187 



the problem. CMA has, in fact, been in a dialogue with FOSTTA (Forum on States 

 and Tribal Action), a coalition of state government representatives, on this very sub- 

 ject for the last two years. We believe data reported to EPA under TSCA can be 

 available to state governments subject to certain security measures adequate to pro- 

 tect the data's confidential status. 



While CMA believes the states' concerns about the burdens of CBI security meas- 

 ures can be resolved, we are not sure if EPA's reluctance to cross apparent adminis- 

 trative barriers can be overcome. Our own analysis has shown that state access to 

 TSCA CBI can be solved administratively under existing authority in TSCA. CMA 

 continues to participate in a dialogue with FOSTTA representatives and encourage 

 a facilitated solution to this difBcult problem. 



The issue of access to TSCA CBI information by other federal agencies was raised 

 by some witnesses at the hearing. CMA believes this is an administrative issue 

 within EPA, since Section 14 of TSCA clearly gives federal agencies access to such 

 information. 



POLLUTION PREVENTION 



One of the major issues raised at the hearing concerned incorporation of pollution 

 prevention into TSCA. TSCA was the very first environmental pollution prevention 

 statute and we believe its fi-amework embodies those principles. Pollution preven- 

 tion as characterized under the Pollution Prevention Act of 1990 (PPA) involves a 

 hierarchy of practices designed to reduce the amount of substances released into the 

 environment or generated as wastes. This hierarchy of preferred practices is (1) 

 source reduction, (2) recycle, reuse, and (3) treatment. CMA supported the Pollution 

 Prevention Act and supports pollution prevention as defined under the Act. CMA 

 believes pollution prevention is an excellent tool for preventing the release of poten- 

 tially harmful pollutants into the environment. Support for pollution prevention is 

 embodied in CMA's Responsible Card Pollution Prevention Code. 



At the hearing, some witnesses also recommended that TSCA incorporate toxic 

 use reduction ("TUR") initiatives within its statutory framework. TUR initiatives 

 are based on the belief that chemicals deemed toxic are inherently and unavoidably 

 unsafe and should be banned or phased out as soon as possible. Most TUR initia- 

 tives call for the creation of regulatory mechanisms that would require reductions 

 or elimination in the production and use of a designated list of "toxics". 



Proponents state that TUR is a subset of pollution prevention. They say that if 

 one embraces the former, one must also support the latter. Proponents claim that 

 TUR is a part of source reduction. CMA disagrees. TUR has a different goal and 

 effect than source reduction and pollution prevention. As generally defined in the 

 PPA, source reduction is any practice that reduces the amount of pollutants enter- 

 ing the wastestream or being released into the environment, and that reduces risk. 

 Those practices include equipment, technology process or procedure modifications, 

 raw materials substitution, product reformulation, and improvements in house- 

 keeping, maintenance, or training. Many source reduction techniques will result in 

 reducing production or use of pollutants, but the goal of source reduction is release, 

 waste and risk reduction not use reduction for reduction's sake. The difference be- 

 tween TUR and pollution prevention is reflected in the measure of success. Pollution 

 prevention is measured by reductions in releases and wastes. Whereas, TUR is 

 measured by reduced use. Toxic Use Reduction initiatives are based on the faulty 

 premise that chemicals cannot be managed and used safely and productively. 



Arbitrary, mandatory use reduction requirements will lead to product elimination 

 or to the production of inferior products. Because of these serious consequences, de- 

 cisions to restrict chemical use must be undertaken with great care within a com- 

 prehensive fi*amework that considers several relevant factors. Factors to be consid- 

 ered include whether or not the chemical in question poses an unreasonable risk to 

 human health or the environment. Other relevant factors include an evaluation of 

 the availability, cost, and performance characteristics of substitutes, as well as a de- 

 termination of the societal benefits to be gtiined and the economic consequences as- 

 sociated with reduced chemical use. CMA vehemently opposes any attempt to im- 

 pose bans or restrictions on chemical use which does not adequately consider these 

 relevant factors. 



