168 



involved in pollution prevention (P2). In our case, for example, we have focused 

 on the larger TRI release and RCRA generator facilities. We were not able to 

 factor TSCA information into our selection protocol because it was not readily 

 available. Another common feature of these P2 programs is the emphasis on 

 source reduction as the preferred preventive action. This mode of operation 

 shifts state P2 staffs away from traditional pollution control solutions (treat- 

 ment and disposal) and into the production arena where process changes, equip- 

 ment modifications and good housekeeping practices are featured. Once again, 

 we find an interface developing with the TSCA program which has the means 

 to address a similar mode of operation. 



In summary, there is no doubt in my mind that states have real needs for TSCA 

 information and that it would be useful to states if it was readily available. 



STATES AND TSCA REAUTHORIZATION 



States are recognized as significant participants in all of the national environ- 

 mental legislation (Clean Air and Water Acts, RCRA, CERCLA, and Safe Drinking 

 Water Acts), except for the TSCA. States perform the bulk of the routine ambient 

 monitoring, standards setting, permitting compliance monitoring and enforcement. 

 We are closer to the facilities and represent the real on-site presence that supports 

 good environmental performance. I call this the "groundtruth" role that states have 

 continued to perform over the past twenty years. In a similar manner, states should 

 be given an opportunity to be operational partners with the USEPA in the adminis- 

 tration of the TSCA program. In particular, certain compliance monitoring and en- 

 forcement functions would be suitable and more efficient for states to perform under 

 delegation agreements with the USEPA. Some states may also be interested in pro- 

 viding input to USEPA during review of certain information that is submitted by 

 companies, especially for facilities located in that state. 



By all means, states should be empowered by full access to toxics information that 

 has been claimed as CBI by filers. In this regard, we have been supportive of the 

 CBI policy reforms being pursued by the Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics 

 (PPPT) of the USEPA. In fact, we have held discussions with industry associations 

 about state access to CBI data and appear to have gained much more recognition, 

 if not acceptance, of the merits of our arguments. While these interactions are en- 

 couraging, I want to stress today that the best and perhaps only viable solution to 

 this concern has to come fix)m changes to the act. At this time, our understanding 

 is that an administrative solution is not workable and not likely to result from the 

 CBI policy reform process. At the same time, we recogmze that companies have 

 some legitimate concerns about adverse competitive impacts from making certain in- 

 formation public. For example, release of current production data could be sensitive 

 for some companies. Chemical identity is often less clear-cut and should involve 

 some reasonable amount of justification. Company name or plant location is going 

 too far in my opinion unless a really strong case can be made for nondisclosure. For 

 our part, we would be glad to participate in discussions to work out an improved 

 and balanced statutory basis for CBI that includes full state access under appro- 

 priate conditions. In this regard, it should not be overlooked that state environ- 

 mental agencies already handle trade secret data in the context of permitting and 

 enforcement cases. In Illinois, we have trade secret statutory and regulatory provi- 

 sions that govern our handling of this information and limit external access via free- 

 dom of information requests. We have a good record in managing this information 

 and few, if any, complaints from industry about abuse of these provisions. 



States could also serve a valuable role as observers and analysts of emerging envi- 

 ronmental issues and trends. Real problems develop in real places and affect real 

 people. Being in close proximity to these events and circumstances gives states a 

 real time perspective on toxic chemical impacts. For example, the lEPA has been 

 seeing a steadily increasing number of citizen inquiries and complaints about haz- 

 ardous (lead-based) paint removal over the past several years. In January, 1994, we 

 published a report (copy of executive summary attached) in response to a legislative 

 mandate to study this growing problem. Through a survey process, we documented 

 over 25,000 structures and buildings, such as water towers, bridges, and commercial 



