United States
Environmental Protection
Agency
Office of Pollution
Prevention and
Toxics (7407)
EPA/749-R-98-001
March 1998
EPA Proceedings
BUILDING FOR THE FUTURE
CONFERENCE
1997 Toxics Release Inventory and
Right-to-Know Conference
Washington, D.C.
September 8 - 10,1997
Unison
-------
BUILDING FOR THE FUTURE
1997 Conference Proceedings
Sponsored by:
Unison
1742 Connecticut Ave., NW
Washington, DC 20009
(202) 797-7200
http://www.unison.org
For Proceedings online:
http://www.rtk.net/triconf
In Conjunction with:
Wmberty dick, Editor
-------
Table of Contents
Acknowledgements i
Post-Conference Remarks »
Introduction iv
Conference Overview v
Opening Plenary Remarks vii
Closing Plenary Remarks xviii
Part One How Can We Use TRI To Make A Difference?
Course One What Are the Key TRI Data Issues? 1
Session A How Can We Meet Data Issues at the Local Level? 1
Session B How Can We Integrate TRI Data With Other Data? 11
Session C How Can We Meet the Challenges of TRI Expansion? 12
Session D What Are the Uncertainties of Using TRI? 13
Course Two How Can We Best Use TRI to Prevent Pollution? 24
Session A How Can We Improve Outreach and Dissemination? 24
Session B What Data Tools are Needed to Improve TRI Use? 26
Session C How Can We Use TRI to Protect Children's Health? 28
Session D What are the Benefits of Using TRI? 39
Course Three Success Stories of TRI Use 41
Session A How Has Industry Applied TRI Data? 41
Session B How Can TRI be Used to Provide Environmental Impact
& Health Assessments? 64
Session C How Have Community Advocacy Groups Applied TRI? 73
Session D How Have the Media Presented TRI? 85
Part Two
Course One
Session A
Session B
Session C
Session D
Course Two
Session A
Session B
How Can We Improve the Use of "Right-to-Know"
Information?
What Information Do Our Communities Need? 91
What Information is Needed on Chemical Effects? 91
What Information is Needed on Facilities? 97
How Do We Reach New RTK Constituencies? 103
How Should We Apply Rankings and Other Interpretive
Measures to TRI? 115
How Can We Integrate RTK Information? 121
How Can RTK Data Provide Community and Ecosystem
Profiles? 121
How Can RTK be Used to Provide Industry Profiles? 130
-------
Table of Contents
Session C How Can RTK Data Support Permitting and
Enforcement? 133
Session D How Should We Integrate Multiple Sources of Data? 136
Course Three How Can We Work Better Together? 144
Session A Have LEPCs Been Effective? 144
Session B How Can Industry and Environmental Advocates Work
Better Together? 149
Session C How Can We Support TRI Internationally? 151
Session D How Should Government Agencies Work Together? 187
Appendix A - The Right-to-Know Village (Exhibitor Abstracts) A -1
Appendix B - Contact Information B - 1
Speaker Index
Exhibitor Index
General Participants List
-------
Acknowledgements
Through the efforts of many, this conference was a success. We thank the following for their sacrifice and
contributions.
Sponsor: The Unison Institute
In Conjunction with: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)
Co-Sponsors
The Bauman Foundation
Chemical Manufacturers Association (CMA)
Environmental Assessment Association (EAA)
Environmental Council of States (ECOS)
Environmental Defense Fund (EDF)
Steering Committee
Nick Bouwes, U.S. EPA
Neil Carmen, Sierra Club
Harry Davis, Indiana DEM
Cindy DeWulf, Ohio EPA
Russ Dunst, Wisconsin DNR
Jan Erickson, U.S. EPA
David Fees, Delaware DNR
Eileen Fesco, U.S. EPA
Terry Greene, John Snow Institute
LorenHallC/.S. E/M
Ruth Heikkinen, U.S. EPA
Robert Hogner, Florida International University
Environmental Law Institute
Louisiana Environmental Action Network (LEAN)
Communities for a Better Environment (CBE)
Physicians for Social Responsibility (PSR)
Working Group on Community Right-to-Know
Denny Larson, CBE - San Francisco
Jonnie Martin, Texaco
Walter McLeod, American Petroleum Institute
Cheryl Morton, SOCMA
Paul Orum, Working Group on Community RTK
Dwight Peavey, U.S. EPA, Region I
John Pine, Louisiana State University
William Reilly, U.S. EPA. Region III
Florence Robinson, LEAN
Ezesquiel Velez, U.S. EPA, Region IV
Leslie Winik, Chemical Manufacturers Association
Linda Wunderlich, U.S. EPA
Special Thanks To:
Geraldine Nowak, U.S. EPA, Conference Manager
Georgianne McDonald, U.S. EPA
Odelia Funke, U.S. EPA
John Chelen, Unison, Executive Director
Jeffrey Thomas, Unison, Conference Coordinator
Kimberly Click, Unison, Associate Conference Coordinator
Rich Puchalsky, Grassroots Connection, RTK Net Trainer
Ed Terry, U.S. EPA, Landvi&v Trainer
Terry Greene, JSI, Community Outreach Trainer
Michael Heiman, Dickenson College, New User Course Trainer
Harriet Seymore, Amoco, Track Leader
Julie Shannon, U.S. EPA, Track Manager
Sam Sasnett, U.S. EPA, Track Manager
Stephen Hanna, CA Department of Toxics Substance Control, Track Leader
Robert Hogner, Florida International University, Track Leader
Paul Orum, Working Group on Community Right-to-Know, Track Leader
John Pine, Louisiana State University, Track Leader
Tony Jover, U.S. EPA, Track Leader
Joanne Geroe, U.S. EPA. Track Manager
Jon Jacobs, U.S. EPA, Track Manager
Linda Faulkner-Fonzin & Staff, JWAssociates
-------
{*.
\ UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
§ WASHINGTON, D.C. 20460
X,...
~~~ ' 8 1997
OFFICE OF
PREVENTION, PESTICIDES AND
TOXIC SUBSTANCES
To All TRI and RTK Stakeholders,
As you know, over the past 12 years, the Emergency Planning and Community
Right-to-Know Act (EPCRA) has been instrumental in providing communities the tools to make
informed environmental decisions. My thanks to all who made the 1997 Toxics Release
Inventory and Right-to-Know Conference a success. The conference highlighted many of our
stakeholders' and the Administration's commitment to Right-to-Know (RTK) by: exploring
Toxics Release Inventory (TRI) expansion and use activities, focusing on RTK concepts and
principles, promoting pollution prevention, providing communities with information tools for
environmental justice, and promoting child and family health programs through several
initiatives—the lead activities, the Environmental Monitoring for Public Access and Community
Tracking (EMPACT) project, and the new Office of Children's Health Protection.
Of particular note was the record attendance, speeches by the EPA Administrator and
Region ffl Administrator, greater participation by industry and grass roots organizations, and the
more than forty exhibits demonstrating the power of TRI and RTK information to improve
environmental quality.
EPA's challenge is to get the right information to the right people in a form that they can
use. We need you to help us to find ways to use the technology of the information age to better
package and deliver the information we have. We need you to help us to find ways to make
citizens more aware of the information they can access.
I believe, as I'm sure many of you do, that an informed public will be the ultimate key to
cost-effective solutions to environmental health problems. If we continue to work together, there
will be even more success stories to report at the next conference.
I encourage all of you to make use of the TRI data. It is available on the Internet at
http://www.epa.gov/opptintr/tri or you can contact the TRI User Support Desk at 202-260-1531
for information.
Sincerely,
Lynn R. Goldman, M.D.
Assistant Administrator
Recycled/Recyclable
Prtntad wtth Soy/Canola Ink
^•>«>nliia •• |M««« CAAC MW*V*1*H f1h*T
-------
UNISON
February 27,1998
Dear Friends:
On behalf of the entire "Right-to-Know Community", we'd like to take this opportunity to thank everyone who participated, and
in particular, those special people who generously worked behind the scenes to make the 1997 TRI and Right-to-Know conference
a success. They deserve our appreciation for their guidance, enthusiasm, and unique insights that combined to make this a
landmark meeting.
Although there are many people who deserve to be identified, in particular, three key stafffrom the U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency should commended, Technical Information Specialist, Geraldine Nowak, Environmental Protection Specialist, Georgianne
McDonald, and Chief Information Specialist, Odelia Funk. They worked closely with Unison staff to frame the overall agenda,
identify speakers and exhibitors, and develop course content. Additionally, we'd like to thank Administrator Carol Browner.
Assistant Administrator Lynn Goldman, Director, Environmental Assistance Division, Susan Hazen and Director, Information
Management Division, Allan Abramson, for their commitment and striking presentations.
Because of their hard work, at least one of our key goals was accomplished - to increase the diversity of the participants and assure
representation of all points of view. We were pleased to find a significant increase in both industry and advocacy participation.
A wide variety of stakeholder groups were represented and the sessions offered lively discussion and debate on nearly all aspects
of Right-to-Know and TRL
Additionally, based upon your comments on the evaluation forms, you told us that most of the sessions were quite useful. In
particular, you were pleased with the sessions on success stories, pollution prevention, data issues, working with communities,
and integrating data. However, as the session on reaching new RTK constituencies showed, there are still many people throughout
the country who need to hear about the TRI and Right-to-Know and take part in pollution prevention.
Through these Proceedings, we hope to encourage you to build on the enthusiasm and energy this meeting generated. We hope
you try to engage more communities in learning about their right-to-know. We hope you continue to encourage the government
to refine the TRI and link other databases to make the information more complete and useful. We hope industry will continue to
take part in pollution prevention.
The 1997 TRI and Right-to-Know conference showed that we can accomplish this and more. Because of that, we'd like to thank
all of the conference participants. Without your interest in the Toxics Release Inventory and Right-to-Know information, this
conference could not have happened After all, it is your work that we tried to celebrate in this conference. We look forward to
working with you all during the next ten years to carry out the vision of "Right-to-Know" that was expressed when we joined
together for this conference.
Sincerely,
John Chelen
111
-------
Introduction
1997 marked the tenth year that communities have been able to monitor toxic chemicals in their
neighborhoods through Right-to-Know " and its flagship, the Toxics Release Inventory. Noting that
anniversary, the 1997 TRI and Right-to-Know Conference sought to gauge how successful Right-to-
Know and TRI have been while looking to the path ahead and its future possibilities.
Through its two major themes, "How Can we Use TRI to Make a Difference?," and "How Can We
Improve the Use of Right-to-Know' Information?," the conference posed six questions, each pivotal
in measuring our success and building for the future:
* What Are the Key Data Issues? * What Information Do Our Communities Need?
* How Can We Best Use TRI to Prevent Pollution * How Can We Integrate RTK Information?
* What Are the Success Stories of TRI Use? * How Can We Work Better Together?
To take on the issues raised through those questions, the conference provided participants with many
opportunities to explore Right-to-Know and TRI and the work that needs to be done.
Twenty-four sessions, spanning the broad spectrum of Right-to-Know issues, enabled stakeholders
to interact with each other, raise important issues, and present successful practices and new ideas.
Our exhibit area, "The Right-to-Know Village", provided attendees with a glimpse of how
communities nationwide are using TRI and other Right-to-Know data to protect their local
environments.
A "New User" Course introduced new stakeholders to TRI and the issues surrounding it enabling
them to begin using Right-to-Know in their own efforts.
Interactive trainings taught participants how to access and use right-to-know data through the
Internet, develop outreach programs in order to increase community use of TRI, and use mapping
and TRI data together through Landview, a geographical mapping tool.
The conference also provided testimony to the growing influence and scope of Right-to-Know and
TRL In the course of four days, over 500 participants, representing 49 states and 7 countries, took
part in the conference - more than any other previous TRI conference. The 127 panelists and 54
"Villagers" represented a wide-ranging collection of groups now engaged in Right-to-Know,
including scientists, teachers, investors, religious leaders, and physicians. Finally, in addition to
officials from every level of government, industry and non-governmental organizations (equally
represented at the conference) were present in larger numbers than ever before.
The 1997 TRI and Right-to-Know Conference was an opportunity to evaluate the present and build
for the future. It laid a foundation for improvements to Right-to-Know and challenged all present
to ensure that they become reality. Let the following proceedings, a compilation of the sessions and
exhibits from the conference, serve as a guide in carrying out those efforts.
IV
-------
Conference Overview
The following is a brief overview, outlining conference events and presentations. Following the overview, copies
of presenters remarks from the events below are provided.
Opening Plenary - Whv Should We Care About TRI?
John Chelen, Executive Director of the Unison Institute
W. Michael McCabe, Regional Administrator, Region III, U.S. EPA
LynnR. Goldman, M.D., Assistant Administrator, OPPTS, U.S. EPA
William Sanders ID, Director, Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics, U.S. EPA
Cindy DeWulf, Assistant Chief, Division of Air Pollution and Control, Ohio - EPA
Rick Engler, Director, New Jersey Work Environment Council
Shelly Hearae, Pew Charitable Trusts
Edwin Mongan, Manager, Pollution Prevention, Dupont Chemical
Ronald Outen, Jellinek, Schwartz & Connolly
The opening plenary was called to order by John Chelen and was followed by an official welcome from Host
Regional Administrator, W. Michael McCabe. The keynote presentation was delivered by Lynn R. Goldman,
M.D., Assistant Administrator, Office of Prevention Pesticides and Toxic Substances, U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency.
Following the keynote presentation, a panel discussion focused on the question "Why we should care about TRI?"
Moderated by William Sanders m, the panel explored the key stakeholder perspectives in answering the question,
including legislative, government, industry, and advocacy. Participating in the discussion was Ronald Outen, Cindy
DeWulf, Edwin Mongan, Shelly Hearne, and Rick Engler.
Part One - How Can We Use TRI to Make a Difference?
Course 1: What Are the Key TRI Data Issues?
Course 2: How Can We Best Use TRI to Prevent Pollution?
