vvEPA
United States
Environmental Protection
Agency
Pollution Prevention
and Toxics
(7407)
Fall 1997
EPA749-R-97-0015
Chemicals in the Environment
Public Access Information
TRI
Toxics Release
Inventory
The History of TRI
Susan Hazen, Director
Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics (OPPT)
Environmental Assistance Division
In 1986, the Superfund legislation was amended to add Emergency Planning and
Community Right-to-Know (EPCRA) provisions. Following closely on the fatal chemi-
cal release accident in Bhopal, India and similar though less drastic incidents in the U.S.,
these new provisions were intended to assure citizens that the presence, management, and
routine releases of toxic chemicals in the U.S. were well understood. It was evident that
the Bhopal incident could happen in the U.S. In fact, there were facilities in the U.S.
where the same chemicals were manufactured, used, and stored although information
about them was generally not disclosed. Emergency response teams, state and local gov-
ernments, and perhaps, most importantly, the citizens who lived and shared common
neighborhoods with these facilities were unaware of chemicals used and stored there.
The history of TRI has been a turbulent one. It was hard fought through Con-
gress and the implementing rules were scrutinized heavily .as they moved their way
through the regulatory process. At the core of the debate was the provision that would
create a facility-specific, chemical-based inventory.
The inventory, termed the Toxics Release Inventory (TRI), would create a national
database identifying facilities, chemicals manufactured and used at those facilities, and
the annual accidental and routine releases of these toxic substances. This information,
-------
Chemicals in the Environment
Fall 1997
Contents
The History ofTRI
Susan Hazen
Expanding the Public's Right to Know
Maria Doa
Chemical Fact Sheets
Dick Wormell
Industry Expansion: Training for
the Newly-Added Industries
Tim Crawford
Using TBIto Measure Progress
Dwight Peavey
TJRI User Support Services
LisaFlemming
TBI/Right-to-Know Conference
Gerry Nowak
Stakeholder Dialogue on TRI Forms
and Reporting Practices
Michelle Price .....
TRI and the CD-ROM
JohnNowlin
EPA Software Streamlines TRI
Reporting by Facilities
Jan Erickson
Chemical Use
Matt Gillen
State Perspective: Ohio's TRI Program
Cindy DeWulf
A Non-Profit Organization's
Perspective on TRI
Terry Green
Putting Environmental Information
in the Classroom
OdeliaFunke
TRI Relative Risk-Based
Environmental Indicators
Nick Bouwes& Steve Hassur
International Perspective: Pollutant
Release & Transfer Registers
John Harman
TRI-US: A Look at Customer
Service, Satisfaction & Assessment
Georgianne McDonald
TRI: An Academic Perspective
John Pine
Proof Positive: TRI Success Stories
Maria Hendriksson
.1
.3
.4
.5
.6
.8
.9
NOTICE OF MERGER
10
,11
.12
.13
.14
.15
.16
.17
.18
.19
.20
.21
.23
(continued from page 1)
though commonly known by individual plant owners and
operators, was not made readily available to government
officials nor to the general public. Also, this information
usually did not become available until after serious acci-
dents occurred or until major impacts on human health
and the environment were evident. This after-the-fact dis-
closure of information did little to help plan for or prevent
serious health and environmental incidents.
From 1987 to 1990, TRI data focused on release
and transfer data for approximately 300 chemicals and
28,000 facilities. With the passage of the Pollution Pre-
vention Act of 1990 (PPA), information on the amount
of toxic materials leaving a facility hi waste was added.
As with the original implementation rules, the rules
implementing the PPA were subjected to rigorous re-
view and EPA was unable to finalize working defini-
tions that would assure consistency in the data. This re-
mains a weakness of the TRI and a challenge for EPA,
the regulated community, and all users of the data.
It is fair to say, that turbulent or not, the history of
TRI is one which has dramatically changed the last decade
of environmental policies. TRI has enabled the public to
participate on an equal footing in environmental debates. It
has allowed the public to question the decisions of law-
makers and industry alike. It has alerted U.S. industry to
the impact they have on their local environments and has
^pointed out the significant losses of raw material encoun-
tered each year as a result of releases and transfers.
TRI has forever changed the relationship between
EPA, industry and the publica change which created
the need for transparency, openness and honesty. As
changes go, this is one of the best!
Chemicals inthe Environment; Publicjnformafion Access |s put£_
lished by EPA's Office of Pollution Preventfori^ T«ics,{<5PPT)
to increase public awareness of and access to infomnation_pn
toxic chemicals and pollution preventtonjvailabtethrougn'QPPT,
This resource is also available on the Internetlir "~ *
http://www.epa.9ov/opptintr/cie.
Mailing address: ^ ' -j:~'. /-
Chemicals in the Environment ' *'
US EPA (7407) " . - ^ '/ "
Office of Pollution Prevention & Toxics *' '
401 M Street, SW- ,-/ /
Washington, DC 20460
Advisory Board: /
Project Manager: Georgianne McDonald" , T
Publisher.Ma^HendrilssHrT^" "~, , \^" *, '-'"
Senior Editors: Maria Hendriksson and Gepjgtanne'McOpnaicl-
OPPT Divisional Representatives: _ _ -:^
David DiFfore (CCD^Denise^Keams {NPCD), Dan Fort <6ETD),
Odelia Faniie'(IMp), Julte Shannon {PPD), Randall Brinkuis-
(RAD). '
-------
Vol. 3 No. 2
Public Access Information
Expanding the Public's Right to Know
Maria Doa, Chief
OPPT Environmental Assistance Division (EAD) - TR1 Branch
Few would disagree that the 1987 Emergency
Planning and Community Right-to-Know Act
(EPCRA) provisions proved to be among the most
successful stimuli for reducing the amount of toxic
materials that enter the environment. The Toxics Re-
lease Inventory (TRI) Program under EPCRA focused
public and industrial attention on billions of pounds of
toxic materials released directly into our air, land, wa-
ter, and underground injection wells, as well as man-
aged through waste recycling, combustion for energy
recovery, and treatment for destruction.
TRI has forced us all to take a hard look at our
approach to toxic chemicals. Between 1988 (the accepted
baseline year for TRI) and 1994, industrial releases cov-
ered by TRI decreased by 44%, from 3.54 billion pounds
to 1.56 billion pounds. This reduction reflects the hard
work of manufacturing facilities facilities that have
refined processes, looked for source reduction opportu-
nities, assured outstanding housekeeping practices, and
worked to minimize the footprint they leave on the sur-
rounding environment TRI has provided the clues for all
to use when seeking areas for environmental improvement.
One valid criticism of the program has been its lim-
ited breadth and depth of the chemical, facility, and data
coverage. When Congress passed EPCRA, EPA named
over 300 chemicals and chemical categories on the "TRI
Chemical List." This list was a combination of two.ex-
isting lists, the New Jersey Environmental Hazardous
Substance List and the Maryland Chemical Inventory
Report List. The original industries subject to TRI were all
manufacturers, and required data was confined to releases
and certain transfers off-site for waste management
Because TRI spurred significant reduction in re-
leases, the next logical step was to expand coverage to
other industrial sectors and chemicals imposing similar
impacts on our environment To that end, the Agency
has aggressively pursued an expansion strategy to en-
large the boundaries of TRI in all directions.
Chemical Expansion . -
EPA has expanded the chemical list in two parts^
following the statutory criteria for listing found in
EPCRA (acute or chronic human health effects, or envi-
ronmental effects). In 1993, EPA added ozone-deplet-
ing hydrochlorofluorocarbons (HCFCs) and 22 other
chemicals that cause chronic health effects. In 1994, EPA
added 286 new chemicals that can cause a variety of ef-
fects, some connected to cancer or other chronic human
health effects; others to acute human health effects; and
others to adverse environmental effects. These actions
almost doubled the size of the TRI chemical list. EPA is
currently considering whether to add certain persistent
bioaccumulators to TRI and to lower the reporting thresh-
olds for all persistent bioaccumulators on TRI. EPA ex-
pects to propose a rule on this topic in 1998.
