130 



Mr. Kanerva. First of all, I think there would be some problems 

 with simply trying to superimpose the current USEPA operated 

 CBI system down to a State level. Number one, I just don't think 

 that level of burden is necessary. States have handled trade secret 

 information for years. My agency has trade secret rules they oper- 

 ate under. They are not as burdensome as what USEPA has been 

 stuck with from the Polaroid lawsuit, yet we get along fine with 

 handling that information. So I think it can be done with a lesser 

 level of burden and still give us the access that we need. 



Senator Reid. What would States be doing differently — the State 

 of Illinois, specifically — if you had greater access to TSCA data? 



Mr. Kanerva. I mentioned some of those things in my oral com- 

 ments and they are elaborated on in the written testimony. 



We have a number of different sources of chemical information. 

 We are always trying to cross-check and cross-compare to see if 

 that information makes sense. To the extent that we have another 

 source of data — like inventory update reports, or what have you — 

 it helps to deal with those issues. Health and safety study informa- 

 tion about actual chemical effects and impacts is really important 

 for a lot of the risk assessment work we do. 



And knowing much more about what is actually being produced, 

 stored, and handled at facilities gives one a different focus on what 

 your concerns are and how you are going to manage some of those 

 toxic risks at facilities. 



Senator Reid. Is there some type of a central clearinghouse, com- 

 puterized or otherwise, for information on chemicals? 



Mr. ICanerva. Not to my knowledge. 



Senator Reid. Wouldn't that be something that would be appro- 

 priate for EPA to have? If the State of Illinois had a question about 

 a specific chemical then they could make contact with a source in 

 Washington, D.C. to get that information. Would that be helpful? 



Mr. KANERVA. It would be helpful if it was accessible. We don't 

 see it as a big burden if we have to go to two, three, or four access 

 points. To go to 50 of them is a problem. But to go to four access 

 points is not crucial if they are accessible and if you can get infor- 

 mation quickly. 



Senator Reid. So you think, then, that it wouldn't be a bad idea 

 to have a central location that would have available information 

 that is easily attainable for the States to draw from? 



Mr. Kanerva. I agree with the concept in a generic sense— a 

 central location, an access point. They may have two or three dif- 

 ferent ways that they draw information in, but it would be nice to 

 have that single channel back and forth to then get the information 

 we are asking for. 



Senator Reid. So that is something we can work on. It sounds 

 like there is room for improvement in that area. 



Mr. Kanerva. Yes. 



Senator Reid. Mr. Monsma, if companies report chemical usage 

 at a facility level, how will we protect legitimate trade secrets when 

 disclosing this information to the public? 



Mr. Monsma. The critical point in your question is. What is le- 

 gitimate CBI? 



I think that over the years TSCA actually established some very 

 particular guidelines. However, information that is submitted or di- 



