115 



As an example of the kind of fixing I am discussing, EPA re- 

 cently developed a priority-setting program that you have pre- 

 viously heard about, which they have identified as the risk man- 

 agement program. This program forces the agency to make regu- 

 latory decisions on chemicals of concern and by so doing requires 

 EPA to develop priorities for actions. 



In addition, they have recently announced the development of a 

 procedure for speeding the development of regulations through the 

 agency. We have found in the past that one of the hindering fectors 

 for action is the slow review of^ regulations. 



The need for setting priorities for action among competing chemi- 

 cal concerns has become more critical as both EPA and industry re- 

 sources for meeting the reporting, testing, and control require- 

 ments of TSCA have been curtailed. In setting priorities, we believe 

 the focus should be on chemicals which present the greatest risk 

 relative to the benefits derived from them, and that priority should 

 be set only after consideration of the toxic properties of the chemi- 

 cals of concern, the extent to which humans and the environment 

 are exposed, and the benefits deriving from the chemicals of con- 

 cern. 



We believe it would be inappropriate to regulate a category of 

 chemicals, for example, based solely on the chemical structure of its 

 members. 



We believe it is important to recognize that EPA's current prior- 

 ity-setting process not only defines a group of chemicals for possible 

 action because they are of some concern, but by the same token, 

 it excludes others. This exclusion doesn't mean that those chemi- 

 cals are just being dropped or ignored. It means that the criteria 

 used for the screening process evaluates those chemicals that are 

 dropped. Based on the evaluation criteria, they have been found to 

 be a low priority for further action, unless and until the criteria 

 changes. 



We think this provides some assurance that there are not 72,000 

 chemicals of concern out there, but probably far less than that. 



With respect to chemical testing, concern about the slow pace of 

 testing of the TSCA chemicals seems based upon the perception 

 that somehow all 72,000 chemicals in the TSCA inventory need to 

 be explicitly tested. We believe that a reasonable screening process 

 would assign a low priority for further consideration to most of the 

 chemicals in the inventory. 



An example of that would be a polymer, such as polyethylene — 

 and there are many polymers like that in the inventory, perhaps 

 20,000 to 30,000 — that really present no hazard simply because 

 they are not biologically available to organisms. In this light, I 

 think the number was 400 chemicals being considered for testing 

 by rule is a much more significant number than when comparing 

 to the whole inventory. 



In addition, I need to mention that industry conducts a great 

 deal of testing in support of its products and product safety that 

 does not get into the EPA files unless and until they call for them 

 with one of their rules. So there is a great deal of testing going on 

 beyond what is covered by rules. 



Recognizing the concern about high production volume chemicals, 

 Dow was one of the leaders in the development of the OECD HPV 