Course 3: Success Stories of TRI Use.
During part one of the conference, attendees participated in three courses focused on TRI, including current
applications and limitations and opportunities for future improvements. Courses consisted of four session, each
covering a different component within the broader theme of the course. Part one ran from Monday afternoon
through mid-day Tuesday.
Mid-Session Plenary - What Has Been the Net Effect of TRI and Rieht-to-Know?
John Chelen, Executive Director of the Unison Institute
Nicky Roy, Legislative Assistant to Congressman Henry Waxman
Carolyn Hartman, Environmental Program Director, U.S. Public Interest Research Group
Susan Hazen, Director, Environmental Assistance Division, U.S. EPA
Carolyn Covey-Morris, Public Affairs Manager, Albright and Wilson Americas, Inc.
Joanne Underwood, Director, INFORM
-------
The plenary was opened by John Chelen and was followed by a roundtable discussion examining the overall
successes and limitations of TRI and Right-to-Know and their future potential.
Part Two - How Can We Improve the Use ofRieht-to-Know" Information?
Course 1: What Information Do Our Communities Need?
Course 2: How Can We Integrate RTKInformation?
Course 3: How Can We Work Better Together.
During part two of the conference, attendees participated in three courses focused on the broader issue of Right-to-
Know, including its usefulness among communties, data integration opportunities, the potential for more
cooperative efforts among Right-to-Know stakeholder groups. Similar to part one, each course consisted of four
sessions. Part two ran from Tuesday mid-day through the conclusion of the conference, Wednesday afternoon.
Closing Plenary - "What Does the Future Hold for Rieht-to-Know?"
Carol Browner, Administrator, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Allan S. Abramson, Director, Information Management Division, U.S. EPA
John Chelen, Executive Director, Unison
Steve Hanna, California Department of Toxics Substance Control
Robert Hogner, Florida International University
Tony Jover, Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response, U.S. EPA
Paul Orum, Working Group on Community Right-To-Know
John Pine, Louisiana State University
Harriet Seymour, Amoco
Administrator Browner delivered the closing Keynote Address before the start of the closing plenary. Immediately
following her address Allan Abramson offered remarks on the future of TRI and Right-to-Know. Track leaders
then presented closing comments on their respective courses, including key topics, raised issues, and audience
feedback. Leaders were: Tony Jover, Robert Hogner, John Pine, Paul Orum, Steve Hanna, and Harriet Seymour.
A question-and-answer completed the closing session, followed by adjourment.
The Rieht-to-Know Viltaee-"A Community At Work"
Throughout the conference, attendees had the unique opportunity to explore how communities nationwide are
using Right-to-Know data through the Right-to-Know Village. The exhibit area housed over 50 exhibits
showcasing ways in which right-to-know information has been used by grassroots organizations, presented by
government agencies, as well as how right-to-know laws have affected industry.
VI
-------
EPA Regional Administrator. Region III, W. Michael
McCabe's Talking Points
*The TRI Program which is in its 1 Oth year has proven to be a very successful stimuli for the reduction of toxic
chemicals entering the environment (e.g., facility and community awareness).
*TRI has focused public and industry attention on the billions of pounds of toxic chemicals that are released
into the air, land and water or are recycled, burned for energy recover or treated.
*This attention has resulted in a decrease of industrial on-site releases from 1988 to 1995 of 45.6% from 2.96
billion pounds to 1.61 billion pounds.
*Industries have utilized the TRI to capitalize on source reduction opportunities to reduce toxic chemical
releases and in most instances this also resulted in cost savings.
Communities have successfully worked with industry in their neighborhoods to refine process operations to
improve the quality of the local environment.
*mdustries have used the downward trends in their TRI data to demonstrate to the public their concern for the
environment and the very positive steps they have taken to reduce releases and transfers to the environment.
*A good case in point is Crown, Cork and Seal, Inc. which is headquartered in Philadelphia and in the past 10
years has reversed their corporate approach to environmental problems by making environmental stewardship
part and parcel of their corporate policy. Now instead of defending themselves against environmental law
suites, they are receiving environmental awards for their environmental record and leadership.
*lh 1991, TRI was the basis for EPA's first voluntary initiative (the 33/50 Program) aimed at reducing the
releases and transfers of toxic chemicals.
*The 33/50 Program which targeted 17 toxic chemicals was very successful. Almost 1,300 companies
representing over 6,000 facilities participated. The 1992 goal to reduce releases and transfers by 33% was met
1 year early with 1994 data and the 1995 goal of 50% was met with 1994 data. The finally tally with 1995
data was a reduction of 55.6%.
*The industry case studies derived from the 33/50 Program clearly demonstrate what industry has
accomplished in reducing releases and transfers to the environment.
*TRI data indicates that source reduction activities most utilized by industry are good operating practices,
process modifications and spill and leak prevention.
*The 33/50 Program also has shown how EPA and industry can work positively in a cooperative fashion.
Vll
-------
*The Region is piloting a project that analyzes TRI releases for their potential risks to vulnerable
subpopulations. The project uses the Chemical Indexing System, a tool developed by Region ffl. Part I of the
tool enables the user to rank facilities, chemicals or industries not only by thje amount of the chemical that is
released, but also according to the toxicity of each chemical. Thus, a 5,000 Ib release of toluene (low toxicity)
is not ranked as high as a 5,000 Ib release of vinyl chloride (high toxicity). This indicator is termed the Chronic
Index.
*Part n of the tool evaluates vulnerable subpopulations and provides a context for the potential risk information
derived from Part I. This indicator is termed the Vulnerability Index. The Vulnerability Index provides a
description of socioeconomic and demographic characteristics that may render a subpopulation more
susceptible than the general population. In keeping with environmental justice guidelines developed by the
EPA, the Vulnerability Index includes income and minority status as well as provisions for considering other
factors that may influence the relative vulnerability of subpopulations.
*The Vulnerability Index does not imply exposure, which must be assessed using intake parameters adjusted
for specific subpopulations. Instead, this process characterizes potentially exposed populations, highlighting
those that might be more vulnerable. In this way, the screening can include population characteristics without
using broad assumptions about exposure conditions.
""Color coded GIS maps provide a pictorial representation of the potential risks among geographic areas within
Region EL An interactive Arc View application provides the user with increased flexibility to prioritize and map
targeted facilities and geographic areas.
"'Region HI has entered into a partnership with ORE) in the further development of the Chemical Indexing
System. Guidance documents for Part I and Part n are currently under review within ORE). Future plans
include expanding the chemical release information to include other EPA programs, e.g. AIRS, PCS, RCRA
Subtitle C facilities.
*As with any data system which uses imperfect data to achieve conclusions, this system also possesses its
contingent of limitations. (See Section 4 of Guidance Document) Despite its limitations, this approach provides
a current best-science approach to support ongoing decision-making.
* In addition to this year marking the 10th anniversary of TRI, it also marks the addition of 7 new industry
sectors - metal mining, coal processing, waste disposal, oil and coal fires electric utilities, solvent recycling,
chemical wholesalers and petroleum bulk storage terminals.
* It is estimated that over 6,100 facilities from these 7 new industry sectors will submit over 37,000 additional
Form R reports.
* This new reporting requirement is being coupled with unproved updated guidance for better reporting
consistency.
* This year also marks initial public dialogue in consideration of "Chemical Use Reporting".
* Chemical use data can provide communities and government with information to better evaluate facilities'
source reduction and pollution prevention performance; focus emergency planning efforts related to
transportation of chemicals through communities and the storage of chemicals within communities; identify
amounts of toxic chemicals in products distributed in commerce; and address worker safety and health issues.
viii
-------
EPA Assistant Administrator. Office of Prevention. Pesticides
and Toxic Substances, Lvnn Goldman's Remarks
Good afternoon. I want to extend a very warm welcome to each of you. I am delighted to be here today to share
my thoughts with you on the environmental right-to-know movement. I would like to thank you all and the
Unison Institute for your contributions to this important conference. I think we have all come here with the
same idea- how can we, together, ensure that citizens' right-to-know continues to revolutionize environmental
health protection in America.
And let me convey to you, too, President Clinton's, Vice President Gore's and EPA Administrator Browner's
appreciation for your efforts. This Administration believes that Americans have a right and a need to know
about the pollutants that are released into their air, water and land. This Administration also believes that
citizens' right-to-know has prompted the most effective and rapid methods of pollution control in the past
decade — pollution prevention and voluntary reductions. That is why we have expanded the public's right-to-
know, more than doubling the scope of environmental data available. That is why we are committed to its
expansion and to improve the delivery of information on environmental hazards. Most of all we want the right-
to-know principle to reach its full potential to improve the health of every American, especially our children.
Strengthening citizens' right-to-know directly advances other top priorities for this Administration and EPA —
protecting children from environmental harm, promoting environmental justice, and encouraging far greater
community-based environmental health protection. Right-to-know gives families a greater ability to safeguard
their children from environmental harm. It gives minority and economically disadvantaged communities— and
every community in this country—belter access to information vital for participating in environmental decision
making. TRI has given all levels of government, activists organizations and citizens alike critical tools needed
to achieve environmental justice.
Already, environmental right-to-know has been a resounding success. The Toxics Release Inventory or TRI
is the centerpiece of environmental right-to-know. The alert sounded that first year by TRI's extraordinarily
large numbers sent companies looking for new, low-cost ways to reduce pollution. Companies began replacing
dangerous chemicals with safer alternatives and redesigning manufacturing processes to prevent pollution and
increase efficiency. Industry and government quickly learned that pollution prevention made sense in every way.
It cost less over the long-term and was more effective than end-of-the-pipe controls. Preventing pollution breaks
the defeating cycle of shifting dangerous contaminants from one environmental media to another. When viable
pollution prevention techniques were not available, facilities turned to state- of- the-art technologies to reduce
emissions.
Now citizens' right-to-know has expanded into almost every environmental area, and pollution prevention is
EPA's guiding principle. So we.have come a tremendous way, but the good news is that we have just begun
to reap the full benefits of environmental right-to-know. And that is why we are gathered here. Getting that
next generation of benefits will depend greatly on the guidance and support of the providers and users of
environmental hazard information.
We needed* to help us to find ways to use the technology of the information age to better package and deliver
the information we have. We need you to help us to find ways to make citizens more aware of the information
they can access. These are critical if we are to convert on our hard work in expanding right-to-know. We need
ix
-------
you to help us to figure out what new information is most urgently needed by citizens, communities, activist
groups and businesses. And we need you to help us overcome obstacles to right- to- know - legitimate concerns
for business of cost and confidentiality. Together we need to talk about concerns connected to expanding TRI.
Fully aired, both informally and through structured dialogue, those concerns better understood might greatly
diminish or seem unreasonable.
Those of us from EPA are here, especially, to listen and learn.
Right now, I would like to look at why environmental right-to-know is so important and how we have expanded
and strengthened it. I want to look at what EPA is continuing to do under the leadership of Administrator
Browner to make information on environmental hazards more easily accessible and a more useful tool to protect
public health.
A public health disaster and human tragedy first made the need for citizens' right to know a national concern.
On December 3,1984, an accident at Union Carbide Corporation's pesticide plant in Bhopal, India, sent
poisonous gas into the community, killing 2,000 people and injuring more than 100,000 others. Many in that
impoverished area lived right next to the facility. The enormity of the human suffering this accident caused -
and which continues for many of the victims — is still difficult to comprehend. It was a nightmare turned
horribly real. And only eight months later in our own country the release of the dangerous gases aldicarb oxime
and dichloromethane from a chemical plant sent 100 persons to the hospital in Institute, West Virginia.
These events galvanized public sentiment around the need for emergency planning and the right of citizens to
know the potentially dangerous chemicals to which they could be exposed. Congress responded by passing one
of the most significant pieces of environmental legislation in American history: the 1986 Emergency Planning
and Community Right-to-Know Act. It authorized what has become one of the most effective tools in
environmental protection: the federal Toxics Release Inventory, which each year gives communities access to
data about releases by zip-code, plant, and'by chemical, enabling them to be more informed participants in
chemical safety. The law was modeled after New Jersey's right-to-know legislation. In the same year,
California passed Proposition 65, which requires a warning on any product containing a substance that poses
a cancer or reproductive threat. Other state right-to-know laws followed.
(Slide #1 - Changes in Toxic Releases 1988-1995)
These measures marked turning points in environmental protection in this country, and we should be proud of
the results. Between 1988, the accepted baseline year for TRI, and 1995, the year for which we have the latest
data, industrial releases of the approximately 300 chemicals and chemical categories on the initial TRI list
decreased 46 percent.
(Slide #2 - Top 10 emitting facilities for 1995: Example of Information that Prompts Reductions)
These results occurred without the need for additional command and control regulations. The improvement
reflects TRI's making both citizens and businesses aware of the tremendous amount of chemicals being
released into their neighborhoods and by specific facilities. It reflects the hard work of facilities that refined
their processes, took advantage of source reduction opportunities and undertook outstanding housekeeping
practices.
-------
COMMUNITY RIGHT-TO-KNOW
Changes in Toxic Releases, 1988 -199S
For Chemicals Reported in All Years
| Underground Inpcnon | Suite* Witw a"Totil A« Eminent
sail •ddodn 1990. 1991 ttM and 1995 OTdafanwiuitouM.
Slide One - Changes in Toxic Releases 1988-1995
Slide Two - Top 10 Emitting Facilities for 1995
Top 10 Facilities
for Largest TRI Total Air/Water/Land Releases,1995
(Excludes Underground Injection)
XI
-------
But that initial list of facilities and chemicals that were covered was relatively small compared with the
thousands of chemicals and facilities that were not covered by TRI. To provide more meaningful information
on potential hazards, in 1994 the Clinton Administration nearly doubled the number of chemicals and chemical
categories included in TRI.
