158 



polyethylene would suggest that exposure to this chemical might be enormous un- 

 less one realizes that polyethylene is an essentially biologically inert pol3mfier and 

 the production volume is meaningless because we can't absorb the polymer through 

 our body tissues. On the other hand, a solvent used solely in architectural coatings 

 would likely end up completely in the atmosphere, so production would be a good 

 estimate of that t3rpe of exposure. 



The data may also be used to generate a gross estimate of potential exposure for 

 certain chemicals. Information collected through the TSCA inventory Update gen- 

 erates gross exposure information, in that it provides some additional information 

 beyond simple production, including production site and whether the substance 

 leaves the site. EPA is currently considering use of the periodic TSCA Inventory In- 

 formation Update as a vehicle to collect additional use information for use in expo- 

 sure estimation. Before adopting this strategy, EPA ought to complete its evaluation 

 of the voluntary use-exposure information collection being conducted by EPA in con- 

 junction with CMA and SOCMA. This provides information that is detailed enough 

 to support determinations of the need for testing, set priorities for its conduct, and 

 support EPA's RM2 assessment of the need for regulatory control action. Exposure 

 assessment more detailed than this can become quite expensive, and should be ac- 

 quired only for supporting the need for severe control actions. 



As an tiltemative to collection of expensive exposure data and perhaps equally ex- 

 pensive toxicity information, Dow supports the notion of negotiated exposure control 

 agreements. In situations where structure activity analysis, or other toxicity-related 

 information, suggests that a chemical is likely to present substantial concern when 

 coupled with a reasonable exposure scenario, the manufacturer or processor could 

 agree with EPA to limit exposure based on a worst case scenario. This would elimi- 

 nate the concern while conserving resources. 



Section 6 



As I commented at the start of this statement, Dow believes that there are limited 

 circumstances where EPA should exercise primacy in controlling exposures to 

 chemicals through the use of its Section 6 authority. Ovir posture on this issue is 

 based on a perception that Section 6 authority should be used only to supplement 

 other environmental statutes, if another statute lacks authority to reduce risk to an 

 acceptable level, or if it is much more efficient to use the multi-media authority in- 

 herent in Section 6, then TSCA ought to be used to control risk. Viewed in this 

 light, we do not believe the paucity of regulations under section 6 is surprising, and 

 do not believe that it needs to be changed to be more effective. Congressional defini- 

 tion of "unreasonable risk" would be helpful, but the risk basis for regulatory action 

 in the current language should be retained. 



We strongly disagree that this section is too difficult to use, as some in EPA and 

 others maintain, it makes sense to Dow that the strength of the support for control 

 actions should be proportionate to the severity of the action. Thus a total ban on 

 the production, processing and use of a chemical which provides substantial eco- 

 nomic and/or non-economic benefits to society should require a very high threshold 

 for a finding of unreasonable risk to support implementation. We believe that the 

 "Asbestos Rule", widely cited as evidence of the failure of Section 6, was successfully 

 challenged because EPA didn't do the homework that was required to show, on an 

 application by application basis, that lesser actions than a total ban were inad- 

 equate to control risk to a reasonable level. 



Dow agrees with the concept of pollution prevention as the preferred method of 

 managing risks from chemical production and use. A stakeholder dialog focused on 

 developing guidance to industry about what scenarios would, presumptively at least, 

 constitute unreasonable risk could be a productive effort aimed at merging pollution 

 prevention tenets into TSCA, including Section 6. This approach was quite effective 

 in guidance on the definition of "Health and Safety Studies" under Section 8(d) in 

 the context of modeling and monitoring studies. An equally effective dialog resulted 

 in guidance clarifying EPA's understanding information to be reported under Sec- 

 tion 8(e), although we believe their understanding is somewhat broader than Con- 

 gress intended. Again our vision is limited by the perception of TSCA as a statute 

 intended to support others with respect to control regulation. As a consequence, we 



