122 



Dr. Geiser. Yes, there are two different categories. I think the 

 question is really as much tied to what you do about the existing 

 chemicals at this point. The new chemicals we have a fair system 

 of review. The existing chemicals is where we really have to put 

 most of our effort. And that is the vast volume and that is why it 

 is important to try to figure out ways to lump them together and 

 figure out a more efficient system for doing it. 



Senator Reid. Would it make up for the backlog? 



Dr. Geiser. I am suggesting that we trv to model the way that 

 firms tend to think about the use of the chemicals. That is a vehi- 

 cle for thinking about what information you need in order to make 

 decisions about them and not simply go after each one in some 

 kind of cookie cutter approach. 



Senator Reid. Mr. Guerrero? 



Mr. Guerrero. I completely agree. I think it is a very reasonable 

 way of viewing the issue. There is a large inventory of chemicals 

 in use out there. It doesn't make sense to continue to look at them 

 on a chemical by chemical basis. It is very important that we set 

 priorities for what we look at and that we don't do it in a vacuum, 

 but we do it based on use and relationships to other chemicals and 

 chemical substitutes for those products. 



Senator Reid. Mr. Hagerman, what do you think of the Massa- 

 chusetts approach of staged process, from voluntary action to man- 

 datory, to change to safer materials and processes? 



Mr. Hagerman. The first I have heard of it explicitly is today. 

 But as a hip shot, I find that a very reasonable approach. What I 

 heard was that we would identify concerns, there would be some 

 sort of discussion among the stakeholders, there could be voluntary 

 actions — ^there might not — if things weren't satisfactory, you would 

 proceed toward mandatory action. If that is the case, it seems like 

 a good process. 



Senator Reid. Then what we have heard from this second panel 

 is that TSCA— along the lines of the Massachusetts Toxics Reduc- 

 tion Act — should estabhsh a list of chemicals whose use industry 

 should seek to reduce or eliminate. 



Mr. Guerrero, do you think that is appropriate? 



Mr. Guerrero. I think that is entirely consistent with our sug- 

 gestion that TSCA could be supplemented with this broad goal that 

 would seek to reduce toxic chemicals overall. 



Senator Reid. And Dr. Geiser, would you agree? 



Dr. Geiser. Very much so. Again, thinking about it from the 

 point of view of the smaller, medium-sized firm trying to make de- 

 cisions about use, that list would be incredibly important. The fact 

 that there is no statement from Government about what chemicals 

 to move away from leaves firms who are trying to make those 

 choices without guidance. 



Senator Reid. At this point, do we have enough knowledge about 

 which chemicals are preferable or most harmful to be able to single 

 out certain chemicals? Do you think we have enough information? 



Dr. Geiser. In some cases, I would argue that from our experi- 

 ence we do have enough information to say what we wish we could 

 move away from. We are not saying, necessarily, that these are ul- 

 timately terrible chemicals and have to prove a certain level. We 

 are simply saying that the risks on these have shown up over and 



