United States
Environmental Protection
Agency
Office of Pollution
Prevention and Toxics. TS-793
Washington, D.C. 20460
January 1992
EPA 700-F-92-001
The Toxics Release Inventory
Environmental Democracy in Action
Prepared for
the US EPA Office of Toxic Substances
under
Research Grant * R817030-01 -0
THE TOXIC
Frances M. Lynn
Institute for Environmental Studies
University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill
Jack D. Kartez
Hazard Reduction and Recovery Center
Texas A & M University
Cheryl Connelly
Institute for Environmental Studies
University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill
Printed on Recycled Paper
January 1992
-------
Introduction
This is a summary of a
study that during 1991 evalu-
ated the nation's use of the
USEPA Toxic Release
Inventory (TRI). It is intended
for anyone who questions
whether providing information
to the public is useful in
spurring improved environmen-
tal quality. It is also for those
who question the accessibility
and current format of the TRI,
and wonder what, if any,
changes could be beneficial.
Thus, it is a "user report" for the
nation's first, unique, open-
access environmental data-
base. The focus is on pinpoint-
ing the activities and opinions
of TRI users, rather than
analyzing the technical issues
of the adequacy and accuracy
of TRI data, compliance costs
to industry, or health and
ecological effects of the toxic
emissions. The complete
report, The Toxic Release
Inventory: An Evaluation of
Access. Use and Impact will be
available from NTIS in Spring,
1992.
Overview of the TRI
Section 313 of SARA Title III
The Toxic Release Inventory, mandated
under Section 313 of the 1986 Emergency
Planning and Community Right-to-Know Act,
has proven to be one of the most unusual and
effective pieces of environmental legislation of
the past twenty years. Conventional regulatory
laws set standards for pollution control and
involve direct federal and state government
enforcement of business, industry and commu-
nity activities. The TRI demands from industry
only information on toxic emissions and in
principle makes that data available to the entire
nation, including individual citizens, local and
state officials, and the private sector.
The TRI program, administered by USEPA's
Office of Toxic Substances (OTS), has been
intended from its inception to spur voluntary
action by business, citizens and local govern-
ments to reduce toxic pollutant emissions.
EPA officials and others have described this
approach as "information empowerment" for
citizens and "environmental democracy"
whereby putting information about toxics in the
public's hands can lead to mutual efforts by
citizens and industrial facilities to change
existing practices. Writing in 1988, New York
Times environmental journalist Philip
Shabecoff reported that the "early returns" of
this "toxic poll" indicated the potential for action
and change,but only on the basis of scattered
"anecdotal evidence." The great majority of
potential TRI users at that time probably
viewed it as "that data EPA would use for
research."
The TRI in Brief
Section 313 of the Emergency Planning
and Community Right-to Know Law requires
manufacturers that produce, import,
process, or use threshold amounts of any of
more than 300 chemicals to report their
estimated chemical emissions to land, air,
and water, or shipments of waste off-site.
For 1989, about 22,000 reporting facilities
estimated almost 6 billion pounds of toxic
chemical emissions of all types. Not all
facilities — especially small ones — have
reported as required.
Many technical as well as policy issues
surround the TRI. Public interest groups have
lobbied for expansion of the TRI, including an
increase in the number of chemicals covered
and the extension of reporting requirements
beyond the manufacturing sector. Questions
have been raised about the ease of access to
the TRI's huge database through personal
computers and the National Library of
Medicine's TOXNET system—one of the major
methods chosen by EPA for storage of and
public access to TRI data. Pressure for
pollution prevention rather than pollution
control has already resulted in Congress'
expansion of future TRI reporting to require
facilities to report their efforts to reduce
sources of toxic pollutants. The TRI therefore
could have even greater future potential for
usefulness and impact.
"Government will never be able to come in
from the outside and manage toxics safely.
Industry and local people are the key. Our
goal is to promote local awareness of toxic
chemicals so that local people have the
tools for seeking responsible management
of toxic chemicals. They can get more
accomplished at a Rotary meeting than two
pounds of federal regulation but local
people have to know the facts."
State official, survey respondent
That makes the present an ideal time to
evaluate questions of public ease of accessibil-
ity, uses, and impact on the nation of the TRI
during its initial years. More than an evaluation
alone, this summary also illustrates many
potential uses to which TRI data can be put
and the different forms in which the data could
be made more accessible to the public. As
you will read here, public interest groups credit
access to the TRI with creating pressure for
new state toxics reduction legislation and
action by individual industrial firms. State
personnel feel that TRI-stimulated public
actions enhanced their efforts for environmen-
tal quality. Industry acknowledges the role of
the TRI in focusing their attention on cost-
effective opportunities for toxics pollution
reduction and accident prevention.
