may well 

 be less cost effective. 



Because EPA's ability to take regulatory action under Section 6 is an important 

 part of the incentive structure we have to encourage companies to engage in risk 

 reduction through voluntary action, we think it is important to maintain the ability 

 to take these actions. 



II. VISION FOR A SUCCESSFUL TOXICS PROGRAM 



Many factors, including those I've just discussed, have combined to shape our vi- 

 sion of the future direction of the toxics program for the new generation of environ- 

 mental protection. In general, much has changed in environmental protection since 

 the passage of TSCA almost 20 years ago. Our work now takes place in a world with 

 a much broader environmental ethic and awareness. We have found new ways to 

 use participatory and voluntary means to achieve environmental protection. 



The past 20 years have taught us two key lessons. First, preventing pollution of- 

 fers significant opportunities foi' protecting the environment. Second, empowering 

 the public with information is a powerful tool for environmental progress. We have 

 now made these lessons the cornerstone of our new approach for addressing toxics 

 in the environment and thus these should be considered in any examination of 

 TSCA. 



The Clinton Administration strongly supports pollution prevention as a core prin- 

 ciple of environmental policy. Our society simply cannot afford to address environ- 

 mental protection as an afler-thought. We must build environmental decisions into 

 our basic technological and developmental decisions if we are to align our long-range 

 environmental and economic goals. As part of this, we must foster the growth of 



