134 



etary interest of the company, namely at a very limited level of 

 mixture information and process information that may reveal the 

 actual constituencies of the chemicals that make it a competitive 

 product. 



Mr. Kanerva. I agree with his comments about the health and 

 safety studies completely. Without the chemical identity to link 

 with it, you really haven't gained much. 



I would add to that the 8(e) substantial risk notice provisions. I 

 feel like those often give the same sort of signals to those of us who 

 are concerned about toxic chemical risks. I have a real problem 

 with those being brought under CBI, a very narrow CBI provision. 



From the State perspective, specifically, facility location baffles 

 me. I have heard some off-the-wall arguments that I think are a 

 bunch of mumbo jumbo myself. If you are in a State and you are 

 concerned about chemical safety at a facility, it just escapes me 

 that the location of a facility submitting lUR reports should be 

 claimed as confidential. 



Senator Reid. The chemical trade name? 



Mr. Kanerva. I also disagree with chemical trade name. 



Senator Reid. The CAS number? 



Mr. Kanerva. I don't see any reason to do that. 



Senator Reid. The name of the manufacturer? 



Mr. Kanerva. Same response. 



Senator Reid. Toxicological test results? Now we are getting into 

 areas that could be questionable, right? 



Mr. Kanerva. Depending on the extent to which it might indi- 

 cate process. 



Senator Reid. Levels of production? 



Mr. Kanerva. Levels of production is the one point where I prob- 

 ably feel the most sympathy with industry because of the fact that 

 it probably does give some sort of competitive knowledge that could 

 be used against them. 



Senator Reid. Do you have any comments on this. Dr. Smith? 



Dr. Smith. Yes, I certainly do. 



In the area of trade secrecy or confidential business information, 

 we have to separate the different aspects. First of all, we have the 

 specific chemical identity by which a chemist can work out exactly 

 what the chemical structure is. Then we have the trade name by 

 which the physical form may be different than the same chemical 

 identity but made by another manufacturer. Having information 

 regarding the trade name may give information to a competitor 

 which would destroy the marketable advantage of the product. 



In terms of the location, I do see that as a means of industrial 

 intelligence which would detract from the continued market situa- 

 tion of a particular substance. 



What I do see, however, is in the area of toxicological data — that 

 being an area where I believe the information can be provided le- 

 gitimately through the use of what Canada calls masked names, or 

 generic names. I believe that these names can be — to the satisfac- 

 tion of the requestors — without divulging the specific chemical 

 identity or the trade name of the substance. 



Senator Reid. As each of you know, TSCA information gathering 

 authority under section 8 is limited to manufacturers and proc- 



