laroid in written comments called on the agency to drop any plan to share the information with states. But Goldman said comments tion areas for drinking water from states in the data-sharing supplies, community health studprogram are "clear indicators that ies, emergency response efforts, change is in order—whether legcompliance efforts, and solid and islatively or administratively or hazardous waste management, both." Goldman told ES&rthat the states said. To illustrate the EPA is working to bring the interutility of TSCA data to the states, ested parties together for discusIllinois said it could use data in sions in the next two months. She TSCA premanufacturing notices pointed out that EPA has already to identify waste streams that found a way to share the data in need to be regulated and sites for the pilot programs and now has Superfund investigations. EPA to figure out a "mechanism" that was further encouraged by overis acceptable to the business whelming support for TSCA data community. sharing from 28 states responding Although CMA opposes legisto its July 1996 request for com I lative efforts to loosen TSCA conmerits (Federal Reg.ster r199 fidentiality, it offers an allerna61 (144) 38727-28) tive. Paul Wright, general counsel for Dow Chemical and chair of a States in the data-sharing proCMA confidential business inforgram, however, were daunted by mation working group, said TSCA EPA's stringent guidelines for hanSection 14 would allow EPA to dling confidential data. Thomas continue sharing documents with Gentile, chief of New York's Toxics the states as contractors. "[TSCA] Assessment Section in the Bureau requires they get access only to of Air Research, said that when the degree necessary to fulfill the his agency decided to take on the contract," said Wright, adding data-sharing program, EPA handed that the states would be required him an inch-thick book describby contract to produce a work ing security measures. "Security product for EPA and to implewill be the biggest challenge for ment strict security. the states " said Gentile. But Wisconsin blasted TSCA confidentialBut industry is still worried ity saying in its report to EPA that about security, said Wright. In an there is "no apparent justification audit done in the spring, EPA for CBI [confidential business infound that it had lost, shredded, formation] in most cases " or misplaced 106 documents last year. The agency's assurances that State officials do not "fully apnone of the documents left EPA preciate why certain types of indid not ease industry's concerns. formation must be kept confiden"This concern is multiplied by 50 tial," said the Chemical when you include the states," Manufacturers Association (CMA) said Wright. VINCENT LECLAIR in written comments to EPA. Po-
States, EPA push to share confidential industry-provided toxic chemical data States could better monitor and manage toxic chemical hazards within their borders if they had access to a storehouse of federal toxic chemical data, according to EPA and states involved in a recent program to look into the benefits of data sharing. However, the data, reported to EPA under the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA), consist mostly of confidential business information; and some companies strongly oppose releasing this information to 50 state agencies. Nevertheless EPA is trying to find a way to release the data without rankling industry and hopes to have a process in place by this time next year Lynn Goldman, EPA assistant administrator for prevention, pesticides, and toxic substances, made the agency's case to an industry audience at a Dec. 9 conference, saying TSCA confidentiality rules hold back data that states could use for chemical hazard management. This confidential information includes chemical composition, manufacturing processes, production volumes, health and safety data, test data, PXDfl SI 11*6 information, and plant location. EPA currently cannot release this information to the states, even when requested. According to Goldman, last fall Illinois asked for the locations of companies in the state that were manufacturing suspected endocrine disrupters. "The chemicals were manufactured or imported at eight sites," said Goldman. "But five of the sites were claimed as [TSCA] confidential business information " and thus EPA could not release that information to state officials. EPA began examining TSCA data sharing in earnest in 1990. The idea picked up speed during last fall's test program to look into the benefits of data sharing with Georgia, Illinois, Wisconsin, and New York. The states reported that confidential information would have wide-ranging effects on air, water, and waste management standards. The data could also boost state environmental programs involving risk assessment and management of com plex mixtures wellhead protec-
State programs, TSCA overlap In a pilot program to share confidential TSCA data with state agencies, Illinois identified state-run environmental programs that could benefit from the information. Of the 152 sites in the state reporting under TSCA, many also report under these state programs. (Number of sites expressed as a percentage.) Hazardous waste (RCRA, state administered) Air emissions (state and federal clean air laws) Hazardous waste reporting (annual state report) Chemical spills (state chemical safety act) Chemical spill database (state program) Hazardous chemical storage (Tier 2, state administered) Industrial waste pretreatment (state administered) Discharges to rivers, streams, lakes (National Pollution Discharge and Elimination System, state administered) Industrial discharges (state biomonitoring program) Source: Illinois report to EPA on TSCA confidential data, May 31,1996.
1 2 8 A • VOL. 31, NO. 3, 1997 / ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCE & TECHNOLOGY / NEWS
84% 75% 55% 49% 49% 45% 39% 30% 25%
