95 



integration of technology and environment. Just as in private industry we are strug- 

 gling to link our environmental organizations to our design, R&D, and manufactur- 

 ing communities, EPA must be linked to other competencies within the Federal Gov- 

 ernment. In particular, the technology and R&D competencies of the Department of 

 Commerce and MST, DoD, and especially the DoE National Laboratories, must be- 

 come integrated in this area. In fact, it is probably appropriate given EPA's primary 

 mission of enforcement and compliance, and the critical role of materials com- 

 petency and technological sophistication in integrating technology and environment, 

 that the lead be elsewhere than in EPA. 



The task of creating a sustainable materials policy in this country is daunting. 

 But look at it from the perspective of the design engineer — how can he or she design 

 an environmentally preferable product until the environmental impacts of the input 

 materials to the product and its manufacturing processes are known? Then look at 

 it from a policy perspective. As a society, our goal should not be just to control 

 toxics, but to move towards material use patterns which are sustainable over the 

 long term. In fact, if we are indeed serious about mitigating environmental pertur- 

 bations, we must move in this direction — and the sooner we start, the better for the 

 environment, and our economy. 



User Concerns Arising Under Existing TSCA Requirements 



In this section, I will mention several significant concerns that current TSCA re- 

 quirements raise for the user community, which can be addressed without com- 

 promising any of the environmental, health and safety protections to which TSCA 

 is addressed. While they may seem esoteric and trivial to the uninitiated, they have 

 substantial implications for, and place significant unnecessary regulatory burdens 

 on, the materials user community. 



The most important problem faced by the chemical using community in complying 

 with TSCA is the ambiguity in EPA's definition of the term "processor." This is a 

 particular concern because the term is frequently jurisdictional; that is, if an entity 

 is a "user," it will frequently have no responsibilities, but if an entity is a "proc- 

 essor," it will be regulated under TSCA. Thus, for example, the reporting require- 

 ments of Sections 8(a) of TSCA (the comprehensive assessment information rules, 

 or CAIR) and 8(d) of TSCA (health and safety study submittal rules) apply to those 

 "processing" chemicals, but not to those just "using-" chemicals. Clearly, it is nec- 

 essary for a company to know whether its operations are "processing" or simply 

 "using" if it is to comply with TSCA. 



Unfortunately, this is not easy. The EPA has interpreted "processing" for purposes 

 of TSCA to cover three types of activities: 1) repackaging substances; 2) manufactur- 

 ing mixtures; and, 3) producing articles. While this appears relatively straight- 

 forward, it becomes quite complex when a chemical user attempts to apply it to its 

 activities. For example, it is clear that repackaging bulk chemicals into smaller con- 

 tainers which are then sold on the open market constitutes processing — but does 

 pouring a cleaning solution from a drum into a bucket to wash a factory floor? If 

 a chemical company makes a chemical mixture and then sells that mixture, it clear- 

 ly processes the chemicals in the mixture — but if a company mixes chemicals in a 

 plating bath, which is used on site and then recycled, is it a processor? If a chemical 

 company incorporates a substance into a product it sells, it is clearly processing — 

 but if a car company paints a car, is it processing each and every one of the poten- 

 tially thousands of chemicals which the solidified paint may contain? 



Questions such as these are not metaphysical, but define for many companies 

 what their obligations under TSCA may be. Accordingly, in 1989 the American Elec- 

 tronics Association filed a petition for clarification with EPA seeking a clear, "trans- 

 TSCA" definition of "processor" which would permit non-chemical manufacturing 

 companies to clearly and unambiguously determine their regulatory responsibilities 

 under TSCA. A similar request was filed by the Motor Vehicle Manufacturers Asso- 

 ciation early in 1992. While the Agency did hold a public meeting in August of 1992 

 seeking comment on the definition of "processing", there has been no further action 

 to resolve this problem. It is not that chemical users do not want to comply, but 

 that they don't know what they should be complying with. 



