58 



21. What is EPA doing to increase dissemination of the testing data that it re- 

 ceives? Aside from concerns with CBI, I'm sure you're aware of the criticism of EPA 

 for not making more of its health and safety inform mat ion on chemicals more 

 readily available. What steps is EPA taking to make this information more readily 

 available? 



22. I understand that EPA has had some concerns with the amount of information 

 chat is submitted to EPA under claims of confidential business information ("CBF") 

 protection. What do you see as the effect of these excessive confidentiality claims? 

 What is EPA considering doing about this problem? Does EPA believe that the vol- 

 untary and regulatory activities it has proposed to address the CBI problems will 

 in fact, resolve the issue? What specific statutory amendments would EPA view as 

 useful to reduce excessive and inappropriate CBI claims? 



23. You mentioned the 8(e) CAP program in your testimony. Can you identify 

 ways to strengthen 8(e) for the future so that this sort of one-time incentive pro- 

 gram is not necessary? 



24. States' access to TSCA CBI is currently restricted. How has this affected the 

 utility of TSCA data? In what ways would access to TSCA CBI data assist states? 



Resources 



25. You have laid out some ambitious ideas for the TSCA program, what do your 

 current resources look like for TSCA? Have you considered the possibility of user 

 fees to help, support the program? Are there any statutory impediments to charging 

 user fees to support the TSCA program? 



26. In light of resource constraints, what do you see as the least needed or least 

 effective aspects of TSCA? Where are the possibilities for "streamlining"? 



FoLLOwup Questions for Dr. Lynn Goldman, from Senator Faircloth 



1. Dr. Goldman Last month , I wrote you a letter requesting that the agency to 

 reopen the docket to accept comments on its proposed ban of acrylamide and N- 

 methylolacrylamide (NMA) grouts under Section 6 of TSCA. 



These grouts are an important tool in the repair of sewer systems and 1 am con- 

 cerned that their loss would impair the ability of municipalities in my state to effect 

 repairs without undertaking costly construction activities. 



It is my understanding that the market has changed considerably since EPA pro- 

 posed this ban nearly two and one half years ago. In fact, many, not all, of the prod- 

 ucts claimed in the proposed nale to be feasible alternatives to these grouts have 

 either not proven to be efBcacious or have been taken off the market. 



In light of all of this, why has EPA steadfastly refused to open the docket to ac- 

 cept further comment on this proposed rule? See attached letter. 



2. How many people does EPA estimate are exposed to these grouts and how do 

 these exposures occur? 



3. What is/are the route(s) of exposure? 



4. Are there any less burdensome alternatives (such as requiring persons to wear 

 personal protective equipment) that would minimize the risks posed by these sub- 

 stances without a complete ban? 



5. Has EPA fully examined these alternatives? 



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

 October 31, 1994.] 



Statement of Peter F. Guerrero, General Accounting Office 



Mr. Chairman and members of the subcommittee: We appreciate the opportunity 

 to be here today to discuss our work on the Environmental Protection Agency's 

 (EPA) implementation of the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA). As you know, 

 over 70,000 chemicals are in use in the United States. Although these chemicals are 

 an important part of our economy, they are often toxic and can have adverse effects 

 on hvunan health and the environment. The Congress passed TSCA in 1976 to ob- 



