119 



Senator Reid. Why do you feel that would be an advantageous 

 system? 



Mr. Guerrero. Right now, having to answer both questions is an 

 extremely challenging and difficult proposition for EPA. It must 

 both demonstrate that it has concern about a chemical, and that 

 what it is proposing to do is cost-effective and is justified. It would 

 be far simpler and easier intellectually for EPA to separate this 

 into two parts. The first part would be based on the data and infor- 

 mation available and the information and data to be developed. Is 

 this a chemical of concern? Is its toxicity of concern? Is it produced 

 in volumes of concern? Are there exposures occurring that are of 

 consequence? Once it makes these determinations, then you can 

 separate the review from the process of determining what is the 

 most cost-effective way to control that chemical. 



This is the approach that is used by the Canadians. It is a far 

 easier approach. In fact no other country has used unreasonable 

 risk as a standard as we have adopted. It has proven to be very, 

 very difficult because it wraps everything up in one decision and 

 basically results in frustrating the agency in being able to make de- 

 cisions. 



Senator Reid, What do the other panelists think of this sugges- 

 tion? 



Dr. Geiser? 



Dr. Geiser. I think I am going to pass. 



Senator Reid. Mr, Hagerman, you have said basically that any 

 changes should be done administratively, that there need not be a 

 change in the statute. So you would disagree with what Mr. Guer- 

 rero has said? 



Mr. Hagerman. I can see some advantages to the two-step proc- 

 ess, but I am failing to see why a change in the statute would be 

 necessary to accomplish that. 



Senator Reid. Mr. Guerrero? 



Mr. Guerrero. Currently, the statute establishes an unreason- 

 able risk standard. EPA's implementation of that standard requires 

 it to go through this very difficult and rigorous process of not only 

 weighing risks of the chemical, but also then choosing a cost-bene- 

 ficial solution and looking for ways that impose the least cost bur- 

 den. It is all tied up in one. It is not clearly laid out in the statute 

 how that might be more easily separated and pursued in a more 

 manageable framework. 



Senator Reid, Wouldn't this simply slow the rulemaking process 

 even more? 



Mr. Guerrero. On the contrary. I think it would probably help 

 focus the attention where it needs to be focused. First, it would be 

 focused on reaching some consensus on whether there was a risk 

 that needed to be addressed. Then it would focus the attention 

 rightfully on the most cost-effective ways to address that risk. 

 Right now, because everjrthing is focused at one point — one proc- 

 ess — it is not very clearly defined. That is actually more time-con- 

 suming and is fraught with more delay. The evidence of that is how 

 few decisions EPA has reached under the existing procedures. 



Senator Reid. Would you make your office available for technical 

 assistance in drafting legislation for this TSCA reauthorization? 



Mr. Guerrero. Yes. 