Chemical Petitions
EPCRA contains provision for the public to peti-
tion the Agency to add chemicals to or delete chemicals
from the TRI list. EPA has added and deleted chemicals
through this process. EPA addded stratospheric ozone-
deplting chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs) in response to a
petition from four governors. EPA has deleted various
chemicals, 16 in all, that do not meet the statutory list-
ing criteria.
Facilities Expansion
Recognizing that
the manufacturing sec-
tor only contributes a
fraction of releases
to the environ-
ment, in 1991,
EPA undertook a
thorough review
of all other U.S. in-
dustrial sectors. This
multi-year effort
focused particu-
lar attention
-------
Chemicals in the Environment
Fall 1997
(continued from page 3)
on sectors linked to manufacturing those provid-
ing energy or raw materials to, or removing materials
from the manufacturing sector. EPA assessed: (1) the
industries that manufacture, process, or use TRI
chemicals and (2) whether including these facilities
in TRI could reasonably be anticipated to increase
public information.
The first facility expansion came as a result of a
Presidential Executive Order, which required reporting
for Federal Facilities starting in 1994. In May of 1997,
as a result of its assessment, EPA added seven industry
sectors to TRI: metal mining, coal mining, electric utili-
ties that combust coal and/or oil, solvent recyclers, haz-
ardous waste treatment and disposal facilities, chemical
distributers and petroleum bulk terminals. The first re-
ports from these facilities are due July 1,1999. (See In-
dustry Expansion, page 8). EPA will pursue an additional
facility expansion activity addressing the oil and gas in-
dustry early in 1998.
Data Expansion
In 1990, Congress passed the Pollution Prevention
Act Among its requirements is a mandate to expand TRI
to include information on toxic chemicals in waste and
source reduction methods. Beginning in 1991, covered
facilities are required to report on toxic chemicals in
waste, that is, how much is combusted for energy re-
covery, recycled, treated, and released.
A newer data expansion effort, often referred to as
"TRI Phase HI," considers using materials accounting
data in a right-to-know context. Many community, envi-
ronmental, and labor organizations believe that TRI
would be greatly enhanced by the collection of facility-
specific use information. Data elements could include
the amount produced on-site, the number of employees
potentially exposed, and the amount of the toxic chemi-
cal leaving the facility as or in a product. EPA issued a
notice requesting public comment on the addition of
materials accounting information to TRI, and is currently
evaluating those comments.
The TRI Program has indeed proven to be an ef-
fective tool for bringing both industrial and public atten-
tion to the release of toxic chemicals. The concern gen-
erated by this program has resulted in efforts to mini-
mize the use of these toxics and/or their release into the
environment. EPA believes that by expanding the scope
of TRI information, in terms of the chemicals and facili-
ties covered as well as the kinds of data required, the
Agency can further improve TRI's value for us all.
Chemical Fact Sheets
Dick Wormel, OPPT
OPPT chemical fact sheets provide the public with
information about chemicals released in the environment.
They describe what each chemical is and list several of
its more important commercial uses. They describe in a
non-technical manner what happens to the chemical once
it is released into the environment and how the chemi-
cal may affect human health and the environment. They
also provide the reader with a contact list for additional
chemical information. Each fact sheet is accompanied
by a more detailed summary that gives the technical ba-
sis for each statement that it contains. Both the fact sheet
and its technical support document can be found on the
Internet at http://www.epa.gov/chemfact. Also, both are
available in printed form and can be requested from the
Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) hotline at (202)
554-1404. Currently, there are thirty-one chemical fact
sheets available to the public.
OPPT chemical fact sheets originate from the group
of scientists responsible for assessing risks for indus-
trial chemicals covered under the Toxic Release Inven-
tory (TRI) and TSCA. The group has been assessing
chemicals for more than twenty years. They collected
and processed volumes of assessment information on
thousands of chemicals. The chemical fact
sheet initiative is the group's
attempt to share some of
its information with the
public. The standing
goal of this group is
to provide the public
with fact sheets for
forty or more addi-
tional chemicals
each year.
-------
Vol. 3 No. 2
Public Access Information
Industry Expansion:
Training for the Newly-Added Industries
Tim Crawford, OPPT
What is Industry Expansion?
On May 1,1997, a final rule was published to
add certain industry sectors to the current list of
facilities required to report TRI information under
Section 313 of the Emergency Planning and Com-
munity Right-to-Know Act of 1986 (EPCRA).
Known as TRI Industry Expansion, the addition of
these industry sectors will greatly strengthen com-
munity right-to-know by providing information on
toxic chemical releases and waste management
from a broader facility base.
This final action also amends the interpretation
of the term "otherwise used," which is one of the ac-
tivity thresholds that triggers TRI reporting. EPA
amended this definition to include the treatment, sta-
bilization, and disposal of toxic chemicals received
from off-site for waste management purposes or gen-
erated during the waste management of materials re-
ceived from off-site. This amendment provides ad-
ditional information on waste management activities
(beyond the amounts managed by commercial haz-
ardous waste treatment and disposal facilities) at fa-
cilities covered under TRI.
The addition of the new industries and the re-
vised interpretation of "otherwise used" will be ef-
fective for activities conducted during the 1998 cal-
endar year with reports due on or before July 1,1999.
Industry Training
Since the final rale was published, EPA devel-
oped guidance documents to assist each of the newly
added industries to understand and comply with
EPCRA section 313 requirements. These documents
were circulated for industry review and comment and
are now final and being made available.
EPA, along with contracted assistance, is in the
process of conducting training sessions hi each of
EPA's regional locations prior to the effective date.
The training sessions last two days and consist of an
overview of EPCRA Section 313 reporting require-
ments and modules which provide exercises in inter-
preting and completing reports for each of the new
industries.
For more information on TRI industry expan-
sion and industry training, please contact Tim
Crawford at (202) 260-1715.
,10
12
4911,4931,4939
4953
5169
5171
7389
Metal Mining
Coal Mining
Electric Utilities
Commercial Hazardous Waste Treatment
Chemicals and Allied Products - Wholesale
Petroleum Bulk Terminals and Plants
Solvent Recovery Services
-------
Chemicals in the Environment
Fall 1997
Using TRI to Measure Progress:
A Regional Perspective
Dwight G. Peavey, Ph.D., Environmental Scientist
EPA Region 1 - New England
James M. Phillips, Senior Environmental Engineer
The National Council on the Aging, Inc.
Over the past ten years, the Toxics Release Inven-
tory (TRI) data has given everyone an opportunity to
access chemical specific information at the facility, lo-
cal, state, regional and national levels. One can query
the TRI data by media specific emissions, waste gen-
eration and transfers, on and off-site treatment activities
for 650 toxic chemicals, and chemical categories. The
Pollution Prevention Act (PPA) of 1990 required indus-
tries to report additional data about waste management
activities and pollution prevention or source reduction
information on their TRI Form Rs. This additional infor-
mation allows an individual to query TRI about the total
waste generated by a facility. The total waste generated
includes toxics that are released, recycled, burned for en-
ergy recovery, treated and disposed both on and off site.
The public's initial and continued interest has been
focused on the total environmental releases of these toxics
to the air, water and land including underground injec-
tion. Which facilities, states or parent companies are in
the "Top Ten" has dominated the press coverage of the
yearly TRI public data release. Our national, regional,
state and facility successes have been measured by relative
decreases in total environmental releases. Federal and state
agencies often have targeted the facilities with the "big-
gest/largest?' total environmental releases for attention.
Region Vs Approach
In New England, three of our six states have Toxics
Use Reduction (TUR) or Pollution Prevention laws which
have created a focus on preventing waste, also called
source reduction. EPA - New England and state agen-
cies are now focusing on the "biggest/largest5' waste gen-
erating facilities. Due to the Pollution Prevention Act of
1990, everyone has had the ability to query, sort, and
rank total waste generation for TRI data since 1991.