The 199S data presented new information to the public on the releases of these additional chemicals, as well
as continuing to provide trend information on the initial list of chemicals. Some of the news on trends for the
original list of chemicals was good. For example, total releases from 1994 to 1995 were down nearly 5
percent to 1.66 billion pounds. For air pollutants, there was a 7 percent drop. Reported discharges into surface
water were down 10 percent.
But some of the news was bad. Releases to underground injection wells increased dramatically, by 19.5
percent. And production wastes increased for the third year in a row, by 3 percent, to 19.88 billion pounds. TRI
is useful in telling us what we need to work on, and now TRI data is underscoring the need for industry to
redouble its efforts to minimize waste.
(SUde #3 - Health and Environmental Criteria for 286 Chemical Expansion List)
Many of the newly added chemicals are those especially affecting children's health. They are linked to an array
of health effects, and include carcinogens, toxics released into the air we breath, and pesticides entering the
environment through unintended pathways. Of the new chemicals being reported, nitrate compounds topped
the list for volume at 138 million pounds being released into the environment in 1995. Almost two-thirds of this
was discharged into water — this is nearly 65 percent of all discharges into surface water from any chemical
on the inventory. Nitrate compounds have the potential to cause increased algal growth leading to reduced
oxygen - or eutrophication - hi lakes, rivers and streams. Again, TRI is targeting a problem.. .
(Slide #4 - New Industries Included in TRI)
In another major milestone for right-to-know, on Earth Day 1997 Vice President Gore announced a 30 percent
expansion of the number of facilities that must report to TRL Approximately 6,100 new facilities in seven
industrial sectors will begin reporting on toxic releases in local communities. The new industrial categories
are metal mining, coal mining, electric utilities, commercial hazardous waste treatment, petroleum bulk
terminals, chemical wholesalers and solvent recovery systems. These new facilities contribute significantly to
the loading of toxics in our communities and will bring the total to more than 31,000 facilities that will now
report toxic emissions to the public. That means tens of millions more residents living near these newly added
facilities will have information on pollution releases that can affect their health.
xn
-------
Health and Environmental Criteria
for the 286 Expansion List Chemicals
and Chemical Categories
Chronic and
Environmental Effects
70 (25%)
Acute Only
17(6%)
Environmental
Only 14 (5%)
Chronic indudM:
-Cancw
-Kidney
- Reproductive
- Itnmunologicil
-Bupimory
- Ctrdovuculv
-Q«trolnlMtJn*l
- Dwntopnwml
-Nwrotogfc*
-Uw
-Andothw
chronic (ffKt*
Slide Three - Health and Environmental Criteria for 286 Chemical Expansion List
Slide Four - New Industries Included in TRI
COMMUNITY RIGHT-TO-KNOW
The New Industries
Coal Mining Metal Mining Electric Utilities
Hazardous Waste
Management
Solvent Recovery
Petroleum Wholesalers Chemical Wholesalers
xiii
-------
Reductions in TRI Reporting Burden
100,000
90.000 >-
80,0001-
3 70.000 -
60,000 -
50.000
* TTit tarring point tor fta chart is 50,000 turns.
While expanding TRI, the agency has also been working to minimize the reporting burden on industry as much
as possible. Between the reporting years 1988 and 1995, reporting reductions managed to offset increases -
EPA received 88,000 forms from industry for the 1988 baseline data and only 73,000 forms for the.most recent
1995 data.
And EPA's goal is to establish a one-stop reporting system that would enable companies to submit TRI
information, as well as much of the facility-specific information required by the various environmental media
and enforcement programs agencywide. This information would be placed into one unified reporting system
and database that would be accessible to both the government and the public. EPA is working hard to overcome
obstacles to one-stop reporting — primarily the different reporting times for pollutants and facilities currently
required, sometimes statutorily. But we are optimistic that these problems can be worked out, and we are
grateful to those states that are working with us on that effort.
So we continue to expand, strengthen and streamline TRI.
Work on the next major expansion of TRI is well underway. EPA has issued an advance notice of proposed
rulemaking to fully explore the issues associated with materials accounting. The new information EPA is
considering to require in TRI includes the amount of toxic chemicals brought to a plant, as well as the amount
produced, consumed, stored and shipped from the facility as a product or as part of a product Many
community, environmental and labor organizations think that this materials accounting would give citizens
and workers the fundamental information oh activities involving toxic chemicals occurring in their communities
to which they have a right and need to know and that it would enhance TRI's effectiveness. We agree. EPA
believes that materials' use information would increase accountability and provide the basis for the "cleaner,
cheaper, smarter" approaches that EPA's flagship reinventing government programs, such as the Common
Sense Initiative and Project XL, and Design for the Environment, seek to demonstrate.
xiv
-------
We recognize that materials' use reporting raises serious issues of confidentiality and increased costs for
business. EPA is especially interested in ensuring protection of information that is legitimately confidential
business information. The challenge for EPA and its stakeholders is to continue the constructive process we
have underway to address these concerns.
Both Representative Henry Waxman and Senator Frank Lautenberg have introduced bills to further expand
right-to-know, including a requirement for materials' use reporting. The bills are consistent with the approach
EPA is proposing to take under its current authority.
As a part of an agency-wide effort to target the worst risks, EPA is trying to use TRI to give communities
information on releases of persistent bioaccumulative toxic chemicals, such as PCBs, dioxin, chlordane and
mercury. Although highly toxic, these chemicals are generally emitted at levels that fall well below the 10,000
pound per year level that triggers TRI's reporting requirement. To make reporting meaningful, EPA would need
to lower reporting thresholds for these chemicals. In recently proposing to add dioxin and 27 dioxin-like
compounds to the TRI, EPA asked for pubic comment on lowering the reporting threshold for persistent
bioaccumulative toxic chemicals. Many of these chemicals are especially harmful to infants and children.
Let me explain further why right- to-know is so important to fulfilling EPA's key commitments — the
protection of infants and children, environmental justice, and more community-based protection.
Children are not little adults when it comes to pollution. With developing bodies and often greater exposures,
children are more vulnerable to pollutants than adults. To respond to children's need for special protection, last
year EPA Administrator Carol Browner launched a comprehensive National Agenda to Protect Children from
Environmental Threats. Under this agenda, EPA committed to setting new and revising the most significant
public health standards to account for the special sensitivities of children. She created a separate children's
health office to ensure that that agenda is carried out and to coordinate new research on children's health
effects.
As you probably know, EPA recently adopted new national ambient air quality standards for paniculate matter
and ozone that at are aimed especially at protecting children. These standards amount to the most significant
step we have taken in a generation to protect Americans— especially children - from air pollution. Each year,
they are estimated to prevent 15,000 premature deaths, about 350,000 cases of aggravated asthma, and nearly
one million cases of severely decreased lung function in children. This is good news when we consider that
asthma deaths among children and young people more than doubled between 1980 and 1993, and is now the
leading cause of hospital admissions for children.
Last year Congress passed the landmark Food Quality Protection Act, which dramatically improved the
regulation of pesticides. For the first time, the new law gives infants and children the additional protections
needed to ensure that they will not be harmed by pesticides in their food. Championed by the Clinton
Administration, the law requires EPA to make an explicit finding that each pesticide residue tolerance granted
is safe for infants and children. It has required EPA to add a 10-fold uncertainty factor to account for the lack
of data on a pesticide's risks to infants or children, unless we make a finding that the current data indicate a
lower uncertainty factor would be safe.
Congress gave right-to-know a prominent role in the new law. The law directs EPA in 1998 to give grocery
stores consumer information on foods containing pesticide residues and reasonable substitutes for those foods.
xv
-------
And the agency must provide information on pesticide tolerances that were set at levels exceeding the law's new
safety standard.
President Clinton also fought for and signed into law 1996 Amendments of the Safe Drinking Water Act, which
will give Americans access to direct, simple information — sent directly to their home in water utility bills —
about local water quality, contaminants, water sources and health risks. Rep. Henry Waxman was instrumental
in achieving this strike for right-to-know.
Right-to-know is also providing new protection against a contaminant that affects children most severely -lead.
EPA rules that took effect last December give people buying or renting homes and apartments built before 1978
- the year lead-based paint was banned for household use - the right to be informed about potential risks from
lead in paint and any available information on existing lead contamination on the property. They also have the
right to additional time for a lead paint inspection.
We also are developing unproved consumer information labels on home and garden pesticides and hard-surface
cleaning products. One of the key goals of our Consumer Labeling Initiative is to provide information on labels
that is more understandable and that provides any additional information needed to better protect children from
exposure to any harmful ingredient in the product.
In making data more accessible, we are not only providing information that families need to protect their
children, but helping to ensure that all communities receive fair treatment under our environmental laws. People
living in economically disadvantaged areas typically encounter greater environmental risks. President Clinton's
1994 Executive Order on environmental justice established a new commitment across the federal government
to address environmental justice in all our actions.
Already EPA has moved to improve access to TRI data through the Internet, by making the most recent TRI
data available at more pubic libraries and on CD-ROMs. Last February EPA established a Center on
Environmental Information and Statistics. When it is operational early next year, it will begin to provide the
public with easier access to a wealth of information on local pollution.
And last year President Clinton announced a major initiative to give Americans in 86 major cities information
on the environmental hazards to which they are exposed every day. He directed EPA to work with local, state
and other federal agencies to establish a network to monitor key environmental health indicators in the air,
water and land that would be easily available to citizens. The purpose is to give citizens easy-to-understand,
"real time" information on environmental pollutants to help them make choices that could affect their health
and the health of their families — whether to allow their children to play outside, to drink tap water, or to swim
in a lake nearby, for example. This "real time" pollution monitoring information would also improve a
community's ability to target specific problems, direct local, state and federal spending priorities, and get action
on the worst problems. Information, as environmental right-to-know has taught us once again, is power.
EPA is leading that project - called Environmental Monitoring for Public Access and Community Tracking.
The Administration requested $35 million in startup funding, but we think we will be receiving $ 17.5 million
from Congress for fiscal 1998 for pilot projects. EPA will work with the National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration and the United States Geologic Survey to provide 86 of the largest U.S. cities with key
environmental information via coordinated monitoring systems and computerized databases to which citizens
would have 24-hour access via the Internet.
xvi
-------
Already, EPA issues smog maps daily for Eastern states from Maine to North Carolina. They are sent over
the Interne: and via satellite to television stations in 14 states. These maps are updated several times a day, so
they can be used to alert people, especially those with respiratory problems, of potential danger. They can also
prompt residents of areas with poor air quality to reduce their own contributions to smog.
We have underway other initiatives to help families protect themselves and their communities through the
power of information.
EPA is moving to give people who live near facilities in several major industries easy on-line access to a wealth
of information about those facilities across the country. A variety of information would be consolidated and
made more user friendly for facilities in the automobile, steel, metals, oil refining and papermaking industries.
For each facility, a range of information would be available over the Internet - TRI emissions releases, the
number of state and federal inspections in the past two years, permit violations and penalties, and the number
of pollution spills. Called the Sector Facility Indexing Project, it will also provide racial and economic
demographics within a three-mile radius of each facility, which would help indicate whether the economically
disadvantaged or any other group is being disproportionately affected.
Providing risk information to the public is another potential new direction for TRL Risk information is needed
to give the public greater understanding of the potential effects of the chemicals released in their communities
and to help business, governments and communities set control and prevention priorities. Yet we know that we
do not have even basic toxiciry data for a majority of even high volume production industrial chemicals. We
need to find ways to move ahead with screening these high-volume chemicals. I am heartened that the 1996
Food Quality Protection Act and Safe Drinking Water Act Amendments require EPA to screen chemicals for
their potential to disruption of the endocrine systems.
Looking at this conference's ambitious agenda, I can see that we have our work cut our for us — how do we
get the right information to the right people in a form that they can use. As you can see, getting it riaht has
enormous potential to improve public health. Together, if we can continue to talk about our concerns, continue
this all important dialogue on the issues, I'm sure we can make great strides. I believe, as I'm sure many of
you do, that an informed public may be the ultimate key to cost-effective solutions to environmental health
problems.
xvn
-------
EPA Administrator Carol Browner's Remarks
Introduction
Lynn R. Goldman, MJX, Assistant Administrator, Office of Prevention, Pesticides and
Toxic Substances, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Keynote Address
Carol Browner, Administrator, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Thank you, Lynn Goldman. I want to commend you and OPPTS for putting on another successful Right to
Know Conference. And I want to express my deepest thanks to the Unison Institute - as well as all of the other
conference sponsors — for their commitment and support.
Additionally, I want to thank all of you for being here. Assembled here are a wide variety of stakeholders.
Working together, I think we are making a great deal of progress toward improving the use of environmental
"right-to-know" information, and toward making right-to-know initiatives work for everyone - for our fellow
citizens, for their communities, for state and local governments, and for reporting industries.
It is important to emphasize that the task of delivering more, better and increasingly useful environmental
information to the American people is one that requires all of us to join together, to work together and to move
forward with a sense of common purpose.
That is why this conference is so important. We want to share with you what we are doing at EPA. More
importantly, we want to hear your feedback, your ideas and your suggestions for how we can best attain the
goal of ensuring that every American has a right to know about toxic pollutants in their neighborhoods and a
range of other environmental information.
That goal, as you know, is a vital part of President Clinton's agenda for protecting public health and the
environment.
We believe that local residents know what is best for their own communities and, given the facts, they will
determine the best course of action to protect public health and the environment. Putting environmental and
public health information into their hands is one of the most effective ways to reduce local pollution and prevent
it from happening in the future.
That's why, three years ago, we took the steps we did - to nearly double the number of chemicals that industry
is required to report on under the Toxics Release Inventory. That's why, earlier this year, we expanded by 30
percent the number of industrial facilities that have to report their toxic emissions into the air, water and land
- bringing to more than 31,000 the number of facilities that are required to make this information public.
Together, these two expansions of the community's right-to-know have increased the amount of available
public information on toxic pollution by approximately two-thirds.