Study Approach in Brief
Information in this summary comes from a
study commissioned by the U.S. EPA's Office
of Toxic Substances conducted by a research
team from the University of North Carolina-
Chapel Hill and Texas A&M University. This
evaluation focuses on a universe of TRI users
from industry, state government and the public
interest community who made active use of the
TRI to analyze public policies or industrial
production practices and/or to organize,
summarize, or interpret the data for a wider
-------
audience (e.g., other organizations, individual
citizens, etc.). Thus, the focus of this evalua-
tion was somewhat different than that of the
U.S. General Accounting Office's 1990 study of
state coordinators, NLM TOXNET users, and
reporting facilities.
Information on TRI use was collected by
two methods. First, the content of almost 100
published reports using TRI data was analyzed.
in terms of focus on geographic summary
areas, air/water/land releases, and different
types of facilities, as well as coverage of
human health risks and other information not
provided by the TRI itself. Second, a detailed
mail questionnaire was sent to all organizations
producing written reports, as well as an equal
number that were identified as active TRI users
and to all 55 state and territorial Section 313
data coordinators. The 72% survey response
rate includes 147 organizations. Although not a
random sample, the organizations included in
this study are highly representative of the most
active TRI users across the nation. (See
footnote 1 for more information on the sample.)
This summary highlights the findings, looking
at how groups used the data, the impact of this
use, the most effective means of accessing the
data, the role of these data users as interpret-
ers for a wider public and recommended
changes in data content and coverage.
Uses and Impact of the TRI:
Citizen Groups,
State Government, Industry
The uses to which the TRI data have been
put have expanded continually since I987 when
industry first reported emissions. Public interest
groups, state 313 agencies and industrial
organizations were asked, in the survey, about
which uses they have pursued from among a
representative list (see inset). Of the various
uses, the three most frequently chosen by
state 313 agencies are comparing TRI data to
permits (64%), source reduction efforts (48%),
and comparing similar facilities (41%). Among
public interest/environmental groups the three
most frequent uses include pressuring facilities
for change (85%), educating citizens (79%),
and lobbying (75%). Among industry, the TRI is
most frequently used for source reduction
efforts (58%), educating citizens (53%), and
company profiles (53%). Those patterns reflect
both differences and similarities in priorities for
TRI use. State agencies have focused most
on using TRI to improve management of
existing authorities (e.g., RCRA) and analyzing
reduction possibilities, often in conjunction with
new state statutes such as TUR (toxics use
reduction) laws. Public interest groups and
industry are similar in placing high weight on
using TRI data to educate the public. Public
interest groups direct equal efforts to pressuring
facilities and lawmakers for change, while
industry's other uses are directed internally at
their own production processes.
The impact of the TRI was felt at least
modestly even before the first data were publicly
reported. Many industrialists were surprised by
the volume of emissions. On the eve of the first
reporting deadline of July 1,1988, Monsanto's
CEO pledged to reduce his firm's air emissions
90% by 1992. The TRI also has galvanized and
become an integral part of citizen group efforts to
enact state legislation requiring pollution preven-
tion planning and mandatory reduction goals.
For example, the Public Interest Research Group
(PIRG) incorporated TRI data into its state-
focused toxics use reduction campaigns and
PIRG chapters in Massachusetts, Oregon and
New Jersey published multiple reports of their
own leading to successful legislative campaigns.
Those reports combined the TRI data with
information on successful pollution reduction
practices in industry, making the case for new
policies.
Representative Uses of the TRI Data
Pressure facilities for change Educate citizens
Lobby Assess existing laws
Emergency planning Effect source reduction
Epidemiological studies Raise funds
Compare similar facilities Identify hotspots
Compare to permits Prepare litigation
Prepare company profile
Spur direct citizen/industry negotiation
Prepare recommended legislation/regulation
Screen for socially responsible investment
Conduct commercial marketing studies
State agencies have used the TRI to
improve multiple programs through linkage of
data and linkage of performance. For example in
Louisiana, the nation's second-ranked state in
total annual TRI emissions (473.5 million tons),
state survey respondents credit the data for
helping pass their Air Toxics Law which
requires 50% reductions by 1994. But
Louisiana state agencies have also used TRI
data to tighten existing water quality regulations,
to target the twelve top emitters in air, water and
land categories for required reduction plans, and
in at least one case, to link a company's TRI
record to the approval of industrial tax exemp-
tions.
According to our survey, (see Fig. 1), 66% of
the citizen groups report that legislation or
regulatory action was stimulated, but so do 42%
of industry respondents (Table 1). As is the case
with state environmental agencies, public interest
" The TRI has made
those of us in
corporate America
aware of our col-
lective problems
and provided a
stimulus for re-
ductions "
Industry official,
survey respondent
-------
"We have helped citizens arrange and
attend meetings with about a dozen
industries and are continuing to help
them negotiate reduced emissions"
Public interest group, survey respondent
groups have also used TRI data to improve
the enforcement of existing regulations as
well as promote new laws. For example, the
Clean Water Action/Clean Water Fund used
TRI data in its report on the Houston (TX)
Ship Channel to urge regional EPA officials to
include that body of water in the Texas Water
Commission's list of Toxic Impaired Waters.
