80 



I testify as an individual who has had access to the information that companies 

 submit to EPA and as one who has helped identify valuable public uses for informa- 

 tion available under TSCA. Our firm has even prepared a report documenting the 

 breadth of the impact of CBI claims on TSCA information. Even for internal, 

 nonpublic, EPA use, CBI issues have crippled TSCA as a source of information. 



From a company's perspective, anyone can make a claim of confidentiality, on any 

 submission, for anything. The statute extends broad protection from public disclo- 

 sure to data claimed as confidential, even for key information on health and safety. 



From EPA's perspective, Agency employees are put at great personal jeopardy if 

 any CBI data are disclosed. EPA has had to develop a large, cumbersome, and ex- 

 pensive system to protect the huge volume of information containing such claims. 

 The procedures and liabilities associated with accessing such data have effectively 

 warded off use by other parts of EPA or sister Federal programs. Staff of the Occu- 

 pational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA), for example, indicated to us 

 that they set program priorities and establish worker health standards totally with- 

 out regard to the theoretical availability of all TSCA data, simply because they are 

 not equipped to handle TSCA's CBI data. 



For EPA to attempt to deny a CBI claim involves lengthy and expensive proce- 

 dures on the part of the Agency, even for claims that on their face have no merit. 

 The law does not allow EPA to make generic CBI determinations. 



This open door to CBI status for industry and the cumbersome procedures that 

 EPA must follow to declassify any data with CBI status has produced a plethora 

 of claims — many patently insupportable at the outset and even more so over time. 

 Meanwhile, EPA has no practical ability to address the problem. Industry has had 

 little incentive to change its practices, and it has done little to do so. 



Whenever the issue of TSCA CBI is raised, the question of granting State govern- 

 ments access to the data follows. Certainly, states should have access to such data, 

 if they have systems to protect CBI information from disclosure. But, making TSCA 

 data available to State agencies will not in anyway address the needs for wide ac- 

 cess to TSCA information. Moreover, even with legal access, states will not be able 

 to use TSCA data any more effectively than, say, OSHA, which has long had the 

 access, but finds the impediments to its use impossible to overcome. 



When passed in 1976, TSCA offered the hope of a much better perspective on the 

 flow of chemicals in commerce and the environmental risks that those chemicals 

 pose. Can this subcommittee think of anjrthing it has learned from information 

 gathered under this statute, beyond the simple facts that approximately 70,000 

 chemicals appear on the existing chemical inventory and that about 2,000 new 

 chemicals are proposed for manufacture each year? That nothing has been learned 

 is not for lack of data collected. 



Current CBI policy and practices have totally excluded the scientific community. 

 State and local government agencies, workers, the press, and the public from gain- 

 ing TSCA's perspectives on chemicals in commerce and have blocked accountability 

 of industrial firms for their actions. If TSCA is ever to rely on other than presuming 

 EPA to be omniscient and omnipotent on chemicals in commerce, the approach to 

 CBI must be changed and changed radically. 



A CBI approach that includes use-based policies may represent a reasonable alter- 

 native. During the research phase of commercial chemical development, before man- 

 ufacture, for example, legitimate corporate interests pertain much more-and the 

 public need-to-know remains much less. On the other hand, when any chemical is 

 being sold in commerce or used dispersively, the public need to know about such 

 chemicals weighs much more heavily against any corporate need for trade secrecy. 

 This is the case for chemicals during their premanufacture notification review pe- 

 riod. 



4. Retain and Improve New Chemical Review 



Section 5 of TSCA has been the one big pleasant surprise in the statute. Since 

 the law was passed, EPA has received and reviewed more than 20,000 

 premanufacture notices (PMNs). Over the years, EPA has taken many hundreds of 

 actions to assure that these chemicals do not pose unreasonable risks as they enter 

 commerce. Happily, few, if any, of the major environmental issues of today are asso- 



