159 



believe the pollution prevention concept needs to become part of Section 9 consider- 

 ations, as well. 



Section 9 



Mr. Chairman, as I stated in opening these comments, Dow believes that EPA 

 should use its authority to gather or require generation of information in support 

 of other EPA offices and sister Agencies. In addition, we believe that where it has 

 identified a problem requiring regulatory attention. Section 9 directs OPPT at EPA 

 to "hand-ofF' the project to another EPA office or sister Agency with primacy, in al- 

 most all cases. The language of TSCA in Section 9 is somewhat ambiguous, espe- 

 cially when applied to new chemicals. As a result, we now have two agencies regu- 

 lating many areas because of an apparent overlap in authority. Some examples in- 

 clude: TSCA chemicals and FIFRA materials, although this overlap is being clarified 

 by the Agency. TSCA chemicals vs. RCRA when recycle streams are considered. 

 Most egregiously, TSCA control of new chemicals in the workplace and OSHA PELs. 

 In the latter case we find instances of conflicting regulations applying to the same 

 chemical in the same workplace. Dow's position on the issue is that the Agency with 

 the experience and expertise in managing a problem, invariably the Agency des- 

 ignated by Congress to deal with a medium-specific problem, is the one that should 

 have primacy. We ask the Subcommittee to consider the need for Congressional clar- 

 ification of Section 9, especially as it regards the relationship between OSHA and 

 EPA-OPPT. 



Design for the Environment 



The Subcommittee expressed an interest in determining how TSCA could be used 

 to encourage industry to design for the environment. We believe that EPA can best 

 encourage industry to "design for the environment" by ensuring that an informed 

 marketplace has choices. Our experience with the difficulties in marketing new 

 products subject to consent agreements under Section 5(e) is ample evidence that 

 the market is a powerful ally of EPA, for a variety of reasons. We know of one major 

 company that reportedly will not purchase any raw materials requiring label 

 warnings of chronic or subchronic hazards. Continued use of a chemical conceivably 

 presenting an unreasonable risk to health or the environment is simply bad econom- 

 ics because, paraphrasing a famous football coach, "Only three things can happen 

 and two are bad." The product could be withdrawn at any time, the user could be 

 sued, or it could eryoy continued use. An EPA program to educate the marketplace 

 could become a powerful tool in moving toward a "greener" society, if the education 

 were comprised of digested and interpreted data, rather than a simple dump of 

 unanalyzed information, as EPA seems to be proposing in recently released plans 

 for reinventing the way it does business. 



Information Access 



Dow has been actively involved in recent dialog with the EPA about how it ac- 

 quires and handles information received. As I stated a moment ago, we believe that 

 EPA can best serve its "clients" by releasing information that has been evaluated 

 for quality and interpreted for the least knowledgeable of prospective users (exclud- 

 ing those driven by idle curiosity). This would better support the goal of building 

 an educated marketplace, and at the same time reduce somewhat concern about the 

 amount of Confidential Business Information (CBI) claimed in industry submissions, 

 because a good deal of the information often claimed CBI, production data for exam- 

 ple, would have been aggregated for analysis. In aggregate, such information is 

 much less sensitive. We do not believe there are any statutory changes needed to 

 facilitate EPA's handling of CBI. We support much of the administrative approach 

 which EPA intends to adopt. 



Mr. Chairman, I am sure the Subcommittee understands fully that our concern 

 about CBI is protecting it fi-om our competitors, not fi-om anyone in government nor 

 the general public. As a consequence, we support dissemination of all data, includ- 

 ing CBI, if necessary, to state governments and Tribal leaders, and Dow has been 

 actively involved in a leadership role in searching for a way to provide CBI informa- 

 tion to these governments while providing adequate protection to the information. 

 Furthermore, we support the industry effort to educate itself on the issues of CBI 