Industry respondents most frequently
report that source reduction efforts actually
have taken place (68%), but so do 46% of the
public interest groups responding (Table 1).
About equal proportions of state agency
(20%) and citizen group (24%) respondents
also report that litigation has resulted from
use of TRI data.
Perhaps one of the most important
findings about TRI impacts is that both citizen
groups and industry agree the data's availabil-
ity has prompted increased face-to-face
meetings between community groups and
industry. As one group put it in their added
comments in the survey, "As industry finds out
you know what you are talking about, they
are pressured to meet." Most of that in-
creased communication takes place at a local,
decentralized level—only 16% of state 313
agencies were aware that such activities had
occurred. Among the results of such meet-
ings between citizens and industry have been
plant tours and citizen inspections, establish-
ment of community advisory boards to monitor
industrial activities, and formal "Good Neigh-
bor Agreements" with specific facilities.
Impacts of Organizations' Efforts to Use TRI
Source Reduction Efforts
were effected
Meetings between
Industry and Community
Groups were prompted
Legislation, Regulation or
Administrative Action
was stimulated
10 20 30 40 SO 60 70 80 90 100
Figure 1
Percentage of Each Group Reporting Impact
Improving the TRI:
Questions of Access
There is no question that the TRI has
played a role in spurring both new regulatory
effort below the national level as well as
community-based communication, negotiation
and action between industry and citizens.
Whether or not the results have been adequate
in terms of environmental quality and health is
beyond the scope of this report. However, in
order for the TRI to have the maximum impact
as a tool of environmental democracy, it must
be reasonably accessible to a wide cross-
section of the public. Examined here are
questions about the ease of access to and
completeness of the TRI data, and the role of
different organizations in promoting access to
and understanding of the data by others.
Access for Primary Users
The EPA implemented the innovative
public "outreach" objectives (see Fig. 2) for the
TRI by providing seven mediums for access:
1. the annual National Report, 2. the National
Library of Medicine database, 3. CD-ROM
disks, 4. personal computer diskettes by state,
5. magnetic tape, 6. microfiche, and 7. printed
listings. In addition, the organizations polled
here have also produced a wide variety of
written reports that focus on different parts of
the TRI data for specific areas and which often
link the TRI to other information on pollution,
waste reduction and health effects issues.
Some public interest groups such as the
Natural Resources Defense Council have
distributed state diskettes free. The OMB
Watch and the Unison Institute with private and
public funding currently operate an on-line TRI
data base which is being used by 240 people,
a little less than half of which represent public
interest organizations.
TRI users were asked to judge the
"Most" and "Least" useful forms of access,
shown in Table 1. Without question, the
majority of users have preferred "hard copy"
printed forms of the data or personal computer-
compatible data, including the annual National
Report, listings from EPA, the state diskettes,
and the "Other Reports" prepared by non-EPA
sources. Microfiche, expected to provide a low
cost, easy medium for citizens at the local
level, is the least preferred and used form of
data with only 2% of the citizens groups, 4% of
state government, and no industry respondents
finding it an effective means of access. Only
industry finds the NLM data base most useful.
CD/ROM and magnetic tape all found use by
less than 11 % of the respondents.
-------
"While the USEPA has established a
computerized database the information
is not available In a user-friendly format
which may be manipulated, sorted or
extracted as needs demand. The state
has found it necessary to establish its
own database"
State official, survey respondent
Those results can be judged in two lights.
First, they reflect the need that users have for
the ability to manipulate the data (see inset).
Second, they reflect limitations in equipment,
resources and expertise among the wide
community of users. While a printed report or
state diskette can be the basis for creating a
usable local database on widely available
personal computers, the NLM database and
CD-ROM, for example, present obstacles of
connect time costs, lack of equipment, and
rigid data format.
An analysis of the "other reports" across
the nation, rated highly useful, shows that they
tend to focus on the county and even munici-
pal level. In particular, reports by public
interest groups focus on specific groups of
facilities, such as top emitters, focus on air
emissions that have off-site consequences for
nearby residents of facilities, and combine
TRI data with other information on human
health effects and pollution reduction opportu-
nities.
For example, the Consumer Policy
Institute used the TRI to identify the top
polluters in each borough of New York City
and combined that information with chemical
profiles of each company. The Oregon Public
Interest Research Group organized TRI
emissions data in categories of health effects,
such as cancer, reproductive disorders, and
acute toxicity. Utah's State Department of
Health used TRI data to assign "investigative
priorities'' to air releases by combining
emissions with additional data on local
population density and environmental persis-
tence of the substances emitted. Those are
but a few examples of how manipulation of the
TRI is necessary for users to achieve their
objectives. Through 1990, such reports have
been produced by state agencies and citizen
groups in 24 states and the District of Colum-
bia (see list of reports at the end of this
summary).
