167 



We have learned the hard way that being better prepared and responding prop- 

 erly often involves having more information about what toxic chemicals and 

 hazardous materials are being produced, stored and used at facilities around 

 the state. Due to the CBI zone under TSCA, we are being denied access to 

 toxics information relating to facilities in Illinois that could prove detrimental 

 to public health and the environment. 



2. Design of environmental monitoring programs and assessment of toxic 

 risks — States do a lot of environmental monitoring of releases and of actual air, 

 land and water quality. Some of this monitoring is designed to identify specific 

 chemical substances when there is reason to believe that these things may be 

 present. But what about the many other chemicals that may or are being re- 

 leased and regulated under TSCA that we have no way of identifying their rela- 

 tionship to particular sources? Our national protection programs will be weak- 

 ened if such gaps are aillowed to persist. Some states do a fair amount of their 

 own risk assessment work to evaluate environmental problems and help craft 

 management strategies for risk reduction. Such assessments could be seriously 

 flawed if information about a toxic chemical or chemicals in an area or at a fa- 

 cility is not available. It is even more frustrating to know that some potentially 

 useful information in this regard is, by law, withheld from state agency person- 

 nel that are trying their best to properly determine toxic risks to the public and 

 the environment. 



3. Environmental permitting of toxic chemical releases — State environmental 

 agencies operate permitting programs for all sorts of environmental pollutants 

 that may be released to air, land or water. But are we regulating the "right" 

 chemical substances as compared to what is allowed to be produced and used 

 in commerce? How can we know if the necessary toxics information is locked 

 away in the CBI zone never to see the light of day? 



4. Environmental standards setting — Most states have independent authority 

 to enact environmental protection standards that are suitable for the local con- 

 ditions. In some instances, it could be appropriate to develop suitable protection 

 standards for a specific toxic chemical that is manufactured, used or released 

 in a state. But, of course, one must first be aware of the presence of such a sub- 

 stance in order to proceed in a responsible manner and to generate a good tech- 

 nical case for taking protective action. This situation is especially critical when 

 only one or a few facilities produce a particular chemical on a regular commer- 

 cial basis. In these cases, a state or a few states may find it makes good sense 

 to have certain standards in place that may not be necessary for other states. 

 This regvilatory angle probably spills over to permitting and monitoring activi- 

 ties as well. 



5. State right-to-know programs — Some states have their own versions of toxic 

 chemical right-to-know programs. In lUinois, the requirement to submit TRI 

 data via Form R has been codified into state law, and the lEPA is mandated 

 to prepare an annual toxic chemical report for this information. The 1994 report 

 (toxic chemicals released in calendar year 1992) shows that more than 419 mil- 

 lion pounds of 184 toxic chemicals were released from 1,359 facilities in SIC 

 codes 20-39. The largest single category of total releases (149.3 million pounds 

 or some 36 percent) was SIC code 28, chemicals and allied products. This cat- 

 egory includes 306 facilities that filed reports with the lEPA. Some of these fa- 

 cilities are also regulated under TSCA and submit certain toxic chemical infor- 

 mation to the USEPA. We are not sure how many of these facilities submit 

 TSCA information, such as production data under the lUR reports, because the 

 company name or plant site is declared as CBI. In other instances, we can know 

 the facility that filed but not the specific toxic chemical because that has been 

 claimed as CBI. Our ability to do meaningful cross-checks of this information 

 is significantly limited by these data access limitations. These constraints also 

 hinder our pursuit of non-filers that should be submitting TRI data. 



6. Pollution prevention programs — More than half of the states now have 

 some type of legislated pollution prevention program (Pollution Prevention Re- 

 view, Winters 1993/94). One common feature of these programs is a mechanism 

 for identifying or targeting the toxic chemicals or tjrpes of facilities that will be 



