135 



essors of chemicals. Do you think this should be extended to users 

 of chemicals? 



Mr. MONSMA. Absolutely. I think that whole notion of developing 

 chemical use information is based on the ability to obtain that in- 

 formation. It basically is — in terms of right-to-know and public in- 

 formation — having just quantity information or production volume 

 and chemical identities and where they may be located is not suffi- 

 cient. In terms of being able to protect the environment and human 

 health, we are going to begin to have to look more at what are ac- 

 ceptable uses of chemicals. In order to make those determinations, 

 we have to collect information on the use of chemicals. 



Senator Reid. Mr. Kanerva? 



Mr. Kanerva. I support getting more use information. We are 

 really weak on the exposure side. 



Senator Reid. Dr. Smith? 



Dr. Smith. We have this subject under active consideration just 

 now and we will get back to you at a later date. 



Senator Reid. Does that mean that you believe manufacturers 

 and processors have adequate information about the uses of chemi- 

 cals that they could provide EPA with sufficient exposure informa- 

 tion without EPA resorting to users? 



Dr. Smith. Yes, I do. 



Senator Reid. That seems to be at variance as to what these 

 other two gentlemen said. 



I think this panel has been informative. We appreciate very 

 much your testimony. We would also appreciate it, Dr. Smith, if 

 you got back to us at your earliest possible convenience because we 

 need as much input as we can from the chemical industry. 



We look forward now to drafting some legislation. I hope to intro- 

 duce it by the end of this year so that you all can study it and look 

 at it and we will have a hearing or two next year. I would hope 

 that next year we are going to reauthorize TSCA. 



The committee stands in recess. 



[Whereupon, at 12:00 p.m., the committee was adjourned, to re- 

 convene at the call of the Chair.] 



[Statements submitted for the record follow:] 



Statement of Lynn R. Goldman, Assistant Administrator, Office of Preven- 

 tion, Pesticides and Toxic Substances, Environmental Protection Agency 



Mr. Chairman and distinguished members of the Subcommittee, I am LjTin Gold- 

 man, Assistant Administrator for the Off ice of Prevention, Pesticides and Toxic 

 Substances (OPPTS) of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). I welcome 

 the opportunity to continue discussions about the Toxic Substances Control Act 

 (TSCA), today to focus on the existing chemicals programs. 



In the hearing on May 17, 1994, I discussed how much has changed in environ- 

 mental protection since the passage of TSCA and noted that the past twenty years 

 have taught us two key lessons. 



First, preventing pollution offers significant opportunities for protecting the envi- 

 ronment and public health in a cost effective manner. The adoption of a pollution 

 prevention ethic is a logical development in a toxic chemicals program, given the 

 focus on improving environmental protection through changes in the manufactvu*e, 

 processing and use of chemicals in our society. Fundamentally, we need to encour- 

 age use of safer chemicals and processes in the basic operations of the industrial 

 sector. 