Least and Most Useful Forms of the Data
Form
Other Reports*
State Disk
Printed List
Citizen & State
Environmental Groups 313 Coordinators
most
least
most
least
most
least
EPA Nat'l Report most
least
NLM
CD/ROM
Magnetic Tape
Fiche
most
least
most
least
most
least
most
least
58%
12
55
19
51
20
42
24
27
39
10
51
7
60
2
63
59%
20
61
23
61
18
59
20
25
52
11
68
11
73
4
75
Industry
58%
11
21
47
53
32
53
21
63
26
5
63
5
79
0
79
N varies for each item, percentages do not sum to 100% due to non-response.
'Reports by state, environmental groups or industry that use the TRI data.
Public Interest Groups Serve
as Access Points for Others
Equally important, public interest groups
and state 313 agencies have served as
access points to the TRI for other govern-
mental units, citizen groups, individual
citizens and news media. Figure 2 shows the
proportions of the TRI users surveyed that
have received "Frequent" requests for
information and assistance from various
parties. Citizen groups, in particular, have
received frequent requests for help from
individual citizens who otherwise might not
easily access TRI data.
As one respondent put it: "In general,
people don't ask for TRI data directly but it
will help them with their problem ... most
callers have never heard of TRI—they just
call for help." But state agencies and citizen
groups are equally likely to receive frequent
requests from other environmental groups
and the news media. State agencies,
however, are the target of requests from
environmental consultants, While public
interest groups are the ones contacted more
frequently by community-level organizations.
In short, voluntary citizen organizations
are the key point of access for grassroots
requests from community groups and
individuals who either cannot access the
TRI easily or have never heard of it.
Table 1
" In our state as in
many some of the
worst polluters are
in low socioeco-
nomic areas. How
can people without
college degrees use
SARA 313 data? I
have trouble and my
education is good!"
Public interest group
respondent
-------
Organizations that Receive Frequent
Requests for Help from Other TRI Users
100-7
Citizen Groups
State-313 Coordinators
Industry
Individual
Citizens
Figure 2
Environmental News Media
Groups
Groups Requesting Information
Environmental
Service Firms
Needed Expansions and
Refinements to TRI
High proportions of state government and
public interest group users want additional
information to maximize the usefulness of the
existing TRI data coverage. As Table 2 shows,
about half the state agencies and three-
quarters of citizen groups want more informa-
tion on specific facilities, on available emission
control and waste minimization efforts, and on
health effects and environmental impacts.
Even among industry there are small numbers
that would use such information to compare
production processes in searching for both
efficient operation and reduced pollution.
Some but far from all of those concerns will be
addressed by the expansions to the informa-
tion required from facilities by TRI's Form R
reporting requirements under the new Pollution
Prevention Act of 1990. In addition, there is
wide interest among citizen groups and some
state agencies to expand the TRI to the large
number of uncovered emission sources, such
as incinerators, power plants, federal agencies
and others outside the 20 SIC codes (industrial
categories) covered by SARA Title III. Some
states have expanded covered facilities as part
of their own Toxics Use Reduction laws.
Finally, many respondents to this survey
commented about weakness in compliance
with reporting requirements for the TRI.
Expansions to what information the TRI
covers and how well it is complied with will
depend on the commitment of a very heteroge-
neous audience of users and reporters. To
gauge opinions, all users were asked to
express their support or opposition to a wide
variety of purposes to which TRI data can be
put (Figure 3). Not surprisingly, public interest
groups are highly in favor of all of those
representative uses. State 313 agency
respondents, who are professional staff
members, are also highly in favor of stricter
toxic emissions regulation (83%), industry-
public cooperation (93%), toxics use reduction
legislation at state and federal levels (81%),
and expanded news media coverage (71%).
While many state 313 staff support voluntary
local plant facility inspections (61%), fewer
want to see mandatory inspections (46%).
Industry, finally, is highly supportive of volun-
tary cooperation (100%) and mildly supportive
of specific voluntary plant inspections (50%),
and emission regulation (31%); but industry
representatives are strongly opposed to new
TUR laws, mandatory inspections, and local
toxics zoning such as that proposed and
defeated in Nevada's legislature.
Implications for the Future
It should be apparent that the TRI can only
be successfully used to promote the reduction
of toxics emissions, waste and use through a
complex web of parties that have disparate
interests as well as common ones. The
findings here in some ways parallel those of a
1990 U.S. General Accounting Office evalua-
tion of the TRI (2). Industry users are most
likely to find the National Library of Medicine
database a comfortable and adequate medium
for accessing the TRI, but other users, espe-
cially citizens working through public interest
groups, seek additional and flexible windows
into TRI data compatible with their capabilities
and needs. The GAO report concluded that
the TRI is not well known to the individual
citizen, and EPA continues to pursue steps to
publicize TRI data availability and provide
assistance to individual users of TRI data. But
the findings here also show that public interest
groups and the states play a key role in acting
as bridging or intermediate organizations that
are closer to and perhaps better able to help
citizens understand how the TRI applies to
their immediate needs and how it can be used.
