112 



We will first hear from Mr^XJuerrero. 



STATEMENT OF PETER GUERRERO, DIRECTOR, ENVIRON- 

 MENTAL PROTECTION ISSUES, GENERAL ACCOUNTING OF- 

 FICE; ACCOMPANIED BY RAYMOND SMITH, PRINCIPAL IN- 

 VESTIGATOR 



Mr. Guerrero. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 



With me today is Ray Smith, principal investigator for the work 

 we &re doing for the subcommittee. 



We appreciate the opportunity once again to participate in your 

 deliberations in reauthorizing TSCA. At your May hearing, we 

 noted that EPA had taken few regulatory control actions under 

 TSCA for a variety of reasons: first, the difficulty of demonstrating 

 that a chemical presents an unreasonable risk and the very high 

 standards of evidence required to make such determinations; sec- 

 ond, EPA's preference for using other health and environmental 

 statutes to control toxic chemicals; and third, insufficient data to 

 assess chemical risk and the very cumbersome and costly process 

 for collecting this data. 



As you requested, today we will focus on options to improve 

 EPA's implementation of TSCA. 



Our preliminary observations are based on ongoing work for the 

 subcommittee. Based on this work, we have identified options for 

 strengthening EPA's ability to regulate harmful chemicals. I would 

 like to discuss those options in greater detail. 



With over 2 decades of experience in implementing pollution con- 

 trol laws, EPA has recognized these laws have some very serious 

 shortcomings and gaps. For one, they deal with pollution after it 

 has been generated or introduced into the environment, a point at 

 which it is very costly to control and to address. Second, they are 

 focused on a limited number of pollutant situations that may or 

 may not account for the most significant health and environmental 

 effects. Although TSCA could be an important part of a comprehen- 

 sive toxics control program to fill these gaps, the act cannot now 

 be easily used in this way. 



TSCA section 9 generally requires that other health and environ- 

 mental laws be used to address the risks posed by chemicals if EPA 

 determines that such laws can eliminate or sufficiently reduce 

 those risks. EPA has interpreted this section to preclude its use of 

 TSCA to control the production, distribution, and use of chemicals 

 already regulated under such laws as the Clean Air, Clean Water, 

 and Occupational Safety and Health Acts. 



There are two approaches for ensuring that TSCA plays a more 

 central role in EPA's pollution prevention and control efforts. First, 

 EPA could revisit its prior interpretation of section 9 to determine 

 whether it is consistent with the agency's current emphasis on pol- 

 lution prevention. Alternatively, TSCA could be revised to remove 

 references to other environmental statutes, leaving the EPA Ad- 

 ministrator the discretion to decide when to use TSCA. In either 

 case, having TSCA as a viable tool in its pollution prevention arse- 

 nal would give EPA a cost-effective alternative to more costly end- 

 of-the-pipeline pollution controls. 



To be able to use TSCA in a more comprehensive chemical con- 

 trol way, however, will require changes to make it less burdensome 



