133 



Senator Reid. Dr. Smith, would you comment on Mr. Monsma's 

 statement about the fees? 



Dr. Smith. Could you have Mr. Monsma review the comment 

 that he made? I don't have a copy of his statement in front of me. 



Mr. Monsma. Sir, I suggested that in order for CBI management 

 to be improved and to help reduce the amount of information that 

 is directed to the agency as CBI that the agency be authorized to 

 collect fees for the management of CBI. In other words, there 

 would be a cost associated with declaring information CBI. 



Senator Reid. As he indicated, that is now being paid for by the 

 taxpayers directly. 



Dr. Smith. That is something on which we will get back to you 

 in writing. SOCMA does not have a position on that subject right 

 now. 



Senator Reid. I would like each of you to give me your views on 

 what types or categories of information you think should be con- 

 fidential and what should be public. For example, what about a 

 chemical's trade name, its CAS number, the name of the manufac- 

 turer, toxicological test results, levels of production, intended 

 uses — ^where do we start and stop? 



Mr. Monsma. CBI treatment is very complex, as you know. Part 

 of it is the associations of information together. So when that infor- 

 mation is aggregated or segregated out, CBI concerns are some- 

 times reduced. 



However, I do believe that we have to try to create some prior- 

 ities. Health and safety information contained in health and safety 

 studies and section 8(e) submissions is information that without 

 chemical identity is not meaningful. So therefore, chemical identity 

 in that study information should never really be CBI. 



My reasoning for that is that once information about a chemical's 

 toxicity raises to the level of concern that you are required to sub- 

 mit under 8(d) and 8(e), that is starting to bring that information 

 into the public domain. That is to say, the proprietary interests a 

 company lias in that information is starting to reduce as the public 

 concern rises. 



In direct answer to your question, trade name or CAS name of 

 the chemical, company name, production volume — conceivably, 

 those can be argued to be CBI when they are connected in such a 

 way to reveal process or mixture information or they damage com- 

 petitive needs of the company. 



I think we need to be clear when we are collecting CBI. When 

 we look at the inventory itself — that is, what chemicals are on the 

 inventory and how much — I don't think any of that information 

 should be CBI. There are members of the regulated community 

 who do import chemicals and don't manufacture them that need to 

 be able to go to the inventory and determine whether a chemical 

 is on the inventory. Right now, they are unable to do that effi- 

 ciently, yet they are liable under the PMN process for making sure 

 that their chemical is not listed. 



If a chemical use inventory is created, there will be some CBI. 

 However, TRI has CBI and it doesn't completely frustrate our abil- 

 ity to collect and disseminate information under the TRI program. 

 I think a chemical use inventory should act the same, that is, be 

 publicly accessible and that we reduce CBI to the proper propri- 