The challenge is to use effectively all of the
available means for making the TRI useful.
The EPA is undertaking a pilot project in
Pennsylvania to work with local organizations.
States can play a role by working closely with
and even aiding citizen groups to promote TRI
availability. Many industrial firms have already
donated databases on SARA Title III Section
-------
Additional Information Needed
Information Needed
Percent of Groups Stating Need
Citizen State
Groups 313 Coordinators Industry
Specific Facility
Control Technology
85
79
Health/Environmental Impacts 78
Waste Minimizaton
The law (EPCRA)
72
18
48
50
48
57
9
21
21
26
26
5
Table 2
(Implications for the Future continued)
311-312, Extremely Hazardous Substances,
and could play an equal role in helping make
accessible the Section 313 TRI data. The
nation's 3800 Local Emergency Planning
Committees (LEPCs) are an underutilized point
of access for TRI data at the most local level. A
number of states, working with the National
Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
(NOAA) and EPA, have helped LEPCs to
acquire and use the CAMEO system software
for emergency planning. CAMEO also is
designed to provide a way to store and use TRI
data as well, making it a resource local public
agencies can provide to the entire community.
Finally, the growing number of reports done
using the TRI (see listing) are essential to
interpreting the data in terms of local needs.
No national database alone can substitute for
those specific applications of the information by
those closest to the needs.
Support for Actions Based on TRI Use
I Citizen Groups
K State 313 Coordinators
E3 Industry
Emission
Regulation
Industry/
Public Co-op
Voluntary
Plant
Inspections
Mandated
Plant
Inspections
Zoning
Regulations
Types of Actions
Use
Reduction
Legislation
Figure 3
Footnotes
1. The research team used two-methods in its
evaluation: a content analysis of reports produced
by public interest groups, state agencies and
industry; and a written questionnaire of the same
user community plus other organizations identified
as active TRI users. A snowball method was used
to identify organizations and was necessary
because the population of user organizations was
unknown and could not be randomly sampled. In
order to identify organizations that had produced
written reports, we contacted all 55 state and
territorial 313 coordinators. We also contacted
public interest and industrial organizations which
had been identified by the EPA, the Working Group
on Community Right-to-Know (a public interest
group coalition) or the Chemical Manufacturers
Association Generally excluded from this study are
environmental management consultants and the
news media. In addition to requesting written
documents from each organization, we asked each
respondent for the names of other organizations
that had produced reports using the TRI data.
Through this snowball method we collected dose to
95 reports produced from 1988 to1990. Of the 95
documents, 70 were produced by public interest
groups, 23 by state agencies and two by Congres-
sional offices. Industry tended to rely on other
means of dissemination such as public meetings
and press releases. We included all organizations
from whom we collected reports in our mail survey.
Additional organizations identified brought the total
of those surveyed to 205, including all state 313
coodinators. Among the 147 respondents were 44
of the 55 state and territorial coordinators, 67 citizen
and environmental groups and 19 industrial
representatives. The snowball method did result in
a small number of organizations or individuals
which did not fit our categories. These 19 included,
among others, congressional staff and state
employees from non-313 program offices which
were not included in our statistical analysis but were
surveyed to identify categories of users that will be
included in further studies.
2. U.S. General Accounting Office (1991). Toxic
Chemicals, EPA's Toxic Release Inventory is Useful
but Can be Improved. Washington, D.C.: GAO
(RCED-91-121).
Note:
This bulletin was written for EPA by Dr. Frances
M. Lynn of the Institute for Environmental Studies,
University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, and Dr.
Jack D. Kartez, Hazard Reduction and Recovery
Center, Texas A&M University.
The findings, opinions and recommendations
expressed herein are the authors' and not necessar-
ily those of the Environmental Protection Agency.
Acknowledgements:
Development of this document was aided by the
staff of the EPA's Office of Toxic Substances,
including Gerry Brown and Jan Erickson, our current
project officers and also Ann Giesecke, our first
project officer Many other people reviewed this
work. Paul Drum of the Working Group on
Community Right-to-Know was especially helpful.
Suzanne Wills and Anne Mason of the Chemical
Manufacturers Association helped with industry
contacts. Thanks to the Bauman Family Foundation
which funded research by Frances Lynn which was
the precursor to this current study.