Progress in terms of the rate of reduction for total waste
generation has not paralleled the continued decreasing
rate for total environmental releases.
Although some have questioned and openly debate
the success of pollution prevention and the affects of the
states TUR laws, no one debates that, if given the op-
portunity, preventing waste and pollution is preferable
to managing waste and pollution. Several corporations
and facilities, which joined the 33/50 Program (an EPA
program in which industries voluntarily committed to
reduce the release of chemical waste), have shown the
environmental and economic advantages of pollution pre-
vention. The Pollution Prevention Act established a na-
tional policy that states pollution should be prevented at
the source whenever feasible.
With the recent challenges posed by Congress and
our Agency, we have looked to the TRI data (specifi-
cally, waste generation data) to find opportunities to better
direct our assistance efforts and measure the resulting
New England 1988-1995
TRI Release to Environment
Normalized Data
22 37 36 30 34 28
Standard Industrial Classification (SIC)
Millions LBS
26
New England 1991-1995
TRI Waste
Normalized Data
22 37 36 30 34 28
Standard Industrial Classification (SIC)
Millions LBS
250
200
150
100
50
0
Fig 2
26
-------
Vol.3 No. 2
Public Access Information
progress. In the past, those sectors (Fig. 1) accounting
for the largest releases would be targeted. When the TEH
waste generated data (Fig. 2) is analyzed, however, an-
other picture is found. For example, the chemical and
fabricated metals industries rank #1 and #2 for waste
generated but the paper industry, traditionally ranked #1
for environmental releases. A multi-year analysis shows
a significant decrease in total waste for the fabricated
metals industry, which is neither explained by decreased
reporting or decreased production. That is, the produc-
tion process itself has become less polluting. This de-
crease in total waste production may be the results of
our New England Environmental Assistance Team
(NEEAT) work with this sector as well as EPA's Com-
mon Sense Initiative. The paper industry, on the other
hand, shows little or no reduction in the first three years
New England 1991-1995
TRI - Chemical Manufacturers
Millions LBS
Rettasete Environment
NorroafeeclData
and an actual increase hi waste generation in the last two
years; While the chemical industry profile showed a con-
tinued reduction iri environmental releases, Figure 3
shows initial decreases and then increased waste pro-
duction. Further analysis of waste generation data shows
a forecasted increase in waste production in 1996 and
1997 for this sector.
Ranking our six states by total environment releases
always has Connecticut and Massachusetts, the two larg-
est manufacturing states in New England, as #1 and #2.
In all the TRI reporting years (1987-1995), each of our
six New England states had overall decreases in envi-
ronmental releases which exceeded the national average
decreases; cumulative decreases also exceeded the na-
tional average. Another way to analyze how well states
are doing is to consider the number of facilities com-
pared to total emissions (total environmental releases).
Figure 4 clearly demonstrates that both Maine and Con-
necticut facilities rank on an
emissions per facility basis as
#1 and #2, respectively, with
Massachusetts #6. Does this
show an effect of the Massa-
chusetts Toxics Use Reduc-
tion law? Further analysis of
the 1991-1995 TRI, waste
generation data (Fig. 5) clearly
demonstrates that average
waste production of facilities
in Maine and Connecticut are
more than double those of the
four other states. The com-
parisons of states with P2 and
TUR laws mandating preven-
tion activities with those
Millions IBS
250
200
150
100
50
New England 1988-1995
TRI Total Releases per Facility
New England 1988-1995
TRI Total Waste per Facility
LBS (Thousand!) per FACILITY
Normalized Data
Fig4
Normalized Data
LBS (Thousands) per FACILITY
1.200
1.000
800
600
400
200
0
Fig 5
-------
Chemicals in the Environment
Fall 1997
Toxics Release Inventory
User Support (TRI-US) Services
Lisa Flemming, OPPT
Under the Emergency Planning and Community
Right To Know Act (EPCRA) Section 313, Congress
mandated that the TRI data collected by EPA be made
publicly available "by electronic and other means."
Hence, the Office of Pollution Prevention & Toxics
(OPPT) established the Toxics Release In-
ventory User Support
(TRI-US) service to
support TRI products
and facilitate public
access to the TRI data.
TRI-US pro-
vides access and user
support to citizens,
industry, environmen-
tal and public interest
groups, libraries, the inter-
national community, media,
academia, federal, state and local agencies. Since
the TRI data are available in a variety of formats,
TRI-US staff can help a patron determine the TRI
data product best suited for their needs.
TRI-US provides comprehensive search assis-
tance for the TRI on-line and CD-ROM databases.
Search assistance includes access to a product, in-
stallation or search instructions, product troubleshoot-
ing, and search strategies. On a limited basis, TRI-
US can help individuals perform searches.
In addition to access, user support and search
assistance, TRI-US conducts training and demonstra-
tions for both the TRI CD-ROM and the National Li-
brary of Medicine/TOXNET, which includes the TRI
data, through individual sessions and workshops.
Staff attend conferences and exhibits to promote TRI
awareness, access available products, and increase
usage of data. TRI-US also distributes documents that
present and explain the TRI program such as the Pub-
lic Data Release book, the TRI Information Kit, and
the TRI List of Chemicals.
TRI-US maintains up-to-date informa-
tion about the TRI program.
However, a patron may be
referred to a more appro-
priate person or service
(inside or outside EPA) if
a question cannot be an-
swered by the TRI-US
staff and/or requires addi-
tional information outside the
TRI program.
The TRI program also maintains a
website on the Internet where patrons can send TRI
questions. TRI-US staff will answer these questions
and/or refer patrons to the appropriate Internet ad-
dress for more information. TRI-US can be contacted
by phone, fax, email, the Internet or mail.
How to Contact TRI User Support:
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency*
Toxics Release Inventory Usef Support (TFU-US)
Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics (OPPT)
Information Management Division (MC: 7407)^
401 M Street, SW ;; /
-" WashingtonVOC 20460 * «'
(202) 260-1fS3"1 , ~ ' -
,. - Fax; (202) 4'01-2347_x ,, <~
" 'E-mai!:4ri.us@epamailj|paIgov ' -
(continuedfrom page 7)
states which do not, therefore, pose many more ques-
tions than answers as to why certain industries prevent
pollution while others choose to manage pollution.
Region 1 's Office of Assistance and Pollution Pre-
vention now provides trend analysis of TRI data on total
environmental releases and total waste generated. In New
England, progress will be measured both by the indi-
vidual success stories and reduction of the TRI bottom
line: total waste generation. Progress may be measured
by the pounds of toxics prevented from reaching the waste
stream. This gives a better indication to the relative effi-
ciency of the process and facility. Ultimately, the suc-
cess of TRI and Pollution Prevention is measured at each
individual facility.
8
-------
Vol. 3 No. 2
Public Access Information
TRI/Right-to-Know Conference
Geraldine Nowak, OPPT
The Toxics Release Inventory and Right-to-Know
Conference convened in Washington, D.C. on Septem-
ber 8-10, 1997, amidst the largest group of participants
hi its conference history. What was once the TRI Data
Use Conference was expanded to integrate other RTK
issues and information. Some participants embraced the
concept with enthusiasm; others met it with caution, skep-
ticism, or somewhere hi between. The conference iden-
tified how the stakeholders could use the Toxic Release
Inventory (TRI) and Right-to-Know (RTK) information.
Dialogues were held among stakeholders and sessions
aimed toward finding mutually beneficial goals which
will improve TRI and RTK information.
The conference featured many distinguished speak-
ers committed to promoting Toxic Release Inventory
(TRI) and Right-to-Know (RTK) issues and programs.
