{"id":219161,"date":"2010-01-22T09:45:39","date_gmt":"2010-01-22T14:45:39","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/blogs.edf.org\/nanotechnology\/?p=392"},"modified":"2010-01-22T09:45:39","modified_gmt":"2010-01-22T14:45:39","slug":"chemical-industry-reacts-to-epa-on-cbi-burglars-claim-to-like-new-alarm-system","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/mereja.media\/index\/219161","title":{"rendered":"Chemical industry reacts to EPA on CBI: Burglars claim to like new alarm system"},"content":{"rendered":"

Richard Denison, Ph.D.<\/a>, is a Senior Scientist.<\/em><\/p>\n

After EPA announced yesterday<\/a> that it will deny certain confidential business information (CBI) claims that have masked the identity of risky chemicals, two chemical industry trade associations responded favorably, saying they \u201cwelcome\u201d the move as \u201cthe right thing to do.\u201d\u00a0<\/p>\n

Entirely missing from their responses, however, was any acknowledgment of the fact that the EPA policy shift would not have been necessary but for the huge number of illegitimate CBI claims made by none other than the member companies of those same trade associations. In a classic case of industry-speak, the companies who have been effectively stealing information from the public about their chemicals try to obscure their nefarious role by now saying they welcome the new alarm system they have forced EPA to install.<\/p>\n

<\/span><\/p>\n

As I noted in a post to this blog<\/a> on Wednesday, EPA\u2019s new policy states that EPA will in general now deny any CBI claim intended to hide the identity of a chemical for which a company is submitting information, as required by law, indicating the chemical poses a substantial risk, if that chemical is already identified on the public version of the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) Inventory. (My post also noted that further changes are needed if this problem is truly to be solved.)<\/p>\n

So what does the chemical industry think of this move by EPA?<\/em><\/strong><\/p>\n

In an article in Chemical Week<\/a>, Charles Drevna, the president of the National Petrochemical & Refiners Association is quoted as saying:<\/p>\n

"We support EPA\u2019s action because it is the right thing do with regard to addressing health and safety concerns. We applaud the Obama Administration for taking this step that, frankly, previous administrations would have been wise to consider. In the case of health and safety information, it makes little sense to protect the identity of a chemical that is already publicly available on the TSCA inventory."<\/p>\n

And Chemical Watch<\/a> (subscription required) quotes Mike Walls, the American Chemistry Council\u2019s (ACC) vice president regulatory and technical affairs, as saying:<\/p>\n

\u201cEPA\u2019s announcement of a general policy on confidentiality claims associated with certain filings under TSCA is a welcome indication of the agency\u2019s ability to apply its statutory authority to promote transparency. While ACC is still assessing the full impact of the policy on filings made under Section 8(e), in general the announced policy is consistent with ACC\u2019s position that EPA and chemical companies should work together to enhance public access to chemical health and safety information.\u201d<\/p>\n

Rhetoric versus deeds<\/em><\/strong><\/p>\n

This new-found industry enthusiasm for transparency and working to enhance public access to chemical information is quite a reversal from its practice for decades of pressing every opportunity to claim information it submits to EPA as CBI, thereby denying public access to it. Indeed, it has learned that by flooding the agency with such claims, it can overwhelm EPA\u2019s only defense mechanism: a time- and resource-intensive, case-by-case challenge process.<\/p>\n

The results? As reported by the Government Accountability Office<\/a> (see pages 32-34):<\/p>\n