Design:
Learning Resources Center, School of Public Health
-------
Bibliography of
Reports Using
the Toxics Release
Inventory Data
(Reports issued 1987-1990)
State Agencies
• California Environmental Affairs Agency
• Office of Hazardous Material! Data
Management, Sacremento, CA, (8/90)
1988 SARA 313 Chemical Releases
• Connecticut State Emergency Response
Commission. Hartford, CN. (12/89)
SARA Title III Status Report - Emergency
Planning and Community Right to Know in
Connecticut
- Georgia Department of Natural
Resources - Environmental Protection
Division. Atlanta. GA, (2/90) Toxc
Release Inventory Report. 1988
• Illinois Environmental Protection
Agency. Springfield, IL. (2/89; 2/90) First.
Second Toxic Chemical Report
• Indiana Department of Environmental
Management, SARA Title III Program
Indianapolis. IN. (J'90) Indiana Toxic
Release Inventory ol 1987 Total Releases
& Transfers
• Kansas Department of Health and
Environment - Bureau of Environmen-
tal Health Service*. Topeka, KS, (4/90)
Right-to-Know Program Status Report.
• Kentucky Department for Environmental
Protection. Frankfort. KY. (11/88) Toxic
Chemicals in Kentucky s Environment:
Releases reported under SARA. Title III.
Section 31(12/90) 1989 Toxic Chemical
Release Inventory Data.
• Louisiana Department of Environmental
Quality. Baton Rouge. LA (4/90; 12/90)
Loueiana Toxics Release Inventory
11988. 1989] (11/90) Corporate Response
to DEQ's Request lor Toxic Waste
Reduction Plans. 1990 (4/90) A Review ot
Selected Facilities in Louisiana Based
on Information in the 1988 Toxics Release
Inventory Report.
• Michigan Department of Natural
Resources • SARA Title II Office.
Lansing, Ml, (6/90) Toxic Chemical
Release Inventory Summary Report for
Michigan 1988 Data.
•Minnesota Department of Public Safety -
Emergency Response Commission,
Minneapolis. MN. (t 1/89; 9/90) 1988.
1989 Toxic Chemical Release Inventory:
A preliminary summary of toxic chemical
report lorms lor calendar year 1988. 1989
• Minnesota Polution Control Agency.
Minneapolis. MN. (3/90) Air Toxics Source
Review Guide.
• New Jersey Department of Environmen-
tal Protection - Division of Environ-
mental Quality. Trenton. NJ. (3/89; 9/90)
The Community Right to Know Annual
Report 1987. 1988.
• New York State Department of
Environmental Conservation. Abany.
NY. (4/89; 12/89) New York State 1987,
1988 Toxic Release Inventory (TRI)
Review
• Oregon Office of State Fire Marshall.
Salem. OH, (1987; 1988) LSI ol
Companies and Chemicals and Amount
Released.
• South Dakota Department of Water and
Natural Resources. Pierre, SO, (10/90)
computer printout of THI information.
• Utah Department of Health • Division of
Environmental Health. Salt Lake City,
UT. (3/88, 3/90) Utah Toxic Release
Inventory Summary Report tor Calendar
Year 1987, 1988.
• Virginia Emergency Response Council.
Richmond. VA. (1/90) SARA Title III
Section 313 Report.
Citizen ft
Public Interest Groups
• American Lung Associstion ot New York
State/New York Environmental
Institute, Inc.. New York, NY, (7/89) Air
Toxics In NY State - A Citizen's Guide to
the Right-To-Know Law & Air Toxic Data.
• Bound Brook Citizens Association,
Bound Brook. NY. (8/89) Toxic Chemical
Releases from American Cyanamid (3/90)
Toxc Chemcal Releases from American
Cyanamid - A Revised Look
• California Public Interest Research
Group. Los Angeles. CA. (4/89) Toxc
Hazards in LA County (7/89) Industrial
Toxic Pollution in California - An Industry
by Industry Analysis of Chemical
Releases and Opportunities for Toxics
use Reduction/(3/90) The Good. The Bad
and The Toxic.
• Citizen Action. Columbus. OH. (6/89) Ohio
Manufacturers' Toxc Chemical Releases,
1987
• Citizens for a Better Environment/
Chicago Lung Association. Chicago, IL,
(2/89) Toxic Air Pollution in Illinois • An
Analysis of 1987 Toxic Release Inventory
Reports.
• Citizens for a Better Environment. San
Francisco. CA. (2/89) Richmond at Risk
Community Demographics and Toxic
Hazards for Industrial Polluters (4/89) A
Fragile Shield Above the Golden State
California's Contrbution to the Chemcal
Destruction of Earth's Protective Ozone
Layer.
• Citizens Fund. Washington. DC. (5/90)
Manufacturing Pollution: A Survey of the
Nation's Toxe Polluters (6/90) Poisons in
Our Neighborhoods' Toxic Pollution in
the US.
• Citizens Fund/Citizens Action.
Washington. DC/Denver. CO. (6/90)
Poisons in Our Neighborhoods • Toxic
Pollution in Colorado.
• Clean Water Action/Clean Water Fund.
