140 



Probably the greatest challenge in increasing the amount of information available 

 to states and the public has been the amount of TSCA information claimed as busi- 

 ness confidential. Currently there are no costs or disincentives for a company to 

 claim information as confidential business information (CBI); in fact, it is probably 

 less costly to not carefully screen information. We have seen cases where even infor- 

 mation found in newspaper articles has been claimed as CBI. Through our CBI re- 

 form process, we are exploring how to improve public access to information within 

 the limits of TSCA's authority. OPPT has embarked on a series of both regulatory 

 and cooperative initiatives to limit the amount of information claimed as confiden- 

 tial. We expect these measures to be helpful in improving public disclosure, but they 

 cannot fully resolve the problem. As long as we are hampered in our ability to tell 

 a state governor about the toxic chemicals within his or her state or inform cus- 

 tomers about the risks associated with the products they are buying, we have not 

 achieved the goal of public empowerment. 



If public disclosure of chemical information is an important value, which we be- 

 lieve it is, it is critical that TSCA help promote not preclude its disclosure. This, 

 of course, raises several questions. What types of data are useful to disclose? How 

 do we balance the legitimate but competing demands for confidentiality of propri- 

 etary information and public disclosure of information about risks? What incentives 

 for public disclosure exist in the current law? 



Relationship with Other Agencies 



For the TSCA program, other Federal agencies are some of our most important 

 customers. Under TSCA Section 9 there is a formal regulatory procedure for refer- 

 ring EPA's chemical risk determinations to other agencies for consideration. This 

 section also sets forth a general duty to coordinate actions with other Federal agen- 

 cies. While this general coordination obligation has resulted in positive interaction 

 between EPA and other agencies, the formal referral mechanism has proven burden- 

 some to EPA and cumbersome as a mechanism for obtaining prompt consideration 

 by applicable agencies. 



We have found a much more effective tool for coordination in the establishment 

 of formal committees that meet regularly on issues of concern. For occupational 

 health issues, we have developed a forum to bring together the Occupational Safety 

 and Health Administration (OSHA), the National Institute for Occupational Safety 

 and Health (NIOSH), EPA, and the Mine Safety and Hetilth Administration 

 (MSHA), which is called the ONE (OSHA, NIOSH, EPA) committee. This group has 

 been quite effective in the sharing of valuable data and in developing coordinated 

 strategies for addressing chemical hazards in the workplace. For example, we have 

 used this group to coordinate strategies on asbestos, lead and refractory ceramic fi- 

 bers. 



We helped establish a similar forum for interagency cooperation between EPA and 

 the Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC). We have used this group to co- 

 ordinate actions on carpets, formaldehyde and environmental labeling. EPA also co- 

 ordinates with the Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR) and 

 the National Institute for Environmental Health Sciences (NIEHS) on the long- 

 standing tri-agency Superfund Applied Research Coordinating Committee that 

 works to identify key data needs for priority Superfund substances. 



Enforcement of TSCA 



Another area of concern involves TSCA enforcement provisions. Violations of 

 TSCA may result in serious harm to health or the environment, so strong enforce- 

 ment is essential to meeting the environmental goals I have previously described. 

 Although TSCA enforcement authorities generally function well, they are limited. 



Our inspection authority is limited. For example, a regional sales office of a chem- 

 ical company may receive information showing that one of the chemicals it sells pro- 

 duces birth defects at lower doses than was previously suspected. This information 

 is reportable under TSCA § 8 (e). However, EPA compliance inspectors do not have 

 explicit TSCA authority to enter the regional sales office to examine their records, 

 uiUess the chemical substance is stored or held at that office. EPA could issue a sub- 

 poena for any TSCA § 8(e) information in the possession of the company, but if the 



