101 



• EPA has issued regulations under TSCA to control only nine chemicals dur- 

 ing the 17 years since the Act was passed. This is primarily because TSCA's 

 legal standards for taking regulatory action are so complex that EPA has been 

 discouraged from attempting to regulate chemicals and has given implementa- 

 tion of the Act low priority. 



• TSCA's chemical information-gathering and control authorities appear com- 

 prehensive, but they are difficult to use and are ineffective. Consequently, EPA 

 has assessed the risks of only about 2 percent of the chemicals in use. Further, 

 EPA's review process does not ensure that the potential risks of new chemicals 

 are fully assessed before they enter commerce. 



• Because of its limited resources, EPA may not be able to substantially im- 

 prove its performance in reviewing the thousands of chemicals in use and con- 

 trolling those found to be harmful without sharing responsibility with he chemi- 

 cal industry. 



• While the information collected under TSCA can be helpful to others, such 

 as state health and environmental officials, much of it cannot be disseminate 

 because of confidentiality and trade secrets concerns expressed by industry. 



Some of the problems with TSCA have resulted from an unwillingness on the part 

 of EPA to utilize the law. For example, we have long known of the hazards posed 

 by lead. The evidence of the risks associated with exposure to lower and lower levels 

 of lead has become more compelling every year. Yet in the past, EPA has a long 

 history of not using the powers under TSCA to either curb existing uses of lead or 

 to review new uses which may be developed. 



But some of the fundamental problems with TSCA may rest with the language 

 of the statute itself For example, a decision of the Court of Appeals for the Fifth 

 Circuit vacating EPA's regulations to phase out asbestos raises serious questions 

 about whether EPA can act to protect public health under TSCA. Despite the ac- 

 knowledged danger of asbestos and EPA's considerable scientific evidence of serious 

 health risks, the court held that EPA failed to adequately consider the economic im- 

 pact of a ban, the comparative safety of substitutes and that the possibility of less 

 burdensome alternatives. I am concerned that this decision will make the Agency 

 less willing or less able to properly regulate dangerous chemicals which are already 

 on the market. 



The witnesses at these hearings have presented some excellent ideas for reform- 

 ing TSCA, both legislatively and administratively. I will be studying these proposals 

 and look forward to working with you Mr. Chairman and Dr. Goldman in deciding 

 which proposals will make the law more effective. 



Senator Reid. I would also like to inform the witnesses that we 

 have this timing apparatus here. We have '^ine witnesses this 

 morning. We have two of our witnesses who are on an extremely 

 tight time schedule. Therefore, we want to hold witnesses to a 5- 

 minute statement so that we have time to ask questions. 



We will first hear from Dr. Goldman. 



STATEMENT OF LYNN GOLDMAN, ASSISTANT ADMINIS- 

 TRATOR, PREVENTION, PESTICIDES, AND TOXIC SUB- 

 STANCES, ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 



Dr. Goldman. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 



I also have a written statement for the record. 



Senator Reid. Without objection, your prepared statement will 

 appear in the record. 



Dr. Goldman. Thank you for the opportunity to discuss with you 

 the TSCA existing chemicals program. 



TSCA is an old statute in a new era, an era of limited Govern- 

 ment resources where environmental action must be focused on sit- 

 uations with greatest risk, an era where we have learned that com- 

 munity right-to-know and pollution prevention are powerful tools 



