139 



First, while EPA does not contest its obligation to consider whether a proposed 

 action is cost-effective, the court's decision appears to impose a burden of proof on 

 EPA that significantly increases the level of analysis on potential substitutes and 

 on identifying the least burdensome approach for any future Section 6 action. We 

 believe that future regiilatory action under Section 6 may be more resource-inten- 

 sive and may take longer as a result of that decision. 



Second, the court's interpretation of the "least burdensome" alternative require- 

 ment under Section 6 appears to drive us toward end-of-pipe solutions, where toxic 

 substances are controlled after they are created and released into the environment, 

 as less burdensome than pollution prevention solutions, where toxic substances are 

 reduced or eliminated at their source. This appears to conflict with the hierarchical 

 approach set forth in the Pollution Prevention Act, which, as you might expect, es- 

 tablished a priority for pollution prevention. Furthermore, end-of-pipe controls 

 should not be given preference over pollution prevention, as indicated in the court's 

 opinion, because end-of-pipe controls may well be less cost effective. 



EPA needs the ability to take decisive action in the face of unreasonable risks. 

 Moreover, EPA's ability to take regulatory action under Section 6 is an important 

 part of the incentive structure we have to encourage companies to engage in risk 

 reduction through voluntary action. Therefore, EPA should maintain the ability to 

 take these actions. 



Information Dissemination 



A strong Federal authority to take risk management action is not by any means 

 the sole incentive to encourage better stewardship of chemicals. 



In the current era, the federal government is clearly not the only catalyst for envi- 

 ronmental action. Increasingly, states, local governments, industry, labor unions, 

 public interest groups and grass-root community groups are finding ways to work 

 together to achieve environmental improvements. One of the most effective ways for 

 EPA to encourage and ensure others' participation in responsible chemical manage- 

 ment is to deliver key environmental information to these groups on risks of chemi- 

 cals of concern. Where groups outside EPA seek to improve chemical management 

 and performance, often without EPA's direct participation in their efforts, it is vital 

 that these groups be well informed. 



EPA also wants to empower others' participation in chemical management as a 

 realistic response to the resource limits of the federal government. We cannot hope 

 to solve all problems of chemical management through direct EPA action. Clearly 

 any plan to address the overwhelming issues and prevention opportunities sur- 

 rounding chemicals in commerce must be designed to facilitate initiative in private 

 industry, in state and local governments, in labor unions and in the public at large. 



Our experience with the Toxics Release Inventory under EPCRA has taught us 

 the power of public disclosure to stimulate positive action. We are trying to expand 

 these lessons to develop useful "information products" out of the information col- 

 lected under TSCA. For example, our traditional TSCA § 8(e) program was focused 

 exclusively on the Agency's effort to sort through data to find high priority situa- 

 tions for risk management action. More recently we have placed the results of TSCA 

 § 8(e) studies into a computerized database that will allow other agencies, state gov- 

 ernments, public interest groups, researchers and companies to be users of the 

 TSCA data along with EPA. Another example is drawn firom our new chemicals pro- 

 grsim that has developed a methodology for identifying chemical structvu^s that £ire 

 associated with certain adverse effects. These "structural activity relationship" 

 (SAR) techniques are now being placed into software tools that will allow others to 

 perform the type of chemical screening activity that is now done by EPA scientists. 



We find ourselves faced with several challenges as we pursue this "right to know" 

 principle in our toxics program. First, what does the customer want? We are cur- 

 rently working with outside groups to determine needs. Second, we are continually 

 working to improve efficiencies in data management. A recent General Accounting 

 Office (GAO) report properly indicated we have too many databases. While we be- 

 lieve the report overestimated the actutil number of databases, we agree with their 

 general point that our data delivery systems need to be coordinated and improved. 



