142 



(b) Should the statute itself require submission of certain exposure data when 

 a chemical is recommended or listed for testing? 



4. Many people have said that the process for issuing section 6 rules needs to be 

 changed so that EPA can really use that authority. But suppose that we do make 

 section 6 more workable. What would you focus on as the risk management prior- 

 ities under TSCA? 



(a) Would there be some value in having a risk management list like the Mas- 

 ter Testing List that would focus priorities? 



5. EPA has discussed establishing a chemical use inventory. What will we gain 

 from a chemical use inventory? What information would it include and how exactly 

 would EPA use this information? 



(a) What changes in the statute, if any, would be needed to establish such 

 an inventory? 



(b) What has been industry's reaction to a proposed chemical use inventory? 



6. In yovu- statement for our last hearing you stressed the importance of pollution 

 prevention and, you stated: "Fundamentally, we believe a toxics program should 

 push for use of safer chemicals and processes in the basic operations of the indus- 

 trial sector. " What specific actions should EPA take to further these goals and how 

 can the statute be reformed to advance these efforts? 



7. Going back to the process of section 6 rules for a moment, how much of an im- 

 pediment do you think the substantial evidence standard of judicial review has been 

 for EPA regulating under section 6? 



8. In your recent Final Action Plan on TSCA CBI reform, you discuss several vol- 

 untary and regulatory actions to reduce inappropriate CBI claims. That report also 

 states: "It is generally recognized within the Office, that given TSCA's present 

 framework, there are significant statutory impediments to OPPT's effort to elimi- 

 nate all improper CBI claims." What statutory changes would you like to see to re- 

 move those impediments? 



9. These days, inadequate resources always seem to be a problem for federal agen- 

 cies. Can you outline the current resource picture for implementing TSCA and how 

 that compares with previous years? 



10. How could TSCA better serve the needs of other agencies like OSHA and 

 NIOSH? 



11. "Under section 9 as it has been interpreted, if EPA determines that a chemical 

 presents an unreasonable risk and the risk can be prevented or sufficiently reduced 

 under another law, EPA has to refer the chemical to the agency that administers 

 that other law. The idea seems to have been to avoid unnecessary duplication. But 

 at our last hearing, GAO testified that this "gap filling" aspect of TSCA has been 

 a hindrance to action. Clearly, the law should encourage federal coordination. But 

 what direction should the statute provide so that the roles of EPA, OSHA, and other 

 agencies are clear and we do not have either duplicate regulatory actions or hazards 

 that are ignored and fall into a regulatory black hole? 



(a) Should the statute recognize the ONE Committee or establish similar high 

 level interagency coordinating groups? 

 [NOTE: Responses to the above questions were not received by date of publication, 

 October 31, 1994.] 



Statement of Joseph A. Dear, Assistant Secretary of Labor for 

 Occupational Safety and Health 



Mr. Chairman, members of the Subcommittee: Thank you for this opportunity to 

 testify on the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA). I am particularly pleased to be 

 here today with my colleagues fi-om the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) 

 and the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH). We share 

 the goal of reducing exposure to toxic chemicals at their source instead of having 

 to institute control or abatement afler exposvu-es have occurred. I work very closely 

 with Lynn Goldman and Linda Rosenstock, and I have instructed OSHA staff to 

 consult with and involve EPA and NIOSH in our regulatory activities at the earliest 