EPA Region El Administrator, Michael McCabe, opened
the conference focusing on the fact that before TRI there
was no way for citizens to know about toxics in their
community. TRI has had a positive effect on both com-
munities and industries because it enables communities
to interact with industries in the neighborhood. Also,
industry utilizes the TRI to capitalize on source reduc-
tion opportunities. As the keynote speaker, Dr. Lynn
Goldman, EPA Assistant Administrator for Prevention,
Pesticides, and Toxic Substances, reminded everyone
of the history behind the legislation, highlighted TRI
and RTK accomplishments, and mentioned the program's
expansion. She further emphasized that the power of
information provides real tune tools to help families pro-
tect themselves and their communities.
Twenty-four panels of distinguished speakers
shared their expertise, knowledge, and ideas for the fu-
ture of TRI and RTK by addressing six broad questions:
What are the key TRI data issues?
How can TRI be used for Pollution Prevention?
What are the TRI use success stories?
What information do communities need?
How can we integrate RTK information?
How can the various stakeholders work better together,
including the local and international perspective?
The Unison Institute, the conference sponsor, suc-
cessfully planned each panel to reflect views from a va-
riety of stakeholders, representing the 600 participants
from federal, state and local government, industry, ad-
vocates, academia, citizen groups, media, and interna-
tional organizations. Speakers discussed their ideas and
vision, and also shared practical experience on data use
and analytic approaches.
The Right-to Know Village housed forty-five ex-
hibits which featured various information access tools
developed by federal and state government, the commer-
cial sector, and citizen and consumer advocacy groups.
The village offered an opportunity to talk directly with
RTK proponents on local environmental matters. The
conference offered several demonstrations and training
courses to teach participants how to use various infor-
mation access systems and tools.
The three plenaries covered stakeholder views on
the legislative history and net effect of TRI and RTK,
and provided insights into the future. Comments from
the audience flowed freely after the plenaries and pan-
els; participants shared then- concerns, frustrations, and
hopes with the panelists.
During the closing plenary, EPA Administrator
Carol Browner thanked stakeholders for working together
with a sense of common purpose to improve the use of
environmental'RTK information and for making RTK
initiatives wprk for everyone communities, state and
local government, and the reporting industries. She reit-
erated this Administration's goal of right-to-know as a
vital part of the presidential agenda for protecting public
health and the environment. EPA is making this goal a
reality as a means to solving environmental problems.
Author Note: Thanks to all those -who gave their precious time
and vast talents to make the conference a source ofinspiration, com-
mon purpose, and renewed dedication to environmental protection.
EPA/OPPT's Internet and CD-ROM exhibit at the TRI/Right-to-Know
Conference held on September 8-10,1997 in Washington, DC.
-------
Chemicals in the Environment
Fall 1997
Stakeholder Dialogue on TRI Reporting
Forms and Reporting Practices
Michelle Price, OPPT
On April 22, 1997, EPA completed a rule under
the Emergency Planning and Community Right-to-Know
Act of 1986 (EPCRA) Section 313 to add seven new
industry sectors to the Toxics Release Inventory (TRI)
program. (For a list of sectors, see Industry Expansion,
page 5.) These newly added industry groups will pro-
vide significant information on TRI chemicals and en-
gage in activities directly related to the support of manu-
facturing activities already covered under TRI. Certain
facilities within these industry groups will begin sub-
mitting activity reports by July 1,1999, containing data
collected during the 1998 calendar year. (See Expand-
ing the Public's Right to Know, page 3.)
Announcing the industry expansion rule, the Vice
President said that EPA would initiate a comprehensive
stakeholder process to evaluate the current reporting
will review the recommendations received from
NACEPT and use them to make decisions about changes
to TRI Form R and Form A. Administrative changes
to the reporting forms can be made expeditiously;
however, substantive changes require a formal no-
tice and comment rulemaking. Some examples of is-
sues that will be discussed by the group include: for-
mat and nomenclature used in the Form R; additional
clarification of the elements in the Form R; opportu-
nities for burden reduction in both the Form R and
Form A; and EPA's presentation of the data in public
information documents.
The public as well as other interested parties may
attend the TDR Committee meetings. The first TDR
Committee meeting was held on September 29 and 30,
1997 in Washington, DC. An additional six
available to communities and to help streamline
right-to-know reporting to ease the paperwork bur-
den for businesses affected by the requirements.
EPA is using the Toxics Data Reporting
Committee (TDR) of the National Advi-
sory Council for Environmental Policy
and Technology (NACEPT) and ad-
ditional stakeholder meetings to
obtain input from interested par-
ties on these issues.
Under the Federal Advi-
sory Committee Act, NACEPT
provides advice and recommendations to the Adminis-
trator of EPA on a broad range of environmental policy
issues. TDR is a committee created under the auspices
of NACEPT. The committee currently consists of
twenty-three members from industry, academia, govern-
ment agencies, environmental groups, environmental
justice groups, labor organizations, and public interest
groups.
Over the next year, TDR will identify improve-
ments and burden reduction measures (i.e., industry must
undertake to report TRI data) in the TRI program. EPA
forms and reporting practices relating to the TRI /v'"' V meethigs are planned over the next year.
program. The goals of this process will be to {^ICCHCC?? The next meeting is planned for early De-
improve the type of right-to-know information \^ ^^ JL/ cember, 1997. EPA will publish Federal
"~ Register notices of meetings to announce the
date, tune and location of the meetings.
In addition to the NACEPT process,
EPA plans to obtain views and informa-
tion from stakeholders through a number of
smaller meetings for interested parties. EPA
will hold approximately nine public
meetings over the next year regard-
ing the issues outlined above. The
first three meethigs are scheduled
for October 30,1997 in San Fran-
cisco, CA; November 13,1997 in
Washington, DC; and November 20 in Chicago, IL.
These efforts are aimed at not only at reducing the bur-
den to industry but improving the quality and practical
utility of the information in the TRI program.
For more information about the TDR Committee
or other public meetings on these issues, please contact
Michelle Price at (202) 260-3372 or
price.michelle@epamail.epa.gov.
-------
Chemicals in the Environment
Fall 1997
EPA Software Streamlines
TRI Reporting by Facilities
Jan Erickson, OPPT
Since inception of the TRI program, one of
EPA's goals has been to simplify the reporting
required under the Emergency Planning and Com-
munity Right-To-Know Act (EPCRA) and the Pol-
lution Prevention Act. Hotlines, training, and pub-
lication of industry-specific guidelines are just a
few examples of the many efforts undertaken to
help meet that goal. To further simplify the re-
porting process, EPA developed the Automated
Form R (APR) reporting software.
Several years ago, the APR software allowed
facilities the option of creating TRI reports on then-
own computers and sending EPA electronic copies
on a floppy disk, instead of filling out the printed
forms manually. Not only did it make reporting much
easier for the facility, it eliminated re-keying of the
data by EPA. The results were faster processing,
fewer data entry errors, and unproved data quality.
Since then, use of the APR has increased in popular-
ity. A growing number of facilities using the soft-
ware accounting for nearly 60% of all TRI sub-
missions. In addition, all but ten states (which also
receive TRI data) are accepting floppy disks created
by APR software, instead of printed forms.
In 1997, in response to a growing demand by
APR users, the Office of Pollution Prevention and
Toxics (OPPT) distributed a Windows 3.1 version
for the first time. The new APR software included
many features germane to the Windows environment,
for example, menu and tool bars, buttons, etc. EPA
distributed the Windows APR software and printed
instructions automatically to all TRI facilities; a DOS
version was available on request.
In addition, individuals can download either the
Windows 3.1 and DOS versions of the APR soft-
ware from the TRI home page on the Internet
(www.epa.gov/opptintr/formr.htni). This allowed
facilities that preferred DOS software to obtain it
immediately, without waiting for EPA to send them
a floppy disk in that format. The Web site was espe-
cially helpful in communicating with TRI facilities
during the reporting period. It enabled EPA to post
unproved versions of the software, more detailed in-
structions, and answers to frequently-asked ques-
tions. Facilities were also able to communicate their
questions directly to the EPCRA Reporting Center
using e-mail over the Internet.
