163 



such authority over existing chemicals. The establishment of the Master Testing 

 List (MTL) is a first step here. Once a chemical is listed on the MTL manufacturers 

 should have a deadline by which they voluntarily produce testing results. If the re- 

 sponse during this voluntary period is found inadequate, the Agency should have 

 the authority to require the necessary tests. To avoid the current condition where 

 testing protocols are the subject of protracted rule making, the statute should be 

 drafted to list the testing results that would be required if the Agency finds that 

 voluntary testing has produced inadequate results. 



(6) The international chemical data clearinghouse noted above should be ref- 

 erenced in Section 4 as a coordinating vehicle for international load sharing in test- 

 ing chemicals. The Agenc/s initial efforts with the Organization for Economic Co- 

 operation smd Development Screening Information Data Set (SIDS) is a promising 

 experiment, but the lack of a legislative mandate has limited its aggressiveness. 

 Section 4 should specifically require the international harmonization of testing pro- 

 tocols and require annual plans for international sharing of testing responsibilities. 



(7) Section 6 needs to more clearly describe a staged process for the progressive 

 phase out of those toxic chemicals found to pose an unreasonable risk. TSCA has 

 not provided an adequate vehicle for phasing out the use of particularly dangerous 

 chemicals. The Agency has banned Jew substances and its initiatives in this area 

 have tjrpically been tied up by costly litigation. Both Canada and Sweden are mov- 

 ing forward on collaborative procedures ("sunsetting procedures") that progressively 

 reduce to zero the production and use of a few very high risk substances. The Swed- 

 ish Chemical Inspectorate has identified 100 "multiproblem chemicals" as can- 

 didates for aggressive risk reduction efforts leading towards phase outs. The Toxics 

 Use Reduction Institute has proposed a four step process for phasing out the use 

 of such chemicals at the state level. Section 6 needs to better describe a staged proc- 

 ess that engages the Agency and industry in a cooperative process that progresses 

 from voluntary to assisted to mandatory stages in phasing out very high risk sub- 

 stances. 



C. TSCA needs to be redesigned to promote pollution prevention and changes in 

 chemical use decisions that progressively reduce risk and enhance public health 

 and safety 



The Administration has identified pollution prevention as the highest priority ap- 

 proach to the management of toxic chemical wastes. The Pollution Prevention Act 

 of 1990 has defined pollution prevention as the reduction of the generation of pollu- 

 tion at the source. Many leading firms have initiated active pollution prevention 

 programs and well over half of the states have enacted some kind of pollution pre- 

 vention or toxics use reduction law. 



TSCA needs to align with these initiatives by promoting pollution prevention at 

 the source as the preferred means of toxic chemical management. 



(8) The range of remedies listed in Section 6(a) needs to be expanded to include 

 pollution prevention techniques. State pollution prevention and toxics use reduction 

 laws often list a set of production change techniques. These include process reformu- 

 lation, product redesign, raw material input substitution, process modernization, im- 

 provements in operations and maintenance, and in-process recycling. These tech- 

 niques should be added into the list of available remedies that the Agency could re- 

 quire to reduce the unreasonable risks of a targeted toxic chemical. 



(9) In preparing justifications for other Section 6(a) remedies the Agency should 

 be able to call for pollution prevention plans. Many state programs require or en- 

 courage industrial firms to prepare pollution prevention plans for their facilities. 

 Such plans consider the technical, economic and practical options available for re- 

 ducing pollution through process changes, product reformulation, and material sub- 

 stitution. Where the Agency determines that a toxic substance does provide an un- 

 reasonable risk, the Agency should be able to require firms to develop toxic chemical 

 substitution plans to guide the transition to safer substances. 



