138 



areas. This approach enables us to work with states and regions to define problems 

 and solutions that can improve health and environmental conditions in an area and 

 address complex issues such as enviroimiental justice. 



Two examples of this type of agenda have arisen recently. Last year, as an effort 

 to use the data contained in the Toxics Release Inventory (TRI), we targeted under 

 TSCA some of the chemicals that indicated high releases in communities. One such 

 chemical was ethylene dichloride (EDO. Our analysis showed that the principal 

 risks associated with EDO nationwide were centered around a small number of spe- 

 cific facilities, in discrete geographic areas. In working with our regional ofBces and 

 the affected States we were able to pursue strategies, some of which involved utiliz- 

 ing a number of EPA's statutory authorities, to reduce emissions and thereby risks 

 to the public. 



Another geographic initiative that involved environmental justice concerns were 

 three TSCA Section 21 petitions we received involving California's New River. This 

 is one of the country's most polluted rivers, receiving industrial and municipal 

 wastes from Mexico, as well as agricultural runoff from the United States. The 

 TSCA program is planning to make sure that reliable and scientifically-sound infor- 

 mation will be generated about contamination of the river to allow both EPA and 

 other governmental actors to perform appropriate risk assessments and to control 

 the sources of pollution, and to provide information to the public so that they too 

 can take appropriate actions. 



Chemical Use Inventory 



The existing chemicals program has fix)m its inception been faced with the need 

 to find an adequate process to sort through the 70,000 chemical substances on the 

 TSCA § 8(b) inventory to identify the chemicals of greatest concern, both for testing 

 and risk management. One of the tools for building that agenda is the TSCA inven- 

 tory update rule (lUR) which has been used to collect information on the production 

 of many of the chemicals. As the existing chemical program has concentrated on set- 

 ting priorities, it has become increasingly clear that priorities should be based on 

 risk whenever possible. Since risk is determined by hazard and exposure, it is essen- 

 tial to gain a stronger sense of how chemicals are used because that is a first level 

 screen for assessing exposure. Better exposure information will inform community 

 and geographic based and consiimer based risk management activities at EPA, as 

 well as occupational risk reduction activities at OSHA. 



The interest in information about use has lead to a broad public discussion of a 

 "Chemical Use Inventory" (GUI) which has drawn interest from a wide range of 

 stakeholders. At this point EPA plans to discuss in the public forum the CUI con- 

 cept on two tracks. First it will examine upgrading the existing lUR to obtain better 

 use information from chemical manufacturers. This action assumes that manufac- 

 turers will have enough information about how their products are used to identify 

 patterns of use that might warrant further inquiry. Second, EPA will examine the 

 TRI program to see if information about use and exposure can appropriately be col- 

 lected at the facility level. That effort has just begun and may raise questions about 

 the adequacy of either TSCA or EPCRA authorities to obtain the information at that 

 level. These public discussions will take into account the relative value of alter- 

 native information collection options and the burden of these options. 



As described above, EPA has tried to target its testing and risk management ef- 

 forts on the chemicals of greatest concern. As the Subcommittee examines the stat- 

 ute, you will want to consider how TSCA supports these strategies. 



Section 6 of TSCA 



Mr. Chairman, in your letter of invitation for today's hearing, you specifically 

 asked about Section 6 of TSCA as an effective tool and inquired into the possibility 

 of integrating pollution prevention into this section. To address these questions, let 

 me discuss the potential implications of the U.S. Fifth Circuit Coiut of Appeals deci- 

 sion to remand the 1989 Asbestos Ban and Phaseout Rule to EPA. This case could 

 pose some definite challenges for us as we investigate other possible actions under 

 Section 6 of TSCA. 



