Posts Tagged ‘confidentiality’

More TSCA Declassifications

EPA declassified chemical identities in a few more health and safety studies and made some pretty graphs:  http://www.epa.gov/oppt/existingchemicals/pubs/transparency-charts.html

If I’m reading the numbers right, they have declassified about 20% of the 4,025 claims made.  3,242 claims were deemed actually legitimate.  Another 11, 508 studies had made no claims in the first place.  Only 532 of the chemicals were made over 25,000 lb per IUR reporting. Play whatever games you want with the numbers.


Regardless, these numbers don’t indicate massive fraud to me.  Good that EPA tightened up on knee-jerk claims, made without serious thought.  But the “secret toxics” issue has been overblown.


Read Full Post »

Make sure confidential claims have been appropriately made (and paid for) in REACH dossiers and Safety Data Sheets – because ECHA is going to publish REACH registrants and chemical identities using the logic that if it’s on the SDS, it doesn’t matter what is claimed in the REACH dossier.  See announcement and Q & A

Read Full Post »

EPA responded to a multi-NGO petition to disclose chemicals used in natural gas fracking under TSCA indirectly:  It will propose a section 8(a) rule (a Preliminary Assessment Information Rule  or PAIR is my guess) and get health and safety studies under section 8(d).  So any chemicals identified in the studies will be disclosed under their new policy.   The Agency said it didn’t want to duplicate state well-by-well disclosure regs.

EPA denied the petition to require testing under TSCA section 4, so if fracking chemicals haven’t been studied, no disclosure.

Read Full Post »

TSCA Confidentiality Revoked

EPA continues to declassify chemical identities and health and safety studies submitted under TSCA, bragging they now have 542 declassified documents available in the Chemical Data Access Tool.  Thirty-five companies have been encouraged to release their confidentiality claims and EPA is putting the pressure on new submissions, as well as requiring up front substantiation in the Chemical Data Reporting rule.

If you want to protect confidential business information, you are going to have to work prove it really is legitimate cbi.

EHS Strategies, Inc. can help.

Read Full Post »

EPA revealed another set of chemical identities in health and safety studies June 8, 2011, here.  I think most of them were “voluntary” by companies, but EPA is claiming some were not.

Protect what is legitimate and be ready to back up your claim.  Provide meaningful generic names.  Let it go if you can protect your trade secrets by protecting your company name or if historical information is no longer trade secret.  Quit jeopardizing the ability to protect real trade secrets by being lazy and claiming everything confidential.

EHS Strategies, Inc. can help you with TSCA.



Read Full Post »

EPA declassified confidentiality claims in a batch of 42 health and safety studies (mostly 8(e) notices of substantial risk) March 24, 2011, following through on their promise of transparency.

Certainly there are some old claims out there that are no longer valid (many on what was at the time R&D activity that has either gone commercial or died).  And some claims were pretty bogus to begin with.  But the idea of going back and having to re-substantiate the thousands of claims that have been made over the last 35 years – holy cow!  Believe it or not, some of the claims will still be valid (just like the secret ingredients of Coke).

Certainly there is room for improvements in the generic names companies use so categories of studies can be searched more easily.  Or maybe there are some creative ways to allow 3rd party confidentiality disclosure agreements for limited studies, instead of massive fishing expeditions.  See my other blogs on the topic.

Read Full Post »

EPA announced it has rejected confidentiality claims for chemical identity of 14 chemicals in health and safety studies under TSCA.  The agency is narrowly interpreting TSCA to only allow limited claims of confidential business information (CBI) especially for chemical identity in studies.  It remains to be seen if companies can justify some of their claims.

As commented on before here and here, many companies have gone too far in making knee jerk CBI claims.  But there are times when legitimate protection is needed.  We’ll see if the companies challenge EPA.

Read Full Post »

Older Posts »