We're proud of that fact. This data is the means by which Americans can become informed and involved in
protecting their families and working with local facilities to reduce pollution in their communitiesCoflecting
xviii
-------
this data and making it available to communities has become one of this administration's most effective tools
for righting pollution.
Once you ensure that people have the information they need to make informed decisions, some very positive
things begin to happen.
More than 1,500 citizens groups across the country, along with concerned individuals, have used data from
the Toxics Release Inventory to work with their elected officials — and to work directly with the emitting
companies - toward the goal of cleaner, safer and healthier neighborhoods.
And, as a result, toxic emissions have been falling - year after year after year.
In fact, since 1988, when TRJ reporting began, industrial facilities required to report their toxic releases have
reduced their emissions by almost half.
The bottom line is that right-to-know works — and we ought to be making this kind of information better, more
reliable and more readily available to the public.
It's more than just a "right-to-know." It's about "being able to know." And our administration is determined
to see that Americans have not only the right but also the ability ro access important information about their
environment.
Fortunately, the ongoing revolution in communications and information is going to help make this job easier.
Computers, electronic data collection technologies and the Internet have all combined to vastly increase our
ability to do this.
That is why, three years ago, we launched our first agency-wide effort to reduce the burden for those who want
to access this data, as well as for regulated industries that must report
This included the creation of our Envirofax system, through which TRI data is made available to anyone who
has Internet access. And it included our effort to work with states to make pollution data easier to understand
by organizing it around the emitting facilities.
One of our most recent initiatives to make information more accessible is to reinvent how environmental data
is submitted and the way it is retrieved. We are doing this by moving to an electronic reporting system that
will free up industries and government regulators from the administrative burdens of preparing and exchanging
reams of paper reports.
We hope to have the new electronic data reporting system fully in place - totally accessible by all industries
and government agencies — by the year 2002.
We are also working to develop, certify and adopt common environmental data standards for the new system.
The "Key LD." and "One-Stop" programs are demonstrating that common data and common-sense data
sharing arrangements improve efficiencies, strengthen the integrity of our data, and enhance the public's access
to information. I have invited all of the states to join the One-Stop program. A strong partnership between
EPA and the states is one of the surest ways to obtain and share the information needed to effectively manage
xix
-------
environmental programs.
Another effort that will make environmental data more easily available is electronic data reporting - something
that will also reduce the reams of paper reports that must be prepared and exchanged between industries and
government agencies. This will mean big savings for regulated companies, ft will save taxpayer dollars. And
we might even save a few trees while we're at it.
EPA is also currently working with other federal, state and local agencies to put in place a national network
of key environmental health indicators — so that Americans living in 75 of our largest metropolitan areas will
have timely data on air quality and water quality.
We're talking not only about developing the technology and building the monitoring system, but also about
looking for ways to make this information readily accessible to every household — so that families can make
informed choices about activities that may affect their health.
This way, if a parent has a child with asthma — and there are millions who do — they will have an easy way
to determine whether the air quality is healthy enough for their child to play outdoors on any particular day.
Other parents might want to know up-to-the-minute information about the water quality at their favorite lake.
river or beach.
We want to get this information into the hands of the American people - information they can easily access.
information they can understand, information they can use to better their lives and protect the health of their
families and their communities.
On another front, earlier this year I announced the creation of the EPA's new Center for Environmental
Information and Statistics, which will officially open this January 1st.
The Center will serve as the public's point of access to a wide variety of information on environmental quality,
status and trends. It will constantly strive to improve the quality and availability of environmental data.
It will work with those who use the data — citizens, state and local government agencies, scientists and
academics, industry and community groups, environmental organizations - to examine their information needs
and how best to meet them.
As you can probably imagine, the changes we've made thus far have not come easy. We do not expect the road
ahead will get any easier. For these initiatives to succeed, we need the support of all stakeholders. I am here
to ask for your support.
We are encouraged by the progress we see in environmental and public health protection when local residents
are informed and involved.
For these reasons, this administration will uphold its commitment to making critical environmental information
as thorough and as readily available as it can possibly be.
But expanding the community's right to know about pollution in their communities is also a common sense and
cost-effective way to protect public health and the environment.
xx
-------
I understand that there are those who have ongoing concerns about the expansion of right-to-know information.
We have heard those concerns and we are doing everything we can to address them. But let me say this -our
experience with TRI shows us mat communities really do depend on this kind of information. People want and
need to be informed about what goes on at facilities in or near their neighborhoods.
And we have found that providing them that information is essential.
Our administration is convinced that if we work together, we can have strong environmental protection and a
healthy and growing economy. Together, we can take the steps we need to protect our health, our communities,
our economy, and pass on a safe, healthy world to our children.
Thank you and good luck.
xxi
-------
Course One; What Are the Key TRI Data Issues?
Session A - How Can We Meet Data Issues at the Local Level?
Session Leader
David Fees, Delaware Department of Natural Resources and Environmental Control
Speakers
Denice Shaw, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Daphne McMurrer, Texas Natural Resources Conservation Commission
Michael Gregory, Arizona Toxics Information
David Fees, Delaware Department of Natural Resources and Environmental Control
Session Abstract
How can we integrate TRI data at the local level?
This session will discuss the effectiveness of current TRI information management practices in meeting local
data needs. Three innovative projects will be presented which address improving the accessibility, availability,
and usefulness of data and information needed at the local level. These panel presentations will be followed by
open discussion between panelists and session participants regarding these projects and other suggestions
offered to better satisfy the data and information needs at the local level. Participants who are providers of data
and information to the public will learn of new ways to improve the usefulness of publicly-available
information; while participants who are users of such information will learn of new ways to utilize
environmental data to meet their goals.
Denice Shaw, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Environmental Monitoring for Public Access and Community Tracking (EMPACT)
BACKGROUND
In an August 1996 speech delivered in Kalamazoo, Michigan, President Clinton reaffirmed the citizens' right
to know about environmental conditions in their neighborhood. He charged EPA, along with its partners
(NOAA and USGS) with developing a program to improve the measurement, access and understanding of key
environmental information in 85 of the largest U.S. metropolitan areas. This will be accomplished by the
development and/or incorporation of unproved and updated technology solutions that support time-relevant
environmental monitoring and by providing effective tools for managing, communicating, interpreting and
applying the resulting environmental information.
GOALS
Incorporate improved and updated technology solutions for real-time environmental
measurement and monitoring
Facilitate public access to comprehensive environmental information that is easily understood
-------
Course One: What Are the Key TRI Data Issues?
Provide effective tools for communicating, interpreting and. applying environmental data and
information
Establish partnerships with states and communities to ensure that the information is useful and
timely for families and communities
Develop a framework that communities can work within, but that will also provide the ability
to aggregate information on a local, regional, and national scale.
STRATEGY
The strategy that EMPACT will use to achieve its goals includes a "top-down" approach consisting of EPA
initiated information delivery programs in EMPACT cities and a "bottom-up" approach consisting of
EMPACT community initiated information acquisition pilots. This strategy will capitalize on the Agency's
national perspective on policy implementation as well as the community participation and support upon which
the program is based.
STRATEGY COMPONENTS
To implement this strategy, EMPACT will engage in three separate types of activities: 1) customer outreach,
2) projects, and 3) program development.
CUSTOMER OUTREACH
The overall goal of EMPACT's customer outreach activities is to form an understanding of the needs and
preferences of EMPACT communities for environmental information, and use this understanding to ensure that
these community needs and preferences are addressed by the EMPACT Program. TheFY1998 EMPACT
customer outreach plan consists of four components:
• Project/PilotSupport: The development and implementation of efforts to support stakeholder
involvement/customer survey needs of EMPACT projects/pilots conducted in FY1998.
• Community Information Gathering: The development and implementation of city-specific
approaches to: 1) acquire a basic understanding of environmental information needs within
each 85 EMPACT city; and 2) create "profiles" of each EMPACT city that will assist the
program to meet these needs.
• Education: The development and implementation of approaches to inform and educate
EMPACT metropolitan areas about the program and the services that it can provide to
communities.
-------
Course One: What Are the Key TR1 Data Issues?
CEIS/EMPACT Customer Survey Phases I -HI: The continued refinement and implementation
of executive interviews (Phase I), focus groups with "inside the beltway" groups (Phase n),
and focus groups with targeted regional interests on a regional basis (Phase HI) in order to
gather insights into stakeholder groups' experiences related to identifying, acquiring,
manipulating, and using environmental information.
PROJECTS
EMPACT will support projects that commit to a process extending from time relevant measurement/monitoring
and data collection to effective communication (e.g ozone monitoring). Projects must be consistent with the
criteria for Program Investments that have been established for EMPACT. Projects may be initiated by
Program Offices, Regions (top-down approach) and by EMPACT cities (bottom-up approach). The success
of both approaches will depend upon strong partnerships between Federal Agencies (i.e. USGS, NOAA, US
EPA), EPA Program Offices, EPA Regions, state and local governments, communities, and the general public.
The role of the EPA Regions in EMPACT projects is pivotal as they are the gateway to EMPACT's customers:
the state and local governments, communities, and the general public. EPA's Program Offices will provide
the infrastructure and experience in the implementation of a nationwide monitoring and environmental
information delivery effort. The EPA's Office of Research and Development will provide the technical and
research capability to lead the Program into the future by developing and incorporating advanced monitoring,
measurement, modeling and communications technologies that support EMPACT projects.
PROGRAM DEVELOPMENT
The EMPACT Program will provide the ability to aggregate environmental information on a local, regional
and national scale. To accomplish this goal the program will develop guidelines for a technology and
information architecture and data standards that will be consistent for all EMPACT data providers. The
Program will also develop the necessary infrastructure for interaction and communications between our federal
agency partners, EPA Program Offices and Regions, state and local governments, communities and the general
public.
As a guiding principle, EMPACT will strive to break new ground in both the use of updated technology
solutions as well as communication of environmental information that the public needs to know as part of their
day-to-day decision-making.
Daphne McMurrer, Texas Natural Resources Conservation Commission
Consolidated Reporting Project
The Consolidated Reporting Project (TCRP) is managed by the Texas Natural Resource Conservation
Commission (TNRCC). The project is an offspring of the Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA) Common
Sense Initiative (CSI). CSI is an innovative approach to environmental protection and pollution prevention
developed by the EPA in 1994. Its goal is to encourage the use of common sense, innovation, and flexibility
to achieve a cleaner environment at less cost. In other words, CSFs purpose is to find cleaner, cheaper and
smarter approaches to environmental protection.
-------
Course One; What Are the Key TR1 Data Inoes?
CSI works through a multi-stakeholder, consensus-based process. Since its start, the program has focused on
six industrial sectors: computer and electronics (the focus of this study), iron and steel, automobile assembly,
metal finishing, petroleum refining, and printing. Each of the six CSI sectors is directed by a subcommittee
of approximately 25 representatives from federal, state and local governments; industry; environmental and
environmental justice organizations; and labor. The subcommittees are charged with examining key
environmental management issues facing their industry, including regulation, compliance, permitting, reporting,
technology, and pollution prevention issues.
TNRCC is working with the CSI C&E Sector Sub-committee on a project to re-invent environmental reporting
as a streamlined, relevant, and easily-accessible system that meets the needs of government, industry, public
interest groups, and communities. This new report would be called the Consolidated Uniform Report for the
Environment, or "CURE". The CURE system will be streamlined in that environmental data for all media (air,
land, hazardous wastes, etc.) will be collected on one form. While the CURE system may later be applied in
other states and industries, the development and testing stages are limited to the C&E industry in Texas in order
to keep the project manageable. Development of the CURE system is ftmded by a grant from the EPA.
During 1996, a group of Texas and national stakeholders developed the CURE concept. TNRCC receives
on-going input from a workgroup of stakeholders, including: Brownsville Community Health Center,
Consumers Union, HR Industries, League of Women Voters, Lucent Technologies, Motorola, Sierra Club,
Texas Instruments, and the cities of Austin and Dallas.
Stakeholder Needs Assessment
The CURE will be designed to collect data considered useful by the public, public interest groups, regulated
community, and government. To provide input for the design of the CURE, the initial task for this project was
a study to assess three central questions:
• What environmental information do people want to know?
• How will/might people use this information?
• How would people like to access environmental information?
Baseline levels of awareness and perceptions of the possible benefits from and barriers to an integrated data
management system were also discussed.
The stakeholder needs assessment was completed in August, 1997. It involved a review of available
information and primary research with stakeholder groups of the C&E industry. Stakeholder input was sought
through focus group discussions with six stakeholder groups:
• people living near C&E facilities (local populations),
• the general public,
• workers at C&E facilities (non-management),
• C&E facility management.,
• non-governmental organizations (NGOs) that are active in environmental, environmental
justice, public health, and/or public advocacy issues, and
• federal, state and local government agencies which are responsible for creating, implementing,
or enforcing environmental regulations.
-------
Course One; Whit Are the Key TR1 D«u Issues?
Eighteen focus group discussions were held with stakeholders in Dallas, Austin and Houston because these
cities house more than 75% of all C&E facilities in Texas. One NGO and one government focus group were
held in Washington, DC to capture the national perspective. Additionally, a small number of in-depth
interviews sought the viewpoints of individuals who use environmental data in their work.
Needs Assessment Results
Current Stakeholder Awareness
The General Public and Local Population stakeholders largely regard the C&E industry as clean and not
especially polluting. By contrast, C&E Companies, Workers, NGOs and Government representatives show
considerable awareness of the potential dangers of the chemicals used and wastes created by these facilities.
General Public, Local Population and Workers say they have very limited environmental information about
C&E facilities and are unsure where to obtain more information. C&E Companies, NGOs and Government
agencies know that environmental performance data is available, but find it difficult to obtain. They also find
the information difficult to use, saying that it often requires significant effort to meet their specific need.
All groups agreed that the goal of a consolidated data management system is well worth further exploration,
though it may involve considerable effort to achieve full-scale implementation.