Washington. DC. (6/89) The Houston Shp
Channel and Garveston Bay: Texas
Water Commission and EPA Turn Their
Backs (5/90) Toxic Oversight - How
Millions of Pounds of Toxic Chemicals are
being Dumped into the Houston Ship
Channel and Gatveston Bay Through
Loopholes in the Permitting Process (9/
90) Mercury Rising: Government Ignores
the Threat of Mercury from Municpal
Waste Incinerators
• dean Water Action and Clean Water
Fund/Public Interest Research Group
in MJchigan/PIRG Toiic Action/Ecology
Center of Ann Arbor, Ann Arbor. Ml. (71
89) Danger To the Ozone Layer in
Michigan.
• Community Environmental Health Center
at Hunter College, 1969. New York, NY,
Hazardous Neighbors'' Living Next Door
to Industry in Greenpoint-Williamsburg.
• Consumer Poicy Institute - Consumers
Union. Mt. Vernon, NY, (5/90) Toxic Air
Pollution From New York City Industry.
- Delaware Valley Toxics Coalition.
Philadelphia, PA. (1989) Toxic Chemcal
Release Inventory Report.
• Downriver Citizens for a Safe
Environment. Wyandotte. Ml, (12/89)
Wyandotte: A Chemically Dependent City
(9/90) Chemical Exposure Downriver.
Progress and Problems.
• Environmental Action Foundation,
Washington, DC. (11/90) The Toxic Trail -
A Citizen's Guide to Reducing Toxic
Pollution in Southwestern Virginia.
• Environmental Health Coalition, San
Diego. CA. (4/90) Communities at Risk:
Your Right-to-Know about Toxics in San
Diego.
• Environmental Health Watch. Cleveland.
OH, It's Legal But Is It Right? The Toxic
Release Inventory of Cuyahoga County.
• Environmental Law Institute. Washington.
DC. (6/90) New Jersey Citizens' Right-to-
Know Workshop (workshop manual).
• Greenpeace. Chicago. IL. (1988) Down the
Drain: Toxic Waste in Chicago's Sewer
System (9/88) Greenpeace Mississippi
River Reports Number 3- Ecology Impact
Assessment. Monsanto Corporation.
• Greenpeace. Seattle. WA. (12/89) We All
Live Downstream - The Mississippi River
and the National Toxics Crisis.
• Greer^eace USA. Washington. DC. (9/88)
Mortality and Toxics Along the Mssissppi
River (8/89) Exporting Banned Pesticides.
Fueling the Cirde of Poison; Velsicol
Chemical Corportation's Export of
Chlordane and Heplachlor (5/90) A
Citizen's Toxic Waste Audit Manual.
• Hudson River Sloop Clearwater, Inc..
Poughkeepsie, NY, (11/89) Toxc Tides -
Your Right to Know.
• INFORM, New York. NY, (1990) A Special
Report: Toxics In Our Air (1990) Trading
Toxcs Across State Lines.
• Kentucky Resources Council, Frankfort.
KY. (9/88; 8/89) Waking a Sleeping Giant:
A Citizen's Guide to Toxic Chemical
Releases Reported Under Section 313 of
the Emergency Planning and Community
Right-to-Know Act.
• Maryland Public Interest Research
Group. College Park. MD. (8/89) A Future
Too Bright: A Report on Industrial
Sources of Ozone Depleters in MD, The
Probable Effects of Ozone Depletion and
a Call for Action.
• Massachusetts Public Interest Research
Group. Boston, MA. (11/88) Toxic
Hazards In Massachusetts - A New
Look(4/89) Toxic Pollution in Massachu-
setts - An Industry by Industry Analysis of
Chemcal Releases and Opportunities for
Toxics Use Reduction (9/89) Local Error.
Global Terror-A Two-Year Assessment of
Ozone Depletion by Massachusetts
Industry.
• National Wiklife Federation. Washington.
DC, (3/89) Danger Downwind - A Report
on the Release of Billions of Pounds of
Toxic Air Pollutants (8/89) Tne Toxic 500 -
The 5OO Largest Releases of Toxic
Chemicals in the United States 1987 (9/
90) Phantom Reductions: Tracking Toxic
Trends.
• National Toxics Campaign. Boston. MA.
(3/89) Third Annual Report on Toxic
Discharges into Boston Harbor (11/90)
Present Dangers...Hidden Liabilities: A
Profile of the Environmental Impact of the
Union Carbide Corporation m the United
States (1987-88)
• Natural Resources Defense Council,
Washington. DC, (6/89) Who's Who of
American Toxic Air Polluters: a guide to
more than 1500 factories in 46 states
emitting cancer causing chemicals (1/90)
A Who's Who ol American Ozone
Depleters; A Guide to 3,014 Factories
Emitting Three Ozone-Depleting
Chemicals.
• Natural Resources Defense Council/
Sierra dub Potomac Chapter/Maryland
Waste Coalition/American Lung
Association of Maryland, Washington.
