64 



• Finally, given the sheer number of chemicals in use today, whether both 

 government and industry should focus their resources on those chemicals that, 

 based on their toxicity, production volumes, and potential exposure, present the 

 highest risk to human health and the environment. 



Mr. Chairman, this completes our prepared statement. We would be happy to re- 

 spond to any questions that you or other members of the subcommittee may have. 



Statement of Ellen Silbergeld, Senior Toxicologist, Environmental 



Defense Fund 



Mr. Chairman, thank you for this opportunity to testify on the reauthorization of 

 the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA). ^ I am Ellen Silbergeld, Senior Toxi- 

 cologist with the Toxics Program of the Environmental Defense Fund (EDF), a na- 

 tional nonprofit environmental research and advocacy organization with over 

 250,000 members. Accompanying me today is EDF Senior Attorney Karen Florini. 

 Since its founding in 1967, EDF has worked to minimize human exposure to toxic 

 substances through participation in scientific and administrative proceedings, litiga- 

 tion, public education, and legislative advocacy. In pursuit of that goal, EDF has 

 participated in numerous activities under TSCA. For exsunple, in 1984, EDF peti- 

 tioned EPA under Section 21 of TSCA to promulgate rules controlling the distribu- 

 tion and release of dioxins into the environment. After EPA denied the petition in 

 January 1985, EDF exercised its statutory right to file suit; that case was settled 

 by a comprehensive Consent Decree filed July 27, 1988. EDF also successfully sued 

 EPA concerning implementation of the PCB ban mandated by Congress in section 

 6(e) of TSCA. More recently, EDF petitioned EPA to restrict lead fishing sinkers 

 that can be ingested by waterfowl, causing death through lead poisoning. EPA is 

 now conducting a rulemaking in response to that petition. 



As noted in the subcommittee's letter of invitation, TSCA has never been reau- 

 thorized or considered in depth; this hearing is long overdue and greatly welcome. 

 There is much that we have learned in the past 8 years, in this country and else- 

 where, that can provide guidance in the process of reauthorization. Indeed, the origi- 

 nal intent of TSCA has largely been unrealized, and most of the efforts of the Envi- 

 ronmental Protection Agency (EPA) in implementing this statute have produced lit- 

 tle result. 



Before turning to specific provisions of TSCA, one over-arching point warrants at- 

 tention. In the 18 years since TSCA's enactment, our society has become increas- 

 ingly sophisticated in the way we think about environmental protection. In particu- 

 lar, it is now abundantly clear that policymakers must consider not only end-of-pipe 

 cleanup and control strategies, but also ways to prevent pollution in the first place. 

 Similarly, it is necessary to consider the complete life-cycle of a substance that poses 

 toxicologic concerns, and to take into account the availability (or lack thereof) of al- 

 ternatives that fill the underl5Ting societal need for that substance's use. Doing so 

 allows environmental strategies to be designed in a manner that eliminates cross- 

 media pollution transfers and yields greater overall efficiency. 



At present, EPA's statutory authority to take this kind of eminently sensible ap- 

 proach is at best a patchwork cobbled together fi*om other statutes that are, fun- 

 damentally, focused on one medium (such as the Clean Water and Clean Air Acts) 

 or the final stages in a material's life cycle (such as the Solid Waste Disposal Act 

 (often referred to as the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act), and the 

 Superfund program). In reauthorizing TSCA, Congress has a vitally important op- 

 portunity to incorporate pollution prevention precepts — and give the Agency the 

 tools it needs to act upon those precepts. This testimony identifies a few specific 

 suggestions along these lines, but they are by no means exhaustive. EDF looks for- 



1 Unle88 otherwise noted, this testimony focuses exclusively on the provisions of Subchapter 

 1 of TSCA, rather than the subsequently added independent provisions addressing asbestos in 

 schools (Subchapter 2), indoor radon (Subchapter 3), and lead in paint, soil, and dust (Sub- 

 chapter 4). 