Information Needs
All stakeholders want information about potential risks and pollution that relates to their own situations. For
example, Workers were highly interested in a facility's compliance status, safety record, chemicals used, and
how to identify an emergency situation. Also, General Public groups (among others) wanted to know "What
will impact me and my family?"
All groups sought information characterizing facility environmental impacts, including the types of wastes
produced, disposal methods, and whether that disposal is in compliance with regulations or contributes to a
general degradation of air or water media.
Focus group participants expressed interest in knowing which pollutants are most hazardous to humans and
the environment and the health risks of specific chemicals. Proper disposal of products was another
environmental issue of concern to stakeholders. General Public and Local Population stakeholders especially
want information on environmentally sound disposal options for discarding computers and electronic
equipment.
Most stakeholder groups said that any information should be presented in context with other relevant
information and/or explanation, in order to be meaningful to most audiences and avoid misunderstandings.
Another common desire was for the ability to make valid comparisons - across time, between facilities, and
between geographic areas, for example. C&E Companies were especially interested in this issue.
While the C&E sector was the focus of this study, most of the information needs identified do not appear to
be unique to that industry and could be asked equally well of other industries.
-------
Course One: What Are the Key TRI Data Issues?
Information Usage
Each group of stakeholders, after engaging in the initial discussion, saw several ways to employ environmental
performance data, including:
• The General Public and Local Population stakeholders thought it would influence their
purchase decisions, for example, whose products or stock to buy, and where to live.
• Workers named similar uses, as well as input into deciding where to work.
• C&E Companies were interested in inter-plant comparisons such as benchmarking best
practices in the areas of purchasing materials, production processes, and waste disposal.
• NGOs said it would help them effectively plan where to place emphasis in their programs and
also believe it would help create environmental programs in schools.
• Governmental representatives feel it would help them allocate their limited resources to areas
providing the biggest "pay-off1 for the public.
Several participants commented that new uses will be found for environmental performance information when
it becomes easily available.
Access to Data
Stakeholders indicated that any communications medium used to provide access to the information in a
consolidated data system should:
• Provide information at multiple levels of detail, from very general to very specific.
• Include a broad scope of information, rather than be limited to a few key topics.
• Be readily accessible for most stakeholders.
A. Internet
Focus group participants expressed an almost unanimous preference for using the Internet as the primary
distribution method because of its abilities to present information at varying levels of detail and to associate
it with other relevant information. The immediacy of accessing and updating the data is seen as another
important benefit of the Internet.
For example, the initial page of this website might offer only a broad overview of the state's environmental
situation, with subsequent pages providing increasing detail, down to the original raw data.
B. Other methods
Stakeholders also recognized that the Internet's ability to communicate information is hampered by its limited
reach. To make environmental information available to as many people as possible, most stakeholders thought
that broadcast media, such as newspapers and radio, would have to be included in any communications effort.
Making printed reports and/or Internet access available in such places as libraries and Chamber of Commerce
offices was also recommended as a way to make detailed information on commonly-asked questions widely
-------
Coarse One: What Are the Key TRI D«U lisues?
available. For example, an individual considering moving to another city, or a company considering opening
a new facility, might want to look up the levels of pollution in a given area.
Another suggested method for providing detailed information on selected topics was a toll-free 800 number.
C. Sources of Data
While almost all groups wanted more assurance that the data provided or processed by industry and
Government is credible, most were willing to accept that the process is done properly. Some participants
suggested that involving outside parties, such as a non-profit research group, might be a valuable way to obtain
objective interpretations of the data and ensure the accuracy of both the raw data and its analysis.
Benefits and Barriers
Key benefits which stakeholders expect a consolidated data system will provide include:
• Reducing the environmental reporting burden.
• Allowing Government, NGO, and C&E Company resources saved through efficiency gains
to be shifted to other needs.
• Providing all stakeholders (including emergency responders) timely access to current, relevant,
and in-context information.
• Facilitating environmental performance benchmarking efforts and sharing of best practices
for C&E Companies.
• Eliminating data redundancy and conflicts between reports.
Stakeholders raised several possible barriers to establishment of a successful consolidated data system,
including:
• Will the various regulatory agencies be able to work together well?
• Can the information be presented so that it is easy for most individuals to understand?
• Will users misinterpret the information by using "apples and oranges" data to compare
facilities?
• Will the investment in electronic reporting technology place an undue burden on small
facilities? Will it raise cost of end-products? Will it raise taxes?
• Will the consolidated data system be able to evolve and change with the industry?
Needs Assessment Report
The full Needs Assessment report presents the results of this study in three volumes:
• Volume one provides a very brief analysis of the study's findings.
• Volume two summarizes the focus groups and interviews.
• Volume three details the procedures used for the study.
Copies of the report will be made available upon request.
-------
Course One: What Are the Key TRI Data Issues?
Next Steps
This stakeholder needs assessment is an important step in creating a consolidated data management, reporting,
and access system. Knowledge of what information end-users desire will guide system designers in deciding
how the system will work, including:
• What data elements will be collected.
• What analyses will be performed.
• How the information will be presented.
• How the information will be made available.
Additionally, TCRP will draw on the results of other reporting, data management, and public access initiatives
in developing the overall model system. Following a pilot test of the system, a report documenting the project's
results will explicitly lay out the regulatory, legal and policy changes necessary to allow for implementation
of a consolidated multi-media data management, reporting, and access system.
If you would like more information about the CURE project, please contact Daphne McMurrer at the TNRCC's
Office of Pollution Prevention and Recycling at 512-239-5920, or on-line at: dmcmurre @tnrcc.state.tx.us.
Michael Gregory, Arizona Toxics Information
A List of Lists for the US-Mexico Border Region
New Software for Integrating Public Right to Know with Local Land-Use and Emergency
Planning
Like the needs of the public in general, local informational needs can't be wholly anticipated or defined. Like
democracy, of which it is a major component, right to know is open-ended. Attempts to predetermine the needs
run the high risk of narrowing the public's right to know and limiting the beneficial uses the information might
lead to. The test in a democratic society should be, not what does the public have a need for, but what does the
public not have a right to know, and (keeping in mind Jefferson's admonition about the need for an informed
citizenry), what information, if any, can we be sure will not be useful to members of the public in defending
ourselves from the dangers of our technologies?
On the other hand, practically speaking, the data universe is so large, the options in cyberspace so many, and
life so short, that information searches, if they are to be very useful, must be focused on strategic ends. Right
to know can too easily become a substitute for taking preventative action, the right to say no. Workers and the
public generally are looking for information about a specific substance or product that occurs at a specific
geographic location. Most people don't care or need to know how little Methyl-Ethyl-Badstuff it takes to kill
us or deform our babies; they usually just want answers to a few basic questions like Is this stuff necessary?
And if not, why is it still here? And if it is, necessary for what? for whose benefit? And are they going all out,
sparing no expense, to make sure it doesn 't cause harm?
Risk assessment is rarely of practical concern except to someone looking for a way to push pollution to some
limit, rather than eliminate as much as possible; what concerns most people is intrinsic hazard and prevention.
8
-------
Coarse One: What Are the Key TRI Data Issues?
One of the strengths of the EPA's Toxics Release Inventory (TRI) is that it is a hazard-based system, rather
than risk-based; the mere inclusion of a substance on the list provides the public with hazard identification,
the first step in any hazardous material management process.
The informational needs of local communities in regard to hazardous materials principally involve the issues
of accessibility and comprehensiveness of data. Currently, citizens and communities are faced with a
bewildering array of chemical lists, formats, names, codes, and other elements —often with different basic
identifiers for the very same substance. Needed data is often either unavailable (due to data gaps or
administrative causes) or fragmented among various sources that cannot be easily located, linked or interpreted.
Problems of inaccessibility range from non-standardization of names and non-comparability of data and
databases among agencies, to exorbitant fees for public data, to arcane data reporting, storage and retrieval
procedures (including unreasonable confidentiality policies).
Restrictions of right to know (such as sectoral exemptions or quantity and employee thresholds) are not
conducive to toxics use reduction or other pollution prevention methods, and are not generally seen as prudent
or acceptable by people living next door. Any amount, and any kind or size of operation, is of concern. In some
ways, land-use planners are under even more pressure than environmental regulators, emergency planners or
other local information users to directly address those public concerns. In residential areas, for instance, besides
routine emissions from smokestacks or vents, discharges to sewers and streams, and potential emergencies,
land-use planners may need to address concerns about more substances and far smaller quantities than those
established as EPCRA thresholds or regulatory emission limits—including odors generated by small auto or
fiberglass shops, or cyanide used at home jewelry businesses, or one-gallon containers of pesticides kept or
mixed in the garage of the local exterminator.
Public needs for hazardous materials information, as reflected in the needs of local land-use planners, go well
beyond mere availability or disclosure of data, but require an active flow of information to make the data both
accessible and useable. An adequate information system must provide for:
• identification of specific chemicals at specific sites of generation, receipt, storage, use,
distribution and hazard, including both raw and process materials, as they occur in both
primary production and as secondary or waste products
• characterization of the physical, chemical, biological and radiological make-up of materials;
their physical, biological and ecological properties; their intrinsic hazards and their associated
risks; and of the capability and plans of firms and communities for managing them
• standardization of nomenclature, formats and indicators to facilitate database compatibility
as well as understandability and effective use by all parties
• linking of commercial and environmental tracking and monitoring data with community,
worker and environmental health data; with alternatives and pollution prevention information;
with legal background; etc.
• proactive dissemination of the data and accompanying information, including free or below-
cost access at locations and times convenient to the public
-------
Course One: What Are the Key TRI Data Issues?
• training and education of workers and the public not only about the kinds, amounts and
whereabouts of materials they are potentially exposed to and the hazards such materials pose
to human health and the environment; but about how to prevent exposure and injury from both
routine and emergency releases; about how to observe and interpret data; and about the tools
they can use to help find the information they want.
In order to address some of these problems, during 1996-1997, Arizona Toxics Information (a small non-profit
organization based near the US-Mexico border), under contract to the Arizona Emergency Response
Commission and in cooperation with the Cochise County (Arizona) Planning Department, the Ayuntamiento
de Naco (Sonora), the Cochise County Local Emergency Planning Committee, and others, developed a pilot
integrated toxics data management system for land-use planners and emergency planners in the adjacent
communities of Naco, Arizona and Naco, Sonora.
The principal outputs of the project included 1) hands-on training of local planning personnel; 2) a bilingual
(Spanish-English) facilities reporting form geared to small and very small operations; 3) a hazardous materials
inventory of sites in the Ambos Nacos communities; and 4) a software-based, Windows-compatible, bilingual
cross-reference list ("list of lists") of over 3000 substances of concern in the US-Mexico border region, drawn
from 22 state, federal (US and Mexican), and international source lists, and featuring string-search capability
for over 50,000 synonyms, CAS numbers, US and Mexican waste codes, and other identifiers.
10
-------
Course One: What Are the Key TR1 Data Issues?
Session B - How Can We Integrate TRI Data With Other Data?
Session Leader
Elizabeth Moyer, Texas Instruments
Speakers
Frank Bove, New Jersey Department of Health, Environmental Health Service
Art Koines, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Donald Lassiter, Semiconductor Industries Association
Mamie Miller, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Enforcement and Compliance
Elizabeth Moyer. Texas Instruments
Session Summary
Overlay of TRI data with numerous other data sets has been a subject of great debate since the origin of this
reporting structure. Community and worker health studies, ecological studies, permitting and compliance
analyses, pollution prevention planning, and many other uses have been identified, and in some cases, pursued.
This session included a briefing on various projects involving use of TRI data with other datasets including:
• Census data, production capacity, compliance and inspection histories, enforcement history, and
toxicity weighted releases by Mamie Miller, USEPA, Office of Enforcement and Compliance Assurance,
Sector Facility Indexing Project;
• Public health databases such as cancer and birth defect registries, disease clusters and
epidemiological studies by Dr. Frank Bove, Agency for Toxics Substances and Disease Registry, Division
of Health Studies, Epidemiology and Surveillance Branch;
• Economic indicators such as sales and production units and releases vs. abatement capital and total
capital costs, and performance vs. forecasts for waste minimization reports by Dr. Don Lassiter,
Semiconductor Industries Association.
Additionally, Art Koines, USEPA, Center for Environmental Information & Statistics, provided a view of
EPA's vision for the future of the many data sets available.
Each speaker discussed the problems they have encountered in bringing these projects to bear, primarily in data
quality, specificity of location data, and lack of data from smaller sources whose emissions often aggregate to
many times that of reporting industries. There was also a lot of concern about the interpretation of the data;
i.e. assumptions that an entire community surrounding a reporting facility is equally exposed.
Due to time constraints, we limited questions to the end of the presentations, and even at 6:40pm, we had lively
discussion and several participants stayed after to talk to various panel members.
11
-------
Course One: Wh«t Are the Key TRI D«ti ISJPM?
Session C - How Can We Meet the Challenges of TRI Expansion?
Session Leader
Robert Jackson, Michigan Department of Environmental Quality
Speakers
Elizabeth Harriman, Massachusetts Toxics Use Reduction Institution
Paul Burns, Massachusetts Public Interest Research Group
12
-------
Course One; What Are the Key TR1 D«U Issues?
Session D - What Are the Uncertainties of Using TRI Data?
Session Leader
Rich Puchalsky, Grassroots Connection
Speakers
Kimberlie Orr, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Richard E. Lattimer, Eli Lilly and Company
Velu Senthil, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Rich Puchalsky, Grassroots Connection
Session Abstract
The course on TRI Data Quality will follow TRI data from its source at industrial facilities to its destination
in the hands of the public. The chain of custody of the data will be discussed with a presentation from
Kimberlie Orr of EPA, who will talk about the accuracy of data collection and the means that EPA uses to
check and correct data. Rich Puchalsky, a data provider, will speak about how data quality problems affect
public users of TRI. Each panelist will give a 20 minute presentation, followed by an overall 30 minute
question and answer session.
