145 



chemical data instead of data from individual firms. If OSHA had more precise data 

 on where there are newly emerging hazards presented by chemicals, the agency 

 could avoid visiting those companies where there are no workplace hazards and con- 

 centrate on those worksites with the most serious threats to workers' lives. Thus, 

 OSHA' and the business community have a mutual interest in having more precise 

 data about workplace chemicals. 



Another difficulty is that claims of confidentiality by chemical companies have 

 sometimes included results of toxicity testing. The claim is based upon the concern 

 that one company does not want its competitors to know that it is interested in a 

 chemical to the extent that it would pay for a toxicity test. OSHA certainly does 

 not want to discourage companies from conducting such tests voluntarily, but we 

 also believe that when workers are exposed to a toxic substance OSHA needs ade- 

 quate data concerning the substance. This data is essential in assisting OSHA to 

 determine, on the basis of scientific testing, which chemicals to regulate and what 

 priority they should receive. We would also like to use CBI data to make more accu- 

 rate estimates of the costs of proposed regulations in specific t5T)es of workplaces. 



OSHA and EPA are working to increase their cooperation under TSCA. Since No- 

 vember 1988 representatives from OSHA, NIOSH, EPA, and Mine Safety and 

 Health Administration have met as the "ONE Committee." The purpose of the ONE 

 Committee is to coordinate the research and regulatory activities of the agencies so 

 that there is no duplication and overlap in addressing toxic substances. The commit- 

 tee meets monthly to discuss the status of regulatory investigations, joint projects, 

 and research needs. The four agencies are now looking at ways in which they can 

 work together even earlier during the process of determining which chemicals 

 should be tested under TSCA. 



Concurrently, OSHA is working on ways to include EPA at an earlier stage in our 

 rulemaking procedures. We intend to ask EPA to become an ex-officio member of 

 the OSHA planning committee which will prioritize standards-setting activities. 

 This will be an improved vehicle for EPA to suggest hazards or issues which OSHA 

 should address and to provide data for rulemEiking. 



Working together, OSHA, EPA and NIOSH can make a great deal of progress in 

 regulating toxic substances under our current authorities. Improvements in both the 

 Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970 as well as TSCA would enable us to 

 be even more effective. Workers who are exposed to chemical hazards will benefit 

 as better data are generated concerning the manufacture and use of chemicals in 

 American workplaces and as those data are translated into effective standards. If 

 we know where the hazards are located, OSHA can work with employers and em- 

 ployees to eliminate these dangers. 



Better regulation of workplace exposures to chemicals which cause occupational 

 disease will assist us in preventing these diseases and will result in lower health 

 care costs. Improving TSCA can mean improving risk assessment and risk manage- 

 ment policies and procedures. The result will be more protective, balanced regula- 

 tions that will not only protect workers but will save money for the business com- 

 munity. 



I am very pleased that you are focusing attention on this issue. I will be happy 

 to answer any questions. 



FoLLOwup Questions for Joseph A. Dear from Senator Reid 



1. At the Subcommittee's last hearing, several witnesses spoke of the need to set 

 priorities. With the large number of chemicals we have in commerce, this is crucial. 

 Would it be advisable for us to identify in TSCA certain categories or criteria for 

 prioritizing the testing of chemicals, and if so, what categories or criteria would you 

 recommend? 



2. How could TSCA serve OSHA's needs better? 



3. As I understand it, standard setting under the OSH Act is nearly as difficult 

 as issuing TSCA regxilations. OSHA has to show not only that a hazard exists, but 

 that the current level of exposure to the chemical is dangerous, it has to make de- 

 tailed cosfbenefit findings, and its findings are reviewed under a substantial evi- 



