United States
 Environmental Protection
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
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


    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,
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

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

 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-
    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-
    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
                                            Least and Most Useful Forms of the Data

 Other Reports*

 State Disk

 Printed List
             Citizen &          State
      Environmental Groups  313 Coordinators


 EPA Nat'l Report  most
 Magnetic Tape
























    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

            Organizations that Receive Frequent
          Requests for Help from Other TRI Users
                                          Citizen Groups
                                          State-313 Coordinators
Figure 2
Environmental      News Media
Groups Requesting Information
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
       Health/Environmental Impacts     78
      Waste Minimizaton
      The law (EPCRA)









 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
Public Co-op
                                  Types of Actions
                                                                    Figure 3
                                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
   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.

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.

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
- 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)
 • Oregon Office of State Fire Marshall.
    Salem. OH, (1987; 1988) LSI ol
    Companies and Chemicals and Amount
 • 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,
• Citizens for a Better Environment/
   Chicago Lung Association. Chicago, IL,
   (2/89) Toxic Air Pollution in Illinois • An
   Analysis of 1987 Toxic Release Inventory
• 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
• 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
• 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
• 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
• 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
• 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
• 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
• 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

• 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.