BOSTON PUBLIC LIBRARY 



186 3 9999 05983 345 7 



the ways the Agency protected employees and neighbors from potential harm. 

 TSCA's intent was public oversight not creation of a public database. Its drafters 

 recognized the value of proprietary information and sought to offer protection of it 

 within the statutory framework of TSCA. 



Section 14 of TSCA strikes a careful balance between industry's legitimate inter- 

 est in protecting competitively sensitive information and the need for public over- 

 sight of EPA's activities under TSCA. CMA does not believe that a large proportion 

 of CBI claims under TSCA are invalid or that EPA's current CBI policies or proce- 

 dures have prevented public access to important health and safety data. The data 

 on health and safety studies are in the public TSCA files. Even if the chemical iden- 

 tity is claimed as CBI (and then a generic name is substituted), the public can raise 

 its concerns about any study results to EPA. EPA then is responsible under TSCA 

 for taking appropriate action on that chemiced. EPA always has access to the CBI 

 information and can act on it for regulatory purposes within EPA and with other 

 federal agencies. 



CMA would like to note for the record that most Freedom of Information Act 

 (FOIA) requests under TSCA are made by law firms and other chemical companies 

 (U.S. and foreign) and not the general public. ["Analysis of Impact of U.S. Federal 

 and State Reporting Requirements on Sensitive and Proprietary Company Informa- 

 tion", Final Report — July 1992, SRI International, at pp. 5, 40.]. CMA believes re- 

 quests are made by competitors to gain access to vaJuable proprietary data on 

 chemicals still in research and development and not due to concerns by the public 

 about potential health and environmental effects. 



CMA does recognize, however, that unnecessary CBI claims have been asserted 

 on occasion. We support efforts to discourage improper or unnecessary CBI claims 

 and have been leading industry education programs to reduce such claims. CMA op- 

 poses any narrowing of TSCA's basic CBI safeguards. Reduced protection for CBI 

 wovdd needlessly place valuable trade secrets at risk and create disincentives to new 

 product and process development in the chemical industry. 



While the most controversial issue pertains to CBI protection of specific chemical 

 identity information in health and safety studies, other data submitted under TSCA 

 can also be a serious threat if not protected as CBI. Product specific, plant-specific, 

 or company specific information contained in reporting data can be combined with 

 generic technology and research information available from other sources. This pro- 

 vides a significant threat of disclosure of proprietary information (also known as "in- 

 tellectusd property") to others. Unfortunately, the vast amount of technology-based 

 chemical industry data made available through other reporting requirements, com- 

 puter technology, and global telecommunications have created reverse engineering 

 opportunities that make adequate protection of sensitive or competitive information 

 very difficult, if not impossible, for firms. 



Public disclosure reduces the competitiveness of companies by allowing competi- 

 tors, both domestic and foreign, to access and use at no cost to them the intellectual 

 property generated, often at considerable cost, to the owner of this information. 



Some witnesses at the hearing compared TSCA to the Emergency Planning and 

 Community Right to Know Act ("EPCRA") and stated that TSCA is a Right to Know 

 statute. CMA believes any such comparison is unfair and misleading. The two stat- 

 utes were enacted by Congress for two very different purposes. 



EPCRA is a public information law used for the collection, aggregation and dis- 

 semination of data on chemical wastes released into the environment. Data collected 

 by EPA under TSCA are intended to enable the Agency to assess and manage the 

 risks posed by chemical products. Public disclosure is critical to EPCRA's objectives, 

 for that limited and well-defined set of EPCRA chemicals whose potential effects on 

 site neighbors are at the core of the law's purposes. The CBI approach in EPCRA 

 fits its purpose, while the distinct CBI approach of TSCA is appropriate for TSCA's 

 purposes. CMA believes the extremely limited CBI provisions of Section 322 of 

 EPCRA to be totally inadequate and inappropriate for use in TSCA. 



The issue of state government access to TSCA CBI, which was raised at the hear- 

 ing, requires some clarification. CMA believes that the uses for data, identified by 

 the state representatives at the hearing, are legitimate. CMA recognizes that state 

 government access is a legitimate concern and has been working on a solution to 



