96 



Another general concern which the chemical using community would like to see 

 addressed is the need for appropriate de minimis exemptions to TSCA requirements, 

 such as the import certification and export notification requirements. For example, 

 a person receiving an overnight package fix)m a foreign location containing a type- 

 writer ribbon is expected to certify immediately at port of entry (whatever that 

 means under the circumstances) that all the chemicals in the ink in that ribbon are 

 on the TSCA inventory and to file a premanufacture notification with EPA should 

 any of the chemicals not be on the inventory. If an electronics engineer sends a sam- 

 ple of a conductive ink to Canada to a fellow researcher, and the ink contains any 

 of a number of solvents, export notification requirements will be triggered — even if 

 only grams of common industrial solvents are involved. The paperwork burdens 

 such regulations cause are not justified by any significant reduction in risk: the pol- 

 icy of TSCA is to "regulate chemical substances and mixtures which present an un- 

 reasonable risk of injury to health or the environment," not to regulate all chemical 

 substances everywhere, regardless of environmental or health impacts. 



A final user concern I will mention is the difficulty raised by use of the Confiden- 

 tial Business Information (CBI) provisions of TSCA to withhold chemical identity in- 

 formation from processors and users. Even users have some important obligations 

 under TSCA, such as the requirement of TSCA Section 15 that no person knowingly 

 use a chemical substance for commercial purposes if it is not on the TSCA Inven- 

 tory, or Section 5(a) Significant New Use Rides (SNURs). If a chemical manufac- 

 turer claims the chemical identity and Chemical Abstract Service (CAS) number as 

 CBI, however, its identity will be kept on the confidential TSCA Inventory, and spe- 

 cific chemical identity will not be released to users or processors. For example, 

 should any SNUR be issued with respect to that substance, it will simply be re- 

 ferred to by the internal EPA identifier — which, of course, means nothing to the 

 user. Despite this situation, a user may be held in violation of TSCA for using a 

 substance the identity of which it could not determine even using best efforts be- 

 cause of the CBI clad. 



Obviously, this is inequitable. Processors and users should be able to access the 

 chemical identity of substances to determine their compliance responsibilities. If this 

 cannot be done, then they should not be held liable for violations which they could 

 not, even by using best efforts, avoid. 



Conclusion 



In its current form, TSCA raises a number of serious issues for non-chemical man- 

 ufacturing companies. More fundamentally, however, the existing thrust of TSCA 

 reflects a view of environmental impacts which is too limited. This results in some 

 user activities being heavily burdened by ambiguous, overly-complex regulations 

 which produce little if any environmental benefit, while potentially more significant 

 environmental impacts which should be integrated into the material assessment 

 process are slighted. The goal of our environmental policies regarding materials 

 should be to achieve sustainable materials use patterns within our economy. A suit- 

 ably expanded and refocused TSCA, integrated with appropriate programs in DOC, 

 DOE and other organizations, could provide a major vehicle by which this new, 

 more comprehensive, environmental management mandate may be implemented. 



