g o v e r n m e n t

Toxics Data: How Much Is Too Much? Critics say EPA's Envirofacts databases don't provide enough context for the public

Several environmental statutes grant people the right to know about the presence of toxic chemicals or emis­

sions of pollutants in their communities. And since the Environmental Protection Agency brought Envirofacts on-line, getting this information has never been easier. Envi­rofacts is more than a database. It is a data warehouse that makes it quick and inex­pensive for anyone with a computer and access to the World Wide Web to find out about pollutant emissions anywhere in the country. This unprecedented ease of ac­cess to the information that companies submit to regulators is raising significant concerns within the chemical industry.

"It used to take 30 days or longer to handle a citizen request under the Free­dom of Information Act," says Envirofacts' director, Patrick J. Garvey. "If you were to request all of the records on a company, the request would have had to go to at least four different program offices at EPA, and they would have all responded in their

own time frames—and you probably would have been charged." Now, all it takes are a few well-placed clicks of a mouse button to get that same information.

According to Garvey, "The purpose of Envirofacts is to help all stakeholders in communities to engage in a dialogue for environmental protection." He says it "lev­els the playing field" so that parent-teacher associations are on the same footing as in­dustry or environmental groups.

Envirofacts provides one-stop access to data drawn from five major EPA databases. And the public appears to be quite inter­ested in browsing around. In April, Enviro­facts registered nearly 300,000 hits from an estimated 17,000 users, and the num­ber has been rising ever since the database went on-line—at http://www.epa.gov/ enviro—a littie more than a year ago.

Envirofacts lets anyone anywhere see a report detailing any company's histori­cal emissions records, what kinds of pol­lutants it is emitting, and risk information

Envirofacts integrates a number of databases

Aerometric Information Retrieval Sys­tem—Contains air pollution data on about 150,000 facilities regulated by the Environmental Protection Agency, state, and local air regulatory agencies.

Permit Compliance System—Contains data on more than 75,000 water-discharge permits including permit issuance, permit limits, monitoring data, and other data pertinent to facilities with permits.

Comprehensive Environmental Re­sponse, Compensation & Liability Infor­mation System—Consists of Superfund data on hazardous waste site assessment and remediation, including data on ac­tive sites from point of discovery to list­ing on the National Priorities List through completion of remedial and response actions.

Toxics Release Inventory System—Fea­tures data on the release and transfer of more than 300 toxic chemicals by medi­um of release (air, water, underground injection, land disposal, and off-site), re­ported by more than 33,000 submitters.

Resource Conservation & Recovery Information System—Consists of data used to track handler permit or closure status, compliance with federal and state regulations, and cleanup activities, including hazardous waste generation and management data on more than 450,000 facilities and transporters.

Locational Reference Tables—Consists of geographical data for EPA-regulated fa­cilities, which include documented infor­mation about the method of collection and description for each latitude and lon­gitude coordinate.

In addition, Envirofacts includes two systems that provide cross-references:

Facility Index System—indexes 675,000 facilities regulated or monitored by pro­gram offices within EPA.

Master Chemical Integrator—Cross-references and indexes chemical data re­ported in the program systems, using an internal registry system based on Chemi­cal Abstracts Service Registry Numbers.

26 JUNE 2, 1997 C&EN

We're now in a mode of what I would call sensible environmental progress. Hopefully, we're going to make some progress this year.^

to negotiate only treaties that they can handle? Some countries are very adept at negotiating treaties, but, in the end, have neither the political will nor the infrastructure to be able to implement them.

Do some countries sign onto treaties knowing they are not going to be able to implement them? Well, I think there is some of that. I don't want to name countries or anything. I also think sometimes implementing a treaty looks easier to the negotiator than it actually is, given what your structure is at home, your clout.

So that's one issue, getting countries to be more realistic in what they agree to do. The second issue is, once they've agreed to do something, can we help them comply, because these treaties are of no value unless countries comply. Again, we are trying various forms of technical assistance to help countries meet their obligations. Some countries don't have the infrastructure to do these kinds of things.

Are you satisfied with what you've been able to accomplish at the State Department? Am I satisfied? Of course not. Have we done some things? Of course.

Over the past year and a half, we've been able to focus our efforts here, to set some priorities and move into a whole new area of regional environmental is­sues, which have never been a priority here at all. We've had some real success­es in some of the negotiations so far, and we're working very hard.

By regional issues, do you mean new diplomatic tools like regional environ­mental hubs, where diplomats seek cooperation on issues such as water supplies? Yes, establishing the hubs, getting agen­das established regionally, all of that is new—not that it's easy to implement. We're just beginning that.

Do you see antienvironmental under­currents increasing in the U.S. that may interfere with ratification of a cli­mate treaty or other conventions? No. We had maybe a little try at antienvi­ronmental behavior in 1995 and 1996, and I don't think it worked very well.

we're working very hard.