EPA's goal is to reach 80% electronic submit-
tal hi the 1997 reporting year and 90% in the fol-
lowing year. This is a very ambitious goal, but with
industry's support and cooperation, it can be reached!
, , BPAispresentlyupdating^tJieAFR
software for rerjorting 1997 THRl'submis- *
sions'dWto EPA'on July If 1998.?We
are developrag,an additional version of *
APR optimized for use witK Windows '
95 and Windows NT. Asoflhfs writ-,,
ing, an independent soltwar^Jestinlf
firm, asiwel! as voji&teers Jtan the re^<
porting commmityv are
wareperforms'correctly. " ,/
_For mo^e mformatiori abojft APR
software, please call Jan Eric&km at
202-260-380L **" " : " v
-------
Vol.3 No. 2
Public Access Information
Chemical Use
Matt Gillen, OPPT
The Toxics Release Inventory (TRI) is the
public's primary source of information on the toxics
in our environment. To broaden its scope, two
Agency actions have recently expanded the chemi-
cals and industries covered under TRI. (See Indus-
try Expansion, page 5.)
EPA's Phase 3 project is another expansion
project; it looks at adding chemical use informa-
tion to TRI. EPA has been actively exploring
chemical use information in order to improve the
public's ability to evaluate a range of important
environmental issues that exist in communities.
By chemical use, EPA is referring to what is
known as materials accounting information:
amounts of listed chemicals coming into a facil-
ity, amounts manufactured or consumed on site,
and amounts leaving the facility in products and
wastes.
EPA believes that chemical use data could im-
prove the public's understanding of environmental
issues that arise from the use of chemicals at a facil-
ity. Materials accounting information:
Improves the ability to evaluate facility
source reduction and pollution prevention
performance,
Focuses emergency planning efforts related
to the transportation of chemicals through
communities,
Provides a handle on the amounts of toxic
chemicals going into products, and
Improves the ability to address worker safety
and health issues.
The importance of this initiative was illus-
trated in August 1995, when President Clinton sent
a memorandum to the EPA Administrator to fa-
cilitate TRI expansion. The memorandum di-
rected EPA to develop "an expedited, open, and
transparent process for consideration of reporting
under EPCRA on information on the use of toxic
chemicals at facilities, including information on
mass balance, materials accounting, or other
chemical use data."
EPA has held several public meetings on
Phase 3 and issued an Advance Notice of Proposed
Rulemaking (ANPR) to take comment on chemi-
cal use issues. Over 40,000 comments were re-
ceived, with strong opinions expressed on all
sides. Environmental groups generally supported
chemical use reporting, stating that it fills in some
important gaps in TRI. Industry groups generally
opposed materials accounting, questioning its
value for communities and expressing concerns
about the potential loss of sensitive business data
to foreign competitors.
EPA has reviewed the comments and issues
as well as reviewed the two state programs (Mas-
sachusetts and New Jersey) that already collect
chemical use information, and is continuing to
evaluate a number of other issues. EPA is cur-
rently considering its options and anticipates a de-
cision by early 1998 on how best to proceed with
chemical use reporting.
M3:
-------
Chemicals in the Environment
Fall 1997
State Perspective:
Ohio's TRI Program
Cindy DeWulf, Ohio EPA
Ohio EPA's Division of Air Pollution Control
(DAPC) coordinates the Toxics Release Inventory (TRI)
program in Ohio. The Ohio Right-to-Know Act of 1988
gave Ohio EPA authority to administer and enforce
Section 313 of the federal Emergency Planning and
Community Right-to-Know Act (EPCRA) and estab-
lish filing fees for covered facilities to support the
TRI program.
Today, Ohio EPA is focusing its efforts on compli-
ance assistance and outreach. Ohio EPA will be work-
ing with facilities to help them understand recent changes
to the chemical list and addition of new industrial sec-
tors. Ohio EPA will continue its ongoing outreach ef-
forts that include informing all new facilities building
within Ohio of the EPCRA reporting requirements.
Through the release of Ohio EPA's annual TRI report,
the impact of any changes to the reporting requirements
also will be explained to communities.
The TRI data has become a significant tool for Ohio
EPA to improve environmental quality as demonstrated
by the following actions:
DAPC uses TRI data to help identify facilities which
are subject to new regulations, such as Section 112(r)
of the Emergency Preparedness and Response Pro-
gram required by the Clean Air Act. TRI data is used
to evaluate industry compliance with recently adopted
rules concerning toxic releases. TRI data is also used
to focus efforts in ambient air monitoring evaluations,
and to determine county-wide levels of toxics for air
pollution studies.
Ohio EPA's Office of Pollution Prevention used TRI
data to identify the top 100 facilities that report the
most releases of toxic chemicals to the environment.
These facilities were invited to join Ohio Prevention
First, a program in which facilities voluntarily develop
comprehensive pollution prevention plans.
Ohio EPA's Division of Surface Water (DSW) uses
TRI data to develop water quality based effluent lim-
its for National Pollutant Discharge Elimination Sys-
tem (NPDES) permits. DSW's pretreatment program
also uses TRI data when developing indirect discharge
permits. The state screens the date to determine if
additional pollutants need to be evaluated for possible
inclusion in the permit.
TRI data was used to fill information requests from
private citizens, legislators, journalists, schools, con-
sulting firms, attorneys, business and trade associa-
tions, environmental groups, industry, and various
state and federal agencies.
The public uses TRI data to raise awareness regard-
ing the toxic chemicals released from manufacturing
industries within their communities.
Ohio EPA continues to work with US EPA on TRI
implementation. Through the Forum of State and Tribal
Toxics Action (FOSTTA), US EPA meets with states to
discuss the implementation and administration the TRI
program. FOSTTA conducts the annual survey of state
TRI programs which is included in the national TRI data
release. Through FOSTTA, states and US EPA have
become more aware of each other's needs. Ohio EPA
chairs the FOSTTA TRI workgroup.
:14=
-------
Vol. 3 No. 2
Public Access Information
A Non-Profit Organization's
Perspective on TRI
Terry Greene, JSI Center for Environmental Health Studies
The JSI Center for Environmental Health Studies
is a non-profit public health organization. It provides
scientific, technical, and organizational assistance to com-
munity, labor, and environmental organizations which
address health problems arising from exposure to toxic
chemicals. The Center helps citizens' groups investigate
and respond to suspected environmental hazards by pro-
viding technical information, as well as assistance in con-
ducting and reviewing health studies and in developing
strategies to reduce the risk of exposure to toxic materi-
als. Through training activities and educational materi-
als and programs, the Center strives to empower these
groups to play an informed and effective role in solving
environmental problems.
JSI found that the right to know about toxic haz-
ards in workplaces and communities is key to the public's
ability to protect themselves, their families, and the en-
vironment. The EPA's Toxics Release Inventory (TRI)
is a valuable tool for community right-to-know. How-
ever, there remains a need to promote awareness of TRI
(and complementary environmental and health informa-
tion from federal, state, and local databases, registries,
and reference materials) and to assist citizens in using it.
For many people, the only sources of environmental in-
formation are media reports on toxic hazards which too
often leave citizens feeling confused and powerless. The
ability to locate, understand, and use various forms of
information on the environment and health is vital to citi-
zens in taking their rightful place as equal partners with
government and industry to make decisions that affect
their communities, health, and children's future.
Making sense of pages of in-
formation, presented in different
formats and
measurement units, can challenge even citizens with
technical backgrounds. To truly benefit from public ac-
cess to information, citizens need details on how to ob-
tain and interpret environmental quality indicators and
health status information specific to their communities.