DC. (8/88) Toxic Air Pollution in Maryland1
An Analysts of Toxic Release Reports
From Manufacturing Industries for 1987
Submitted to the Maryland Toxics
Information Center under the Emergency
Planning and Community Right-to-Know
Act of 1986
• New Jersey Public Interest Research
Group, New Brunswick, NJ, (9/68) Toxics
in Bergen County - An Inventory of Toxic
Releases in Bergen County (2/89)
Middlesex County: Hazardous to Your
Health? An Inventory of Toxic Releases
in Middlesex County (10/89) Toxic
Trends: New Jersey's Most Toxic
Dischargers 1987-88 and Their Progress
Toward Pollution Prevention (3/90) Permit
to Pollute - Study of TOXCS Discharged to
NJ's Sewers (5/90) Chemcal
Consequences - An Investigation of Toxic
Chemical Use and Its Impact on NJ (11;
90) Risky Business An Industry by
Industry Investigation of Toxic Releases in
New Jersey
• North Carolina Environmental Defense
Fund. Raleigh. NC. (2/89) Drawn with the
Wind - Toxc Air Emissions Across NC
(1989; 1990) Toxic Air Emissions in NC -
An Update for 1988, 19S9.
• Northwest Environmental Advocates.
Portland. OR. (6/90) Input-Output Model
For Toxic Releases To The Portland
SMSA Environment.
• Ohio Citizen Action. Columbus. OH. (9/88)
Toxics Unleashed: A Report on Toxic
Chemical Releases in Montgomery
County (also Franklin. Hamilton. Lucas.
Cuyahoga and Summit Counties) (11/88)
BP America's Toxc Emissions and Heatih
Problems in Lima: Is There A Link'
(11/88) Toxic Chemical Emssions At
The General Motors Lordstown Complex
(6/89) Ohio Manufacturers' Toxic
Chemical Releases. 1987
• Ohio Public Interest Campaign.
Cincinnati. OH. (8/88) How to Use
Information Industnes Submitted on The
Toxic Chemicals They Released (9/88)
Toxic Chemical Releases In Hamilton
County (also Franklin, Hamilton, Lucas,
Cuyahoga and Summit! counties).
• OMB Watch. Washington. DC. (1/89)
Community Right-to-Know: A New Tool
lor Pollution Prevention.
• Oregon Public Interest Research Group,
Portland. OR. (2/89) Toxics Hazards in
Oregon (7/89) Every Breath You Take
Air Toxics in Oregon (10/89) Toxics on the
Rise - Oregon's Industnal Air Pollution (4/
90) Toxics in Our Towns' The Continuing
Need for Toxics Use Reduction.
• PIRG In Michigan. Ann Arbor, Ml. (11/89)
Out of Control: Air Pollution Controls and
Toxc Air Emission in Michigan
• Sierra Club, Virgiraa Chapter. Richmond.
VA, (1/90) Toxic Air Pollution in Virginia:
An Analysis of Toxic Release Reports for
1988 Emissions Submitted by
Manufacturing Industries to the VA
Department of Waste Management.
• Silicon Valley Toxic* Coaition. San Jose.
CA. (9/88) Title III Emissions Data for
Silicon Valley Industry • By Company
(1988) Citizen's Guide to the New Federal
Right-to-Know Law How you can get
toxics information and use it to fight toxic
pollution (2/90) 1988 Silicon Valley Title III
Emissions Report.
• South Carolina Wildlife Federation.
Columbia. SC. (11/90) Toxc Releases in
South Carolina. 1988
• Tennessee Environmental Council.
Nashville, TN. (1989) TRI Health Effects
Information.
• Texans United Education Fund, National
Toxics Campaign Fund, Houston, TX.
(7/90) The Formosa Plastics Story: Report
ot Environmental Investigation.
• U.S. Public Interest Research Group,
Washington, DC, (10/88)The Dirty B's:
How the Major Contributors to the 97B
Campaign Contribute to Washington's
Toxic Burden.
• Vermont Public Interest Resesrch Group.
Montpelier. VT, (5/89) Toxics Released
An Inventory of Toxic Chemicals
Released in Vermont.
• West Virginia Citizen Action Group.
Charleston, WV. (7/89) Toxcs in Our
Midst. An Examination of Toxic Chemical
Releases in West Virginia
Other
• Lautenberg, Frank, Senator. Washington,
DC. (4/89). Air Toxic Report NY-NJ-Conn
Metro Area.
• Molinari, Guy V., Member of Congress.
Washington. DC. (4/89) Toxic Chemical
Inventory • Toxic Chemcal Presence and
Releases to the Environment in an Area
of Northeastern NJ.
• Subcommittee on Health and the
Environment, Committee on Energy
and Commerce, U.S. House of
Representatives, Henry A. Waxman,
Chairman. Washington. DC. (3/89) The
Nalional Toxic Release Inventory.
Preliminary Air Toxic Data.
------- |