Specific data quality problems that will be discussed may include:
• accuracy of TRI release numbers;
• problems in reporting Section 8 pollution prevention act data;
• TRI non-reporting errors;
• problems with inaccurate facility identifiers;
• problems with destinations of transfers;
• EPA's steps to correct data;
• misinterpretations of TRI exemptions; and
• how to account for TRI data inaccuracy in analysis.
Richard E. Lattimer, Eli Lilly and Company
Data Quality - Plant Site Perspective
Thank you Rich Puchalsky for inviting me to be a part of this panel. My goal is to describe the realities of data
quality issues that every reporting facility faces while preparing the data collection systems needed to comply
with the complicated nature of Toxic Release Inventory reporting. It is spoken from the perspective of those
actually gathering the data and completing the reports, whether they be engineers, chemists, or technical
specialists.
I will explain how the TRI reporting rules and EPA's oversight of the program play an important role in data
quality. After exploring a facility calculation example, I will show how a state (Indiana) can become proactive
and work with facilities to improve the quality of the data submitted.
Lilly facilities have a strong commitment to data quality and understand its importance. Our facilities
continually strive to improve the data collection process to improve their understanding of the facility
13
-------
Cimne Ome: Wtat Are tfce Key TRI Data toac?
operations and what role those chemicals play in the production of our products. This philosophy not only
improves TRI data quality but it helps identify pollution prevention opportunities and gain economic
efficiencies in data collection and production operations.
The following is a summary of the data quality rules specified by EPA in the TRI instruction manual:
• Use all readily available data
• Reasonable estimates using factors, mass balance, or engineering calculations
• No additional monitoring or measurement, beyond what is required under other laws or routine plant
operations, is required to complete Form R
• Report to two significant digits
Listed in the order of priority, one obviously uses monitoring or "hard" data to calculate the various emission
and waste generation quantities for the Form R. What is important to understand, and Fll touch on it shortly,
is that precise measured data is not always available for a variety of reasons. From a practicality standpoint,
this is the reason for die word "readily" modifier. EPA recognizes this, and has established guidelines for
estimating these data points so Form R calculations can proceed without unnecessary expenditures.
Therefore, die underlying characteristic of the Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act (SARA) data
is that they are estimates. This does not mean that the data is unreliable or fudged or a gross misrepresentation
of reality, but a realistic approximation that serves the general purpose of providing emission and waste
generation data.
The SARA rules themselves do not lend to perfect accuracy and there are good reasons for diis. First of all,
EPA recognizes die immense burden of doing chemical analyses just for SARA purposes. This is why die rules
do not require any additional calculations to complete a Form R. Many calculations used in SARA reporting
rely on measurements conducted for other regulatory or business purposes. For example, a regulation may
require monitoring in some generic parameter, such as pH or VOC that are not chemical specific. Hazardous
waste manifests show only total waste quantity per shipment, not the actual chemical constituent quantities.
Secondly, recognizing that the results are just estimates, EPA instructs facilities to round all results to two
significant figures.
EPA's oversight of die TRI program also plays a role in data quality. The complicated nature of TRI reporting
and the diverse nature of the regulated industries leads to many unique or industry-specific reporting scenarios
dial cannot be adequately addressed with reporting instructions. Therefore, reporting guidance that is timely
and well-communicated is critical to maintaining consistent reporting by the regulated community.
There are several current situations in which EPA has either failed to play this role adequately or has decided
to change die reporting guidance. Therefore, conducting trend analysis is hindered by situations such as these.
The biggest obstacle, in my opinion, to reporting uniformity is the lack of a final rule implementing tne
Pollution Prevention Act of 1990. This has led to nommifonnity in reporting and has reduced die potential for
tracking poUurkn prevention progress. Though some trade associations and companies have tried to provide
its members or facilities consistent guidance, it is not known how successful mis has been. It is hard for
reporting facilities to understand why EPA has not completed die process. Two other changes wfll also affect
future trend analysis. These include the change in metals reporting guidance implemented during the summer
of 1997 and the upcoming change that declares waste treatment is a reportable activity.
14
-------
|^____ CMTJC Oae: What Are tfce Key TR1 Dan toaei?
Based on my experience of conducting SARA TRI calculations, I can tell you that it can be an extremely
complicated process. I believe the perception from those outside the facility is that TRI calculations are
straightforward and all the necessary data is readily available. For our facilities that utilize multi-step batch
operations to manufacture a variety of pharmaceutical substances, I can testify that this is not die case. The
jnam lesson is mat no data point, even direct measurements, is known with 100% accuracy. Every piece of
measurement equipment has a rated accuracy mat brings uncertainty into the calculations. As flow volumes
increase, the uncertainty, as measured in pounds, also rises.
As an example of how the precision of various measurements and other variables affect TRI reporting, the
diagram below details a material balance conducted at a Lilly facility. The solvent is used in a variety of
processes and a small amount is actually generated during certain fermentation operations. To simplify the
analysis, the main identifiable flows in and out of the manufacturing areas are represented in a simplified
material balance diagram diat is shown below. It is common to use a material balance to either estimate flows
that are not measured directly or to attempt to verify factors or engineering estimates. In this case, the site fdt
the air emission calculations and estimates were the flows that had the least amount of direct measurements.
The odier flows had some type of measurement data mat was used to calculate die flow quantity. Therefore,
it was decided to conduct die material balance to estimate and verify die air emission estimates.
First die facility inputs to the material balance were calculated. Each specified uncertainty is die best estimate
of accuracy for that flow by die facility personnel. The primary receipts of this chemical were from bulk
purchases but smaller amounts were obtained as a constituent in mixtures. The net receipts of solvent used
as a raw material for processes is calculated from purchasing data and is verified by measuring die quantity
in each incoming rail or tank car volumetrically. The accuracy of measurement is based on die rated accuracy
of die flow meters. Though it is very good, note that even an error rate of 0.8% means that diere is a potential
for an error of 80,000 pounds! This error potential is equivalent to some of die odier flows.
The quantity generated in fermentation comes from process calculations. The quantity received in waste from
odier Lilly facilities for waste treatment was determined from shipment data received from die odier facilities
and verified by spot laboratory analyses.
The waste flows are more difficult to measure and are dierefore much more expensive to conduct and don't
have die precision that die incoming flows do. Even an error rate of 3-5% is significantly better than what die
facility was capable of achieving 5 years ago.
As an aside, this leads to an example of the expense and the willingness of our facilities to go above and beyond
the SARA requirements just to learn more about the operations at die facility. This facility studied and
implemented for another solvent 5 state-of-the-art technology projects over a several year period with die sole
purpose of improving the quality of the material balance calculations related to the identification of waste
stream constituents and their sources. After spending over $500,000, the difficulty in measuring the highly
variable waste streams caused two of the projects to fail, accounting for more than half of die capital spent.
The other three projects were successful and the technology was expanded to cover 4 additional solvents used
at the facility.
15
-------
Course One: What Are the Key TRI Data Issues?
Example: Mass Balance Estimate for Solvent Air Emissions
Effect of Measurement Uncertainty on Ability to Close Balance
Emissions to Air
Net New Receipts,
Inventory Adjusted
10.742 (±0.8%)
Generated on-site
0.086 (±3%)
(by difference)
-0.238 (±130%)
Waste from Offsitc
0.371 (±3%)
Manufacturing
Activities
(Includes In-
process
Recycling)
Mass in Millions of Pounds,
±% is Uncertainty in Value
Fume Incinerator
0.135 (±5%)
Organic Liquid
Waste Incinerator
9.741 (±3%)
N^
Watery Waste Incinerator
1.561 (±3%)
The emissions to air are calculated by difference of the facility inputs and outputs. The final results for this
solvent show a not uncommon result: the estimated air losses from the volatile solvent were negative!
Obviously, this was impossible but analyzing the ability to accurately measure the various flows show how
this can happen. The uncertainty of the final result calculated from the difference in the material balance is
directly related to the uncertainty of each individual stream. A simple analysis shows that the final result
actually has a calculated uncertainty of+/-130%! This is done by taking the square root of the sum of the
squares of each flow multiplied by its measurement uncertainty and dividing it by the calculated difference in
the material balance.
Simply, whenever you attempt to conduct a mass balance in which several flows, especially the calculated
difference flow, are a small fraction of the total overall thruput, the ability of the material balance to be used
as a ledger check is unreliable. For example, this facility believes more than half of their 20+ TRI-reported
chemicals have an emission/purchase ratio of less than 1%. Since this is considered to be below the technical
ability to conduct a material balance, the value of the exercise for these other chemicals is limited.
To finish this example, the facility used its calculated air emission estimates that not only were a positive
number, but also turned out to be within the uncertainty range of the material balance estimate.
In conclusion concerning data quality, I wanted to reiterate that I believe perceptions concerning TRI
calculations are different between those inside and outside the facility. Generating and performing the SARA
calculations can be a very complicated task, with the ability to measure various flows causing some uncertainty
16
-------
Course One; Whit Are the Key TRI D»U Issues?
in the calculated results. Therefore, it is important to be note that reported emission values are estimates only,
and should be analyzed and used as such.
In many situations, such as those discussed in the example presented, show that materials accounting is not the
panacea for serving as a ledger check for verifying emissions that many people tend to believe. Materials
accounting may be a valuable tool useful for a facility to aid in its pollution prevention efforts. However, its
value is limited to the technical ability to measure various flows. I believe that for our Lilly facilities that the
SARA data is as accurate as technology allows and that the data is useful for trending purposes.
In closing, I would like to point out that states can play a very important role in the data quality process. For
example, our state, Indiana, produces an annual report describing pollution prevention trends within the state.
One of the main measures in the report is based on the Section 8 waste generation data. The Indiana
Department of Environmental Management (IDEM) is very active in studying relative changes in the waste
generation results. This is done not only on a state-wide basis but also for specific areas of the state and for
specific industry sectors. They conduct annual meetings with selected facilities to discuss the results and to
learn more about the trends in the reported data. They play an important role by expressing an interest in the
technologies employed to produce pollution prevention gains and collect "success stories" that can be shared
with other facilities. I believe that this is a very valuable role for the state to conduct and is valuable for all
facilities to participate in.
Rich Puchalsky, Grassroots Connection ^
Hello, my name is Rich Puchalsky. I'm going to focus on TRJ data quality problems from a data user's
perspective. My six years experience with helping users of RTK NET with TRI, and with writing TRI reports
myself, have given me a good understanding of the common problems that TRI users face. I've divided TRI
data quality problems into non-reporting, identifier problems, numeric problems, and difficulties in
interpretation and presentation. Lastly, there are some problems that a user confronts that are caused by the
design of the Form R. I'm going to touch on each of these issues in turn.
Non-reporting data quality problems occur when facilities that should report to TRI do not. All that an end
user of TRI can do about this is to examine other databases and try to find facilities that are likely to be TRI
non-filers. This is a daunting and complicated task. It should only be attempted when you're examining either
a single facility or a small group of facilities - such as if you were studying TRI emissions from a single town.
At the end of the process, you have a list of facilities which might be TRI non-filers, but of course you don't
have TRI release numbers for them, so this approach is quite limited. [Overhead 1: database list] If you do
decide to try it, the single most useful database to look in is probably the Resource Conservation and ;Recovery
Act Biennial Reporting System (RCRA) (BRS), followed by the PCS water permits database, the Resource
Conservation and Recovery Information System (RCRIS) hazardous waste database, and the Aerometric
Information System (AIRS) air permit database; the Facility Index System (FINDS) is also useful in tying
databases together. If anyone wants more details on this, please ask me after the session; I'm going to pass
quickly on because the subject is too complex to do justice to here.
17
-------
Course One: What Are the Key TRI Data Issues?
Overhead 1
TRI facilities in other databases
1. BRS (RCRA Biennial Reporting System)
hazardous waste
2. PCS (Permit Compliance System)
water permits
3. AIRS (Aerometric Information System)
air permits
4. RCRIS (RCRA Info. System)
hazardous waste permits
5. FINDS (Facility Index System)
database integration
Identifier problems occur when an important facility identifier doesn't contain the correct data — this can
involve the facility name, parent name, SIC code (or industrial classification), or any one of a large group
of identifying numbers. [Overhead 2: Identifier list and problems]. These errors routinely affect any study
that attempts to compare multiple TRI facilities, or even one TRI facility over multiple years.
Overhead 2
Identifier Problems
1. Invalid blanks
Parent company name
Parent company Dun & Bradstreet number
Off-site transfer destination EPA ID
2. Mis-spellings
Facility Name
Destinations of off-site transfers
3. Mis-numberings and invalid codes
SIC codes (industrial classifications)
EPA ID
Dun & Bradstreet number
4. Lack of standardization
Facility Names
Cities
18
-------
Coarse One; Whit Are the Key TRI Data Issues?
Here are some of the more common types of problems:
1. Invalid blanks - TRI filers will sometimes leave fields like the Parent Company Name blank even when
they have a valid U.S. parent company.
2. Mis-spellings — The facility name or address is sometimes mis-spelled. This is very common for names
and addresses of destinations of off-site transfers, since the TRI filer is filling out information for another
facility. Destinations of surface water releases also have this problem; there are apparently many different
ways to spell Mississippi.
3. Mis-numberings - TRI filers routinely report invalid numeric identifiers and codes, including:
a) SIC codes, i.e. industrial classifications, that don't exist;
b) Invalid EPA ID numbers
c) Invalid Dun & Bradstreet numbers.
To give an idea of the scope of this problem, here is the result of [Overhead 3: D&B study]
a comparison I made between facility Dunn & Bradstreet numbers from TRI and D&B numbers from the
Dunn & Bradstreet database for all facilities in Missouri, 1995. 54% of the facility D&B numbers in TRI
were valid, 12% were blank or NA, 8% duplicated another number on the list, 6% were invalid D&B
numbers, and 20% percent were for companies hi another state! These last must have filled in their parent
company D&B number instead of their facility one.