They should have an understanding of basic principles
for evaluating health risks, along with adequate techni-
cal assistance and analytical tools that can help in risk
screening. Citizens also need to be familiar with vari-
ous strategies for pollution prevention in homes, com-
munities, and workplaces and enhanced opportunities
to participate and take action in each of these arenas,
such as funding to compensate citizens for their service
on advisory committees and support for organizational
development for community-based organizations.
JSI is working with EPA Region 1 and the Office
of Pollution Prevention and Toxics (OPPT) on outreach
and education efforts to communities. These include a
Massachusetts pilot which trained librarians in the use
of resources such as the TRI, and subsequently spon-
sored workshops within libraries for their respective com-
munities. The project was designed to encourage com-
munity-wide use of publicly available information by:
Building the capacity of libraries to serve as local
environmental information centers available to their
communities;
Introducing broad sectors of the community (includ-
ing local officials, members of environmental, citi-
zen, and labor groups, and representatives from health
agencies, schools, and industry) to information on lo-
cal health and the environment; and
Creating a forum that fosters collaboration among
these sectors to use these information resources to
identify and prevent pollution at the local level.
Most important among the lessons learned is that
TRI outreach is not simply a matter of introducing
EPCRA and the TRI and then demonstrating various
search engines. Community outreach must start with the
concerns and needs of the community, and TRI data must
-------
Chemicals in the Environment
Fall 1997
Putting Environmental Information
in the Classroom
Odelia Funke, Chief
OPPT Information Management Division - Information Access Branch
The Toxics Release Inventory Program taught
EPA the value and power of bringing environmental
information to the public. As a result of the experi-
ence with TRI, OPPT has redoubled its effort to pro-
vide information from all of its programs to various
kinds of audiences. Making the information truly use-
ful requires that OPPT presents it in a number of dif-
ferent formats and contexts.
In 1995, OPPT developed a strategy to tailor envi-
ronmental information products for educational purposes.
During this process, the Office decided to embark on a
partnership with the National Science Teachers Asso-
ciation to develop an information product for high school
students. NSTA already had experience in creating a set
of cross-disciplinary classroom materials, with related
student activities, focused on environmental subjects.
This kind of educational package is designed for presen-
tation by teachers in different subject areas, with differ-
ent perspectives; the teachers coordinate their efforts to
present the topic across disciplines.
NSTA was particularly interested in building this kind
of educational package using a large database. OPPT and
NSTA agreed on a cross-disciplinary classroom product
based on the TRI database. NSTA worked closely with
teachers and writers to
develop the materi-
als, which are
currently in draft.
Once reviews i
and revisions are
completed, NSTA
will introduce this
new tool to its members
and science teachers across the country.
For OPPT, this collaborative effort is providing
a new way to present TRI information to an audience
that generally would not be aware of it. Students and
teachers will learn how TRI data, and other environ-
mental information, can be relevant to their commu-
nities. This project also might provide a model for
ways in which OPPT can make other programmatic
information more relevant and available to students.
Working with environmental data in this way high-
lights some of the complex issues and unanswerable
questions posed when we analyze environmental data.
Through these kinds of products, OPPT hopes to en-
gender a better appreciation and understanding of en-
vironmental issues and goals.
(continuedfrom page 15)
be presented within the context of what is of interest to
the community and its various sectors. The term out-
reach itself is misleading in that it implies "experts" go-
ing out to spread their knowledge. Successful outreach
is actually a dialogue in which an outside advisor has
just as much to learn from residents, area businesses,
and local government as they do from the advisor.
Additionally, JSI combines TRI and Massachusetts
data on toxic chemical use reporting. This is especially
timely given the current policy debate on Phase III ex-
pansion of TRI to include chemical use data. Contrary
to fears expressed by some people opposed to TRI Phase
ffl expansion, the Massachusetts experiment shows that
information on total chemical use and industrial processes
encourages the public to take a more reasonable look at
facility data. The additional data allows for a more pre-
cise identification of potential exposure scenarios and
opportunities for pollution prevention. It also highlights
when certain reductions in chemical use would be diffi-
cult to attain and not produce much benefit.
JSI has developed training materials on conducting
outreach efforts on community-based environmental data
used in national workshops for health professionals, envi-
ronmentalists, academics, and community advocates. In-
cluded in these materials is JSI's tutorial, Environment and
Health: How to Investigate Community Environmental
Health Problems, which provides an introduction to TRI
and various complementary sources of environmental and
health information. A workshop was recently held at the
American Public Health Association Conference in India-
napolis. Contact Terry Greene at (617) 482-9485 for more
information about these sessions or materials.
-------
Vol. 3 No. 2
Public Access Information
TRI Relative Risk-Based Environmental
Indicators
Nick Bouwes, OPPT
Steven Hassur, OPPT
In order to provide a risk-related perspective for
assessing the relative impacts of TRI chemicals on the
U.S. population, OPPT developed an environmental in-
dicators model as a Microsoft Windows-based computer
application. The TRI Relative Risk-Based Chronic Hu-
man Health Indicator takes into account the relative po-
tency of individual chemicals, the quantity of these
chemicals to which the general, non-worker population
is exposed, and the size of this population. This screen-
ing-level tool allows for a broad spectrum of users to
examine a multitude of environmental issues.
The TRI Indicators model incorporates eight years
of TRI reporting data on most of the significant chemi-
cal releases reported by more than 27,000 facilities. In-
dicator values are relative ranking numbers. The data
elements computed by the indicators can be viewed at a
national level or disaggregated in a wide variety of ways,
e.g., by medium, chemical, geographic area (EPA Re-
gion, state, county, city, zip code), industry sector, re-
porting facility, year or a combination of these and other
variables. Besides risk-related assessments, the model
enables users to examine TRI reported emissions from a
pounds-only perspective, as well as investigate the in-
fluence of toxiciry weights and population on the final
values. The TRI indicators model not only allows the
analyst to examine trends, but to rank and prioritize
chemicals for strategic planning, risk-related targeting,
and community-based environmental protection purposes
as well. This will potentially allow communities to di-
rect scarce public resources toward the most pressing
environmental needs and provide a basis for
establishing a dia-
logue with local
TRI reporting fa-
cilities.
OPPT is de-
veloping the
Environ-
mental Jus-
tice (EJ)
M o d u 1 e
which will pro-
vide a unique capability for examining, in a comparative
manner, estimates of the aggregate risk-related impacts
on user-selected geographic locations from all TRI on-
site releases and off-site transfers. Combined with de-
mographic information on affected populations (such as
race, income or age), the indicators are used to investi-
gate EJ issues related to the distribution of risk-related
impacts.
There is no correlation between the tbxicity crite-
ria used to make listing/delisting decisions under EPCRA
section 313 and the methodology used to rank chemicals
for the indicators. EPCRA sets out statutory toxicity cri-
teria for listing chemicals on the basis of acute human,
chronic human and/or environmental toxicity which each
chemical on the TRI list meets. To investigate the relative
risk-based impacts associated with emissions of these
chemicals, the indicators must differentiate their relative
toxicity and rank them in a consistent manner. The ranking
of each chemical reflects its single, most sensitive chronic
human health toxicity endpoint for inhalation and oral ex-
posure pathways. Note that this ranking is only relative to
other chemicals which are included in the indicators, not to
some benchmark or absolute value.
Working relationships were established with other
EPA Offices, e.g., the Office of Enforcement and Com-
pliance Assurance's Sector Facility Indexing Project (pro-
viding information to communities on hazard-weighted
TRI releases within five industrial sectors) and the Fed-
eral Facilities Office's Environmental Justice Enforce-
ment Initiative (a national report based in part on risk-
related analyses provided by the Indicators). The EPA
Science Advisory Board (SAB) recently conducted re-
views of: (1) the indicators' toxiciry weights, (2)the over-
all methodology, and (3) a consultation on the develop-
ment of the chronic ecological indicator. The SAB ex-
pects to issue its final reports by year's end. An OPPT
Internet home page will make available news about the
model, documents, toxicity weights, and results.