Garvey: Envlrofacts levels the playing field

about those chemicals. Envirofacts aims to be comprehensive, and its resources are certainly vast.

It includes air pollution data from more than 150,000 facilities, data on more than 75,000 water-discharge permits, Superfund information, Toxics Release Inventory (TRI) data covering more than 33,000 facilities, and Resource Conservation & Recovery Act data on more than 450,000 facilities.

Later this month, Envirofacts will add the Safe Drinking Water Act database of 150,000 facilities. In August, the Hazard­ous Waste Handlers' Biennial Report da­tabase will go on-line. And air quality and water quality monitoring data will be available next January.

In addition, Envirofacts features a geo­graphical database of regulated facilities along with mapping tools that allow users to find out about emissions that may affect their neighborhoods and local watersheds.

The databases are also linked with risk information from EPA's Integrated Risk In­formation System, the University of Virgin­ia's EcoGopher Chemical Fact Sheet, and the University of Utah's Material Safety Data Sheet database, so users can find out about how certain chemicals could affect their health. Envirofacts even links to U.S. census data that allows users to find out if emissions are disproportionately affecting poor people or minorities.

Not everyone is thrilled by Enviro­facts, however. "There is certainly a right to know," says attorney Mark Green­wood. "But there is also a right to under­stand." He believes an important part of EPA's job is to help people understand the data they are accessing. "And EPA isn't doing that," he says.

Greenwood was formerly head of EPA's Office of Pollution Prevention & Toxic Substances. He now represents the Coalition for Effective Environmental Information, a one-year-old coalition with about 20 members, including the Chemi­cal Manufacturers Association, the Syn­thetic Organic Chemicals Manufacturers Association, and the Pharmaceutical Re­search & Manufacturers of America.

Greenwood is concerned that EPA is providing people with tools that will allow them to think they can bring broad con­cepts, complex regulations, and environ­mental data to bear on their personal situ­ations. He thinks Envirofacts is "creating a false sense of power and a false sense of truth." He believes that the medium allows neither "the richness nor the complexity of the information to be communicated."

Garvey disagrees. "We try to give in­formation so that it is understandable and so that it is not easily misrepresent­ed." To that end, almost every term in the database is defined by a comprehen­sive data dictionary. Garvey also explains that the language used in different regu­lations has been standardized to make the data more accessible.

But, insists Greenwood, "EPA should let people know that sometimes the infor­mation in Envirofacts isn't too good, or that the scientific assessment of risk is not well done. That kind of information is hard to communicate, but that's part of stewardship."

Garvey maintains that the information is as good as the information supplied by companies to regulators. "Envirofacts doesn't collect anything new," he ex­plains. "We have taken data directly from the reports that companies have made to the state and federal agencies. The data­bases are updated on a monthly basis, so poor information doesn't have to stay in there more than 30 days."

Other corporate concerns about Envi­rofacts have to do with its potential use for corporate espionage, concerns Garvey says are unfounded because Envirofacts does not include data designated by com­panies as confidential business information (CBI), nor data that are enforcement sensi­tive. "If EPA is taking an enforcement ac­tion against a company, information rele­vant to that action isn't in the database," says Garvey. "Any CBI that could have a trade secret in it isn't in the database. We only have what is available under the Free­dom of Information Act."

Greenwood agrees that the databases hold no CBI in the conventional sense. "Envirofacts doesn't reveal a formula," he

Greenwood: Information may be misused

says, "but if you know inventory at your competitor's plant, it helps you to figure out pricing." He believes that by combin­ing otherwise unremarkable information from TRI with that from the Emergency Planning & Community Right-To-Know Act and air and water data, a competitor can get an idea of inventory.

"In addition, you have the situation where data from a plant in New Jersey can be on a desk in Singapore pretty quickly. That data used to be hard to get," says Greenwood.

Despite Garvey's assurances, Green­wood is still concerned that information may be misused. Garvey responds that he "can't tell anyone how not to misuse information that we gave them as the re­sult of a Freedom of Information Act re­quest. Remember, the TRI reports are in every public library in the U.S."

Companies are also concerned that easy, cheap access to regulatory filings, combined with mapping power and direct access to risk data will expose industry to a rash of costly toxic tort suits, class-action suits, or citizen suits to enforce environ­mental laws. However, Garvey believes, "if you're a good actor and you're open to di­alogue in your community, you shouldn't have to take that last resort called the courts. I have not heard of one class-action suit using Envirofacts."

Greenwood has no specific examples of such litigation, but "it certainly reduces the cost of bringing such a case," he says.

"The purpose of this is one-stop access to promote a better dialogue among all stakeholders, and that shouldn't be threat­ening to anybody," Garvey maintains.

Linda Raber

JUNE 2, 1997 C&EN 27