Overhead 3
Facility D&B Numbers in MO
54% valid
20% out of state/parent company
12% blank or NA
8% duplicates
6% invalid
(568 total facilities in 1995 TRI for state MO)
4. Lack of standardization - [Overhead 4: variant names] Here are some names of facilities hi the General
Motors company. If you want to fill hi a single search criterion and find all of these, you have to be very
careful and make judicious use of wildcards. Certainly you should always use a wildcard at the end of any
facility name that you put hi as a search criterion, to take care of the varying use of suffixes like CO or
INC. Here is another non-standardized field: city name. EPA puts TRI facility addresses through a Zip
code checking program, but it apparently lets varying city names through. You have to be careful
whenever you are searching for facilities hi a city that starts with SAINT, FORT, or MOUNT.
19
-------
Course One: What Are the Key TR1 Data Issues?
Overhead 4
Lack of standardization
1. Facility names
GENERAL MOTORS TRUCK GROUP
GM
GM METAL FAB DIV.
GM METAL FABRICATING DIV.
GM-SCG OKLAHOMA CITY PLANT
GM/MFD LORDSTOWN FAB PLANT
CMC (27 facilities)
CMC DELPHI CHASSIS SYS.
GMPT FLINT V-8 ENGINE PLANT
2. Cities
SAINT ALBANS VT 3
ST. ALBANS VT 1
SAINT GABRIEL LA 4
ST. GABRIEL LA 2
SAINT LOUIS MO 106
ST LOUIS MO 1
ST. LOUIS MO 1
[back to Overhead 2] These kinds of problems can occur in any attempt to tie facilities together — for
instance, to find all facilities owned by a single parent company. For tracking individual facilities over
multiple years, you can at least use the TRI Facility ID, which is provided on the Form R mailing label and
checked by EPA. It is supposed to remain the same from year to year even if the facility's name or
ownership changes. Unfortunately, even the TRI Facility ID is not without problems; there's not really just
one per facility. EPA allows a facility to report its emissions from its separate "establishments", which are
basically different industrial activities at the same facility. Because of the way the TRI database is
structured, each establishment at a facility has its own TRI Facility ID.
[Overhead 5: numeric problems] Numeric problems occur when a facility wrongly reports either its release
and transfer amounts or its waste output quantities. I'm not going to discuss the observed accuracy of the
numbers, or what steps can be taken to ensure better data quality, since my fellow panelists will have
addressed that. Instead I'll talk about the few steps an end user of TRI data can take to help detect when a
number might be problematic. These methods are crude - I'm not going into any statistics here - but can
sometimes be used even for a fairly large data set, if you are sufficiently interested in accuracy to try to
chase down outliers.
20
-------
Course One; What Are the Key TRI Data luuei?
Overhead 5
Finding Numeric Problems
1. Check sections 5 & 6 versus 8
If Section 8 non-routine events is zero,
Energy Recovery off-site
Sec. 6 transfers = Sec. 8
Treatment off-site
Sec. 6 transfers = Sec. 8
Releases and disposal
Sec. 5 + Sec. 6 transfers = Sec. 8
(See 1995 Public Data Release pg. 50)
2. Check air emissions of VOCs
3. Call TRI public contacts
4. Know your data source
These are the techniques I've seen used:
1. Check section 5 & 6 versus section 8. There are certain totals from sections 5 and 6 of the Form R -
i.e., the release and transfer quantities — that should add up to totals from the section 8 waste generated or
waste output quantities. You can look in the 1995 TRI Public Data release page 50 for this, but basically
the equations are given here (on overhead). If they don't add up, one set is misreported.
2. Low air emissions of VOCs. If a facility is using enough of a VOC to report to TRI, a zero air
emission is very suspicious.
3. Call and check. Sometimes, you'll see a number that looks very much like a zero has been accidentally
added or deleted at the end of it. If you suspect this has happened, try comparing the facility's numbers
with those from previous years. If see a very large year-to-year difference, it's sometimes worth while to
call the public contact for the facility, if the difference will affect your results. Calling the facility can also
reveal whether year-to-year differences are real, or whether they are caused by changes in measurement
techniques or reporting requirements.
The primary cause of perceived numeric problems in any report made using TRI data is revisions.
Facilities routinely revise their TRI numbers - generally downwards, and sometimes after they realize that
their first reported number was a factor of 10 too high. In these cases they tend to call TRI data users and
complain when a published TRI report uses the pre-revision version of the data and flags their facility as
21
-------
Course One: What Are the Key TRI Data Issues?
the number one emitter of toxics in the study.
There really isn't much an end user of TRI data can do about this. Revisions take a good deal of time
between when they are submitted to EPA and when they are distributed to TRI data users - up to a year
for TRI CD-ROM users, for instance. The critical thing to do is to know, whenever possible, exactly when
your TRI data was cut and where you got it from. Then ask the complaining facility whether they filed a
revision, and if so, when. I've often called Kim Orr on this panel to find out exactly when EPA received a
revision and put it in the database. If the revision arrived after your data was cut, report this back to the
facility and tell them that, unfortunately, it's their responsibility to get the number right the first time.
[Overhead 6: Presentation] The end user's presentation of TRI data can affect the perceived data quality.
One of the most basic and common problems — I do it often myself— is to ignore significant digits. TRI
data is, in theory, reported to two significant digits of accuracy; that means that reporting more than two
significant digits in a summation of TRI data is giving the reader a false impression of accuracy where it is
likely that none exists. For those who don't remember or didn't have high school physics, two significant
digits means that only the left two non-zero numbers in a quantity matter, the others can be rounded off.
So if you add up some TRI releases and get 2,396,412 pounds, that's really the same, within the degree of
accuracy hi TRI, as saying you got 2,400,000 pounds. It's always tempting to report TRI summations
down to the last pound, because the numbers come out of the computer that way. But it's better not to fool
your readers into thinking that the numbers are more accurate than they really are.
Overhead 6
Presentation and Interpretation
1. Two Significant Digits
2,396,412 == 2,400,000
934 — 930
2. Metals and metal compounds
3. Core chemical data set
Form R Issues
1. POTW transfer amounts
2. Section 8 "waste streams"
Then there are a large number of issues revolving around chemical identity, most of which are interpretation
issues rather than data quality issues. I'll talk about them here because they are common problems in TRI data
reports. A reader's conclusions about TRI data can be dramatically affected by the treatment of compounds
within TRI, especially in regards to the question of whether one should combine metals and their compounds
for purposes of analysis. I remember one report in which one facility was flagged as the greatest emitter of a
certain type of toxins within a geographic area. They were a battery manufacturer, and they said that there
were much larger battery manufacturers in town. It turned out that they had reported their lead emissions as
lead, while everyone else in town had reported them as lead compounds - and they had actually released less
lead than any other battery manufacturer in the area. The people doing the report had decided that since they
22
-------
Coarse One: What Are the Key TRI Data Issues?
didn't know the exact toxicology of lead compounds, as opposed to pure lead, then they wouldn't include lead
compounds in their report — they would only include lead itself. That kind of decision has to be very closely
looked at with metals, since the reported poundage of metal compounds in fRI includes only the listed metal
and leaves out the other metals in the compound. It's generally better to include the metal compounds in
searches rather than leave them out.
Another perennial issue is the "core chemical" data set. EPA makes changes in which chemicals are reported
in TRI from one year to the next; sometimes they change how a particular chemical should be reported. If you
want to do year-to-year comparisons, you may want to look at only the chemicals that existed in TRI in all of
the years you're considering. The TRI Public Data Release can help with this.
Finally, there are some problems with TRI data quality that are structural. The TRI Form R is not especially
well designed in certain places, and this affects the usefulness of the resulting data. The two major places that
I'll talk about are both due to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB), which is the U.S. governmental
agency that gets to review all government forms before they can be sent out to the public. OMB often tries to
negotiate concessions from EPA on behalf of industry whenever a change in the Form R is made.
First, there is the treatment of Publicly Owned Treatment Works (POTWs) within TRI. The form was changed
so that facilities now report only the total amount of a toxic chemical that they are sending to all POTWs, not
the amounts sent to individual POTWs. This means that it is no longer possible to figure out total loadings to
each POTW using TRI - if a facility lists two of them, you don't know how much of the chemical went to
each. Fortunately, cases where a facility lists more than one POTW are rare, and you can try to get around
them by dividing the released quantity among them equally.
A more serious problem is the lack of a good explanation of the Section 8 waste quantities in the Form R
reporting package. As I mentioned before, it is common for TRI filers to mistakenly have their Section 8
quantities not match their Section 5 and 6 quantities. The reason for this is that the Section 8 quantities were
basically intended to represent waste streams, and their summation was supposed to give the total waste output
of the facility—a useful quantity for measuring source reduction or pollution prevention. Because of a dispute
with OMB over the meaning of the phrase "waste stream", EPA never could put a good description of these
fields into the instructions for the Form R. So many TRI filers don't really know how to fill out these fields.
Of course, one of the critical uncertainties in using TRI data comes because of the difference between the data
collected and the basic questions being asked. Usually people are interested in either human health effects or
ecological effects. But TRI doesn't tell them whether people will become sick, it tells them about context-less
poundages of chemicals. There isn't any good way to resolve this, and the subject quickly leads into a
discussion of TRI data expansion, which is a matter for another panel.
I'll sum up this presentation by saying that, despite all of these problems, TRI's data quality is better than that
of any other major EPA database that I'm familiar with. That's because the TRI data is more heavily used by
the general public than any other EPA database. Use increases visibility and means that there is a greater stake
for both TRI filers and EPA in keeping the data quality high. I hope that other databases will have their data
quality improve as the Right To Know becomes more widely applied within EPA.
23
-------
Course Two; How Can We Best Use TRI to Prevent Pollution?
Session A - How Can We Improve Outreach and Dissemination?
Session Leader
Terry Greene, John Snow Institute
Speakers
Sandra Steingraber, Author
Jamie McClelland, Libraries For the Future
Odelia Funke, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Carlos Porras, Communities for a Better Environment
Terry Greene, John Snow Institute
How Many Know of Their *Right to Know*: How Can We Improve Dissemination and Outreach for TRI
and Other Data?
While this decade has marked tremendous progress in advancing the goals of EPCRA, too many members of
the general public remain unaware that they have the right to know about information reported under this
community right-to-know act. The session reviews trends in public and NGO (non-governmental organization)
use of right-to-know data, and the impact various dissemination and outreach practices have had on increasing
access and use of TRI within communities. Participants will examine the potential dissemination and outreach
practices that can make TRI more effective as a community education and pollution prevention tool and how
best to reach that potential. Government and NGO presenters who are active in promoting the right to know
on many levels, from working directly with grassroots communities to launching national outreach efforts, will
provide their perspectives on the very important tasks ahead to fully implement every community's right to
know. Topics include: Trends hi Awareness and Use, Assessing Current Dissemination Practices, Community
Access Points, Utilizing Community Groups (Schools, Civic Groups, etc.), Innovative Outreach Efforts,
Training, and Promoting the Right to Understand and Make Use of Data.
Odelia Funke, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
TRI was a legislative landmark, requiring EPA to respond to a number of new challenges for gathering,
maintaining and disseminating environmental information. Some challenges for this first major Right to Know
(RTK) program included whether the Agency could handle this large data collection and make it available,
whether the estimated values would be useful and reliable, whether the right information was being gathered,
and a fear that data would be misused and misunderstood.
Our collective experience with TRI is that no one guessed how big it would be. In addressing the challenges
and meeting an expanding RTK interest nationally and internationally, we find that the estimated values are
useful, misunderstanding and abuse of data has not been not a widespread problem and many in industry took
real interest hi the data, which engendered voluntary reductions in many cases and helped feed an ethic of
corporate responsibility. Further, significant networks of organizations (NGOs) and community groups found
creative ways to use the data on their own.
The RTK concept has grown. A series of changes has increased the scope and visibility of the TRI Program
itself. The Pollution Prevention Act added pollution prevention data to the Inventory, federal facilities are now
24
-------
Coarse Two: How Can We Best Use TRI to Prevent Pollution?
required to comply. Both the number of chemicals and the range of industries covered by the rule have
expanded. EPA is considering adding other information to the Inventory, though this remains controversial and
unresolved. On the international front, other countries are creating chemical release inventories, and there is
growing interest in RTK principles.
Dissemination and outreach concepts have also evolved. The Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics'
(OPPT) experience with the TRI program has had profound effects across the Agency. Within OPPT, there
has been a decided shift toward the RTK principle and voluntary programs across program areas, and the
Office has focused increased attention and resources on information dissemination under the Toxics Substances
Control Act. Important programs have evolved over the past several years to develop and promote voluntary
programs that center on gathering new information (DfE, e.g.). Other themes, such as product evaluation and
customer service, encourage better data dissemination. OPPT is improving its electronic capabilities (including
an effort to initiate broad electronic submission of data) to make information more readily and quickly
available. Major EPA-wide initiatives such as the community-based environmental protection, children's health,
and environmental justice efforts are built on RTK principles.
The latest major initiative still being designed is to meet the President's challenge to provide environmental
information and real-time data in major cities across the country. Finally, we will undoubtedly see an ever
greater reliance on community groups across these initiatives and programs. EPA realizes that successful
programs to protect the environment and public health must take into account local/regional conditions and
needs. Community awareness and involvement is the most likely way in which improvements will occur. The
trend appears to be increasingly toward programs that support this approach.
25
-------
Course Two: How Can We Best Use TRI to Prevent Pollution?
Session B - What Data Tools are Needed to Improve TRI Use?