For further information please contact: Dr.Nicolaas
W. Bouwes, (202) 260-1622; (e-mail: bouwes.nick@
epamail.epa.gov), or Dr. Steven M. Hassur, (202) 260-
1735; (e-mail: hassur.steven@epamail.epa.gov).
-------
Chemicals in the Environment
Fall 1997
International Perspective:
Pollutant Release and Transfer Registers
John Harman, OPPT
The Toxics Release Inventory (TRI) is an environ-
mental management system that
countries around the globe are
implementing. It is expected that
within the next few years, over
30 nations will be operating
TRI-like systems, known inter-
nationally as Pollutant Release
and Transfer Registers (PRTRs).
This global movement is offering
new opportunities, not only at the in-
ternational level, but at the national
level as well.
Compiling and Comparing PRTR Data
An example is the work already underway hi North
America. An organization called the Commission for
Economic Cooperation (CEC), created by a side-agree-
ment to the North American Free Trade Association
(NAFTA), has prepared a document that compares the
PRTR data between Canada and the United States. An-
other CEC report builds on this study by actually com-
piling the common data. The result is a picture of re-
leases and transfers of toxic chemicals across both coun-
tries. PRTR data from Mexico is to be included starting
with the 1997 report.
There are benefits to this process of compiling and
comparing PRTR data between nations. As pollutants
do not respect political boundaries and releases in one
country can affect the environment of a neighbor, the
public should know about these chemical releases. There-
fore, the public could benefit from PRTR data because
they are able to obtain release and transfer data across a
much larger area hi this case, the North American
continent.
Another benefit is the ability to compare release and
transferdata between thecountries. It can be advantageous,
for instance, to contrast the reporting patterns of an nidus-
trial sector in one country to that sector in another country
regardless of the reason for the differences. Looking at
individual chemicals or groups of chemicals can lead to
fruitful investigation of one country's environmental regu-
lations as a model for other countries.
Meeting International Obligations
PRTRs also play a role in the work undertaken by
the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Devel-
opment (OECD). The OECD is an organization com-
prised of the 29 most industrialized democracies, which
last year issued a Council Recommendation calling on
its member states to implement PRTR systems.
As part of its commitment to PRTRs, the OECD
has integrated its PRTR work into its larger Chemicals
Program. Among the objectives of this approach is to
use the PRTR data as a tool for tracking progress toward
, meeting the many international agreements and conven-
tions of which the OECD is a part. For instance, the
OECD is working within the frameworks of the Persis-
tent Organic Pollutants, the Climate Change Convention,
and the Basel Convention. PRTR data can be used to
track and monitor the progress at meeting the goals of
these agreements both by individual nations and for the
OECD community as a whole. Regional organizations,
such as North America's CEC and European organiza-
tions (Convention on Long-Range Transboundry Air
Pollution), have proposed similar steps.
Analyzing PRTRs
An additional project that the OECD is presently un-
dertaking is another example of the benefits of the interna-
tionalization of PRTR systems. This study is a look at the
reporting patterns, plus the resulting benefits of reporting,
by industries in countries with PRTR systems. By con-
ducting this analysis, the OECD can highlight how the vari-
ous PRTR systems affect the environmental activities and
the environmental cultures at the reporting facilities.
Cooperation Between Nations
The results of the OECD study will be one of the
subjects at an international workshop on PRTRs. Japan,
which is moving swiftly to develop its own PRTR system,
will host this workshop in 1998. The workshop will be an
opportunity for countries already operating PRTR systems,
countries with PRTRs under development, and other inter-
ested nations, industry, and non-governmental organiza-
tions to meet and discuss the rapidly evolving status of
PRTRs around the globe. As in every step of the PRTR
process, the United States is an active participant
-------
Vol. 3 No. 2
Public Access Information
TR1-US Services:
A Look at Customer Service-
Satisfaction, and Assessment
Georgianne McDonald, OPPT
Before a product is developed or a service is pro-
vided, there are many things to consider in assessing the
needs of the audience. Traditional program evaluations
address the objective outcomes of a program, but prod-
ucts and services should also be evaluated, in terms of
qualities such as accuracy, timeliness, usefulness and ease
of access. Over the past several years, the Office of Pol-
lution Prevention and Toxics (OPPT) has been conduct-
ing customer satisfaction surveys to help assess infor-
mation products and services. Based on customer feed-
back, OPPT can modify its products and services to bet-
ter meet the public's needs.
OPPT's TRI User Support (TRI-US) team provides
a variety of products and services to a wide range of cus-
tomersindividuals, communities, local and state gov-
ernments, private businesses, non-profit organizations,
Native American tribes, and others. To meet the needs
and preferences of TRI-US customers, and to solicit feed-
back on the products and services currently provided,
OPPT initiated a customer service review.
Methods of gathering customer feedback include
focus groups, mail-out surveys, telephone surveys, hands-
on-labs, or just plain, old-fashioned postcards. To de-
termine the customers' level of satisfaction, OPPT chose
to use a telephone survey for TRI-US services. This
method would allow OPPT to:
Gain insight into the identification of TRI-US ser-
vice qualities of greatest importance to the public;
Examine the gap between customer expectations
and their perception of actual service performance;
and
Identify customers attitudes, opinions, and expec-
tations, regarding the service.
For the TRI-US project, OPPT analyzed the TRI-
US Caller Log Sheets to identify a sample set of existing
customers for the survey. Identifying the target audi-
ences for a product or service can be directed towards
those who are personally interested in TRI, those who
use it professionally for themselves, or those who use it
to gather the; information for others. The most likely
and primary target for TRI-US services, and information
is the educated, non-technical information provider (e.g.,
county/state public health official, public interest repre-
sentative, teacher, and community-based organizer, etc.)
who has access to a network of people interested in TRI
or environmental issues.
With the help of survey experts, OPPT designed
the TRI-US telephone survey questionnaire; the experts
are conducting the survey by making calls to customers.
A final report on survey results is due to OPPT in mid-
January 1998. OPPT expects that the survey will help
target the kinds of TRI information services, and quality
of service, that are most important to our customers.
Conducting surveys, assessments and focus groups
serves as a valuable tool for recognizing and addressing
the public's information needs. With customer feedback,
OPPT seeks to find out whether TRI-US products and
services are reaching the intended audience, are provid-
ing the kind of information people seek, and satisfying
the public hi terms of quality and timeliness.
= 19:
-------
Chemicals in the Environment
Fall 1997
TRI: An Academic Perspective
John C. Pine, Ed.D., Associate Professor - Research
Institute for Environmental Studies, Louisiana State University
The publication of the Toxics Release Inventory
(TRI) in 1989 provided a means for examining environ-
mental policies and strategies, and clarifying risks asso-
ciated with toxic chemicals at the state and local level.
For the academic community, the data submitted by
manufacturing facilities at the state and federal levels
meet rigorous standards and can be used to examine pub-
lic policy and program strategies.
Qualify of TRI Data
Students and faculty in the academic community
have been drawn to the TRI data because it provides a
national perspective for collecting data at the national,
state, and local level. The data do not focus on one area
of the environment but include information from a broad
perspective including air emissions, water releases, and
land discharges. The data are collected nationally in a
consistent manner under the guidance and support of the
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and the states.
Users from the academic community believe that the
collection procedures are valid and consistent. TRI data
facilitate long-term assessments of national and state poli-
cies, and industry efforts to reduce emissions.
Applications of TRI Data
TRI data provide a foundation for examining envi-
ronmental programs and risk assessments. Three stud-
ies completed by faculty at the Institute for Environmental
Studies at Louisiana State University demonstrate the
wide use of the data by the academic community. The
first was an objective examination of state environmen-
tal programs using the emissions-to-jobs (E/J) ratio which
compares TRI data to employment. This ratio is deter-
mined by the number of pounds of emissions per year
per job in a given industry and location.
There seem to be few objective standards avail-
able for evaluating state environmental programs and
policies. A state may use the E/J ratio to examine to-
tal emissions by industry based on their standard in-
dustrial classification (SIC) code, as well as the total
emissions by employment within the SIC code. The
E/J ratio is also one way to see how state property tax
exemptions affect new industries or the expansion of
current industry operations.
In the
second study,
TRI was
used to esti-
mate total
TRI emis-
sions given the size and composition of a state's manu-
facturing sector as compared to the Green Index, a na-
tional listing which uses 256 indicators to categorize each
state's environmental health. For example, TRI data from
1988, 1989, and 1990 may be used to estimate the dif-
ference between a state's expected level of total emis-
sions and the reported value. States were ranked based
on these estimated emissions and compared to the Green
Index's "green conditions" and "policy conditions."
For the third study, TRI data were used to identify
and assess areas in a state and the risks associated with
accidental releases of hazardous chemicals. The study iden-
tified 12 to 15 parishes (counties) with the greatest risk of
accidental releases from hazardous chemicals. These "high
risk" parishes would be targeted for intensive hazards analy-
sis efforts. In the study, TRI air emissions data were
summed by parish along with pollution prevention (P2)
reports submitted to the state Right-to-Know Office.
At the time of this analysis, Louisiana was one of
only a few states that had an electronic database of the
P2 chemical inventories of hazardous chemicals. In ad-
dition to the P2 chemical inventories, researchers selected
. a subset of the P2 data, including Extremely Hazardous
Substances (EHS). A relative ranking of the parishes
was established using the TRI air emissions, P2 chemi-
cals and facilities, and EHS chemicals and facilities. A
comparison of these rankings showed that the TRI air
emissions was an excellent predictor of both the P2
chemicals and facilities rankings, and the EHS chemi-
cals and facilities.
The three applications of the TRI data in research
projects illustrate that the academic community is look-
ing well beyond relative reductions in emissions by
chemical or by media. In contrast to state TRI program
officials or facility managers, the academic community
combines the TRI with other data to examine public
policy issues, environmental initiatives, and the relative
risk of geographic areas with hazardous chemicals.
= 20:
-------
Vol. 3 No. 2
Public Access Information
Proof Positive: TRI Success Stories
Maria Hendriksson, OPPT
Now in its eleventh year, the TRI program contin-
ues to expand its outreach. As the RigbMo- Know con-
cept broadens its purview, more and more people are
interested in learning about the TRI's successes. To meet
this growing interest, -EPA is creating a compendium of
success stories. The purpose of this compendium is to
collect and share information on the program's uses for
addressing and enhancing public awareness of the po-
tential risks posed by toxic chemicals released into the
environment by industrial facilities.
Many facilities realize the envi-
ronmental and societal benefits of
disclosing their information. As
a result of the program's influ-
ence, EPA has expanded the list
of chemicals and industries cov-
ered under TRI. There has
also been a doubling hi the
number of chemicals reported
by facilities around the US.
Over 31,000 facilities are now
submitting reports, represent-
ing a 30% increase over the
past year. To date, there are
over 600 chemicals listed in
the database.
The recent TRI/
Right-to-Know Confer-
ence held in Washington,
DC presented an opportu-
nity for TRI to celebrate its
successes. In the opening and closing plenaries as well
as hi a course entitled, "Success Stories of TRI Use,"
there were several discussions on how TRI has made a
positive impact through communities, industries, State
and local government, advocacy groups and other orga-
nizations. Here are some of the highlights in TRI's
achievements as mentioned in the conference:
Business and Industry
In the steady increase of industry participation, sev-
eral companies have stepped to the forefront in reducing
chemical releases to the environment Companies such
as Rhone-Poulenc and DuPont attribute their successes,
wholly or partly, to the TRI program. Since Rhone-
Poulenc (the 6th largest chemical company worldwide)
joined the program, then- toxic emissions have decreased
by 50% and they are now recycling 90% of the chemi-
cals they use. DuPont's chemical releases have declined
by over 50% and it has experienced a 70% decrease hi
the number of injuries, illnesses and incidents involving
chemical releases.
TRI has even influenced businesses not cov-
ered under the regulation. Lucrative
investments in environmen-
tally-friendly industries are.
on the rise. According to
Neuberger & Herman
(N&B), because of the
growing interest in envi-
ronmentally conscien-
tious companies, N&B
is now using TRI to
screen socially-respon-
sive portfolios.
Neuberger & Berman
Doing well
and
doing good
are not
mutually
exclusive.
State Government
Examples of states
that have recently insti-
tuted TRI-based initiatives
include Tennessee and
Louisiana, two states with
a high population of indus-
trial facilities. Tennessee
is proud of its 2000 Initiative
on air pollution. This program emphasizes industry out-
reach and the participation of local facilities in pollution
reduction schemes. Louisiana is equally pleased with
its Environmental Leadership Program. This initiative
encourages partnerships with the local chemical indus-
try and stresses voluntary reductions of emissions be-
yond levels of compliance.
Administrator Browner recently stated that more
than 1,500 community groups use TRI data in then" deal-
ings with local government and industry. Grassroots
groups and non-profit organizations, well represented at
the conference, were eager to voice then- successes in
the legislative and legal systems. Inspired by TRI's
-------
Chemicals in the Environment
Fall 1997
(continued from page 22)
momentum, some groups successfully lobbied for state
laws such as the Toxics Use Reduction Act (Massachu-
setts) and a Toxics Right-to-Know charter amendment
(Oregon). Other organizations, such as Don't Waste Ari-
zona, Inc., successfully sued facilities for failure to re-
port under EPCRA but with a constructive twist: in-
stead of paying hefly fines to EPA, court judgments were
issued for companies to apply some fines toward facility
improvements to meet compliance.
TRI is successful because there is something hi it
for everyone. In complying with regulations, industry
benefits the environment by reducing chemical releases.
In some cases, a company's stock investments increase
and the bottom line improves as a result of more so-
cially-responsive practices. As community groups
learn about the hazards around them, they can coa-
lesce to promote safer, healthier communities. Non-
profit organizations serve to increase public aware-
ness and efficacy by bridging communications with
government. Finally, while serving the public at large,
Federal, State and local governments become stew-
ards of environmental protection by operating pro-
grams and initiatives that further awareness of poten-
tial chemical hazards.
EPA Welcomes
Success Stories
Please contact Maria Hendriksson (202-260-8301)
for more information or send success stories by
fax (202-401-2347) or e-mail at:
hendriksson.marla@epamail.epa.gov
-22'
-------
The Chemicals in the Environment: Public Access Information and the Chemicals in Progress Bulletin will
merge into a new publication beginning with a Winter 1998 issue. Published by EPA's Office of Pollution Preven-
tion & Toxics (OPPT), this new publication is a hybrid of its parent publications. The issues will be theme-based
and all articles will relate to each theme. There will also be a "What's New" portion of each issue featuring news
items on the latest chemical program issues. :
OPPT is encouraging all subscribers of Chemicals in the Environment and Chemicals in Progress to access an
electronic copy of the new publication, in color, on the Internet (available in HTML and PDF formats) at: http://
www.epa.gov/opptintr/opptpub.htm. In addition, the "What's New" webpage will have timely updates on chemical
program issues. Subscribers who do not have Internet access are urged to return a copy of this notice to receive hard
copy issues of the new publication. Only those who send back this notice will receive hard copies via regular mail.
To receive a hard copy: please photocopy this page, fill out the proper information, fold the paper on
the dotted lines, and mail it to the address below or fax it to Maria Hendriksson at (202) 401-2347.
Yes!
I would like to receive hard copies of your new
publication. Please add me to your mailing list.
Name:
Address:
OPPT/IMD - Attn: Maria Hendriksson (7407)
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
401 M Street, SW
Washington, DC 20460
-------
}°°
i g 1 i. s §
*£ til
?£ o T^ffl
c
m
.
S"
w
------- |