Session Leader
Loren Hall, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Speakers
Mike Shank, West Virginia Department of Environmental Protection
Ken Leiserson, Environmental Defense Fund
Michael Shank, WVDepartment of Environmental Protection
Working under the premise that an informed citizenry is fundamental to safeguarding the environment, the West
Virginia Division of Environmental Protection (WVDEP) initiated its public empowerment program. This
program is designed to make WVDEP's information resources available to the public by capitalizing on the
exploding popularity of the Internet. Through this initiative, citizens from home, work, or the public library
can find out about toxic chemical releases near where they live. WVDEP has developed a set of user interfaces
that work with popular Internet browser programs from Netscape and Microsoft. Two of the interfaces, one
using CGI and a second using Java, provide interactive mapping and query capability. This allows users to
pan and zoom to areas of interest within the state, then query particular facilities, or groups of facilities, for
release information. The resulting data tables contain total releases by chemical, and include imbedded links
to Material Data Safety Sheet (MSDS) information, or public health statements from the Agency for Toxic
Substances and Disease Registry. TRI facilities can be displayed along with Other geographical information
such as roads, streams and wetlands. These interfaces allow individuals and organizations to utilize WVDEP's
significant investment in Geographical Information Systems technology while incurring minimal cost.
Ken Leiserson, Environmental Defense Fund
Environmental Defense Fund Scorecard Project
The Scorecard Project will create an Internet-accessible database that will provide the public with currently
unavailable information about the environmental health impact of toxic chemicals. The Scorecard Project is
initially focusing on providing information about the human health impacts of toxic chemicals: which chemicals
are known bad actors, how toxic they are, whether there are outstanding data gaps that prevent us from
characterizing human exposures or health risks, which groups are exposed to different pollutants, whether
problem toxins are subject to any regulatory control, etc. The project is designed to supplement the raw
environmental data currently being made available by other organizations (such as EPA TRI reports of how
many pounds of a chemical are released in a community) with the information needed to characterize the public
health impact of pollution. By interpreting the extensive amounts of complex environmental data into terms
understandable by the general public, the Scorecard Project should help increase the political constituency for
environmental protection. It will also strengthen the ability of community-based organizations to build effective
campaigns using raw data currently being provided as a result of state and federal "right-to-know" programs.
26
-------
Coone Two; How Can We Best UK TRI to Prevent Pollution?
The Scorecard Project is being developed in phases, following a software development model.
Version 1.0 of the Scorecard database will debut in late Fall 1997 and provide the following:
• Health impacts interpretation of 1995 TRI toxic releases (sorting releases by endpoints,
ranking releases using equivalency factors that take into account toxicity and exposure
potential.
• Map-based interface to TRI data as navigational tool for users to obtain profiles of toxins in
their neighborhood.
• Chemical ranking system (prioritizing chemicals by their ability to impact human health or
the environment) and chemical group profiles (based on known and suspected health
endpoints, regulatory coverage, and types of environmental hazard).
• Action tools linking EDF Action Network email/fax attack system to relevant targets (TRI
firms, possibly local press and regulatory agencies).
27
-------
Course Two; How Can We Best Use TRI to Prevent Pollution?
Session C - How Can We Use TRI to Protect Children's Health?
Session Leader
Phil Landrigan, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Speakers
Sandra Schubert, Children's Health Environmental Coalition
Rick Bird, Bowdoin Street Health Center
Charles Lee, United Church of Christ, Commission for Racial Justice
Phil Landrigan, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Session Abstract
This panel will consist of experts assembled to discuss how existing data from TRI can be used to protect
children's health through understanding the TRI data and how it relates back to exposure to toxicants,
pollutants, and other environmental hazards that cause adverse health effects in children. This panel will
discuss recommendations on the prevention of exposure to these environmental hazards. Accessible and
understandable outreach activities on the dissemination of this information to the community will also be
discussed. This information must be placed into the hands of relevant persons who are directly involved with
children on a daily basis such as parents, teachers, daycare workers, religious leaders, and pediatric health care
professionals.
Sandra Schubert, Children's Health Environmental Coalition
CHEC Speaks Out on the Toxic Release Inventory
The Problem
Today's children inhabit a fundamentally different world from the one their parents experienced in childhood.
Since 1950 at least 70,000 new chemical compounds have been released into the environment through
consumer and industrial products and food. A growing body of evidence indicates that children are at greater
risk of exposure to toxic substances than adults are. This is due to children's: 1) unique behaviors that increase
exposures to pollutants (e.g., crawling, mouthing); 2) developing biological systems which are generally more
susceptible to injury from exposures than the more fully developed systems of adults; and 3) younger age,
which means that they have longer to develop chronic and delayed effects.
Furthermore, a new pattern of childhood illnesses is emerging. The predominant diseases of children have
shifted from simple infections to complex, handicapping conditions of multiple origins. The statistics are
alarming. Childhood cancer has risen 10.8 percent hi the past decade (Miller, 1993), and is second only to
trauma as a cause of death (Bleyer, 1990; American Cancer Society, 1996). Childhood asthma and asthma
deaths have doubled in the past twenty years (American Lung Association and Centers for Disease Control and
Prevention, EPA News Release, 1996). There has also been an increase hi children's learning disabilities,
attention deficit and other behavioral disorders (Needleman and Landrigan, 1996). Environmental factors are
believed to contribute to these worsening trends in children's health and to account for 80-90 percent of all
cancers (Needleman and Landrigan, 1994; Wargo, 1996).
Clearly, we have a serious problem here. Kids are truly at risk and their risk is increasing.
28
-------
Course Two: How Can We Best Use TRI to Prevent Pollution?
Something Needs To Be Done
All of us here are dedicated to preserving and improving upon the public's RTK. The goal for many of us is
guaranteeing people true freedom of choice and fashioning a society that is safer and less toxic for our children.
We are here asking ourselves how we can do this—how we can improve existing mechanisms and information
so that our choices are fully informed and meaningful. When you know what, where and when you are exposed,
the possible adverse effects, how substances migrate and travel, only then can you make the free and fully
informed decisions that we are guaranteed in a democratic society. To say that we have freedom of choice is
meaningless unless we have the necessary information to make those choices in a fully informed manner-
information that must reach us in a form that we can understand and that responds to our needs. We can then
voice these decision through our purchases of products, choices of living and working environments, and choice
of representatives. For instance, if you know that the school in the neighborhood in which you're looking to
buy a house is located near highly toxic discharges, but the school in another neighborhood is not, that will
affect your choice of where to move.
It is CHEC's belief that a fully informed public will demand greater protections for their children and our
future. Change is not going to come from the top down or from activists. Rather, it is the average parent or
caregiver that will chart the course of change and demand that our children are guaranteed the safe and non-
toxic environment that they have a right to. Communication is the key, both guaranteeing the public access to
information and presenting the information in user-friendly formats for the average lay person. We cannot
stress this enough. CHEC is dedicated to finding ways in which we can make this happen.
Improving TRI
The data we get from the Toxic Release Inventory (TRI) is one of the most powerful tools that we have. The
success of the program is unquestionable. Releases of reported substances have dropped significantly. Industry
has developed better contaminant and production methods so as to limit their releases. While some of this is
undeniably due to internal concerns of efficiency, the impact of actual or perceived public sentiment cannot be
ignored. The TRI has been successful. We need to build on this phenomenal beginning. The key to this is
communication. Policy and improved dissemination of information are the keys to better communication.
Policy
Despite children's heightened vulnerability to environmental toxins, there is still no national policy that
guarantees us the right to know what toxins our children are exposed to or that mandates that children be
safeguarded from hazardous exposures. There are two necessary expansions of TRI changes that are the
minimum TRI policy changes which we should undertake. These and other changes are present in legislation
introduced in both the House and Senate, The Children's Environmental Protection and Right-To-JKnow Act
of 1997, H.R. 1636, S. 769.
Due to the current threshold reporting requirements of ten thousand pounds, many chemicals that are highly
toxic to children in extremely low doses (e.g., bio-accumulators, reproductive toxins and endocrine disrupters
such as lead, dioxin, PCBs, etc.) do not need to be reported on. We need to modify existing requirements to
include reporting on these types of chemicals—chemicals that pose a threat to our children's health in minute
amounts.
Second, we need to expand the types of facilities required to be reported on. While EPA used its rule-making
authority to do this, we need to ensure that this does not change. Legislation should reaffirm this expansion.
29
-------
Course Two: How Can We Best Use TRI to Prevent Pollution?
TRI should also be expanded to cover all facilities with releases similar in toxicity and volume to releases from
facilities already covered by TRI.
Policy must be put into place that guarantees us the right to know what, where and when our children are
exposed to toxins. Policy must be put into place that protects our children from the threats of environmental
toxins. We all recognize that it is unlikely that we can remove all environmental threats from our children's
lives. Yet, at the least, we have the right to know about and understand their exposures and to make the risk
calculations and choices on our own. They are our children; it is our responsibility to protect them.
Dissemination of Information
CHEC believes that the most important thing that can be done to increase the effectiveness of TRI and all RTK
efforts is to provide the public with accessible and understandable information, "user-friendly" material. While
there is a wealth of TRI information out there, little of it is in a form that the average parent or caregiver, the
average lay person, can easily access and understand, although it is they who can most effectively protect
children's environmental health. So it is our duty as public advocates, representatives and organizers to do this.
This means tailoring our efforts — designing our publications and web sites and doing targeted outreach —
to the different constituencies that we are trying to reach.
Some of the ways in which we can make the data available in TRI more meaningful are:
1. When possible, provide trade names as well as the chemical name of a substance. For the average
person, the trade name is much more meaningful than the chemical name.
2. Provide people with information inlay terms on the toxicity of these substances. CHEC and the
Southern California Environmental Health Sciences Center have developed an internship where
students will do exactly this — translate scientific articles and information into lay terms.
3. Provide information on the risks that these substances pose. This requires that we improve our risk
communication. We must place the risks in a context that the average person understands. We must
also explain the difference between different types of risk. For instance, some risks are voluntary,
some are not, some risks can be avoided some cannot.
4. Provide people with information on what products these substances are used in. While I cannot stop
the industry a couple of miles away from releasing toxins into the environment, I can stop buying
products that these substances are in.
5. Provide alternatives to these products and substances. We cannot merely tell Mom that her favorite
household cleaner contains a toxin that's being released near her kid's school and that is extremely
harmful for children. We must tell her what her alternatives are and their effectiveness.
CHEC's Efforts
CHEC's is working hard to provide this type of information. Two of CHEC's efforts to reach out to the
average lay person, to the parent at home or the nursery school teacher, are its publications and web site.
Publications
First, we have The CHEC Report, a newsletter designed for the lay person, for parents and caregivers. The
CHEC Report includes short, concise, easy to read articles on children's environmental health. It presents
30
-------
Coarse Two: How Can We Best Use TRI to Prevent Pollution?
policy, health risks and alternatives in lay person's language. People are given scientific information on what
the risks are, and told what they can do to avoid these risks and where they can get additional information. We
must disseminate TRI information in similar lay formats and wording.
The CHECNet—www.checnet.org
Our web site, which we are still developing and adding to, includes information on science, policy, alternatives,
and resources. It provides easy and immediate access to a wide variety of experts on these topics and to public
representatives working on children's environmental health issues. When finished, CHECNet will be the one-
stoop cyber library for children's environmental health issues. In it we have tried to present information in a
way that reaches parents and care givers at different levels; we have layered information. One can get general
summaries of articles and legislation written for the lay person or the full text.
We are also evaluating the information and communications needs of different audience groups, the design of
a variety of information products for those different audiences, and the harnessing of a variety of interactive
technologies to deliver information to targeted groups and to facilitate their active participation n network
activities. For example, we will put into place an electronic grassroots alert network integrating contact
information form the member databases of coalition members and planning new types of electronic publications
and meetings to engage different constituencies.
We are also working with ATSDE on developing a "Toxic Hot Spots" page. While we are in the infant stages
of development, we see this as a powerful way of using TRI and other data to empower individuals. This page
will integrate information from a variety of sources — TRI, Superfund sites and Resource Conservation and
Recovery Act (RCRA). Individuals will get into the page through a map, not through a database. From here
they will be able to look at information for the nation as a whole, a particular state, a city or a zip code. There
ill also be different types of information available. One can just get a listing an map of toxic releases in the
area, or, if one wants additional information, they will be able to get a listing of the chemicals being released.
Then, they can access information on the toxicity and risk of the chemicals, both lay summaries and additional
resources. They will also be able to get information on what products these substances are in, alternatives for
these products and what they can do.
Through these types of activities, we empower people to make their own choices about the risks they do and
do not want to expose their children to.
Conclusion
What we need is to put in place policy that guarantees the right to know where, when, and to what toxins our
children are exposed. This will strengthen the current system of TRI and RTK efforts. Then we must take this
information and put it into formats that are easily accessible and understandable and get it out there to the
public. We must disseminate in new and innovative ways. In this way we will ensure: 1) children's rights to
a safe and non-toxic environment by reducing their exposures to environmental toxins, and 2) that parents and
other caregjvers have sufficient, understandable information to make fully informed decisions on a daily basis.
To do this, we must work together and communicate. We must remember that the advances that we will
continue to make are due to the collaboration of many different groups. We are at a historic time for children's
environmental health. For the first time, children's environmental issues are at the forefront of American policy.
A real synergy is afoot, from the White House to the EPA under Browner, NIEHS, Centers for Disease
Control, ATSDR, to organizations of all different sizes, shapes and flavors, to the individuals in the trenches,
31
-------
Course Two: How Can We Best Use TRI to Prevent Foliation?
and business and industry—all have begun to focus on this issue, demanding that we protect our children from
the threat of environmental toxins. The time is now.
Our children are counting on us. We must not let them down.
References
American Cancer Society, Cancer Facts & Figures, 1996.
Bleyer, W. Archie, "The Impact of Childhood Cancer on the United States and the World," A Cancer
Journal for Clinicians 40(6), Nov/Dec 1990.
Browner, Carol, Environmental Health Threats to Children, Environmental Protection Agency, September
1996.
The Children's Environmental Protection Act of 1997, S. 599, H.R.2451.
The Children's Environmental Protection and Right-to-Know Act of1997, H.R. 1636, S. 769.
EPA News Release, September 11,1996.
Executive Order 12606, April 21, 1997.
Miller, B.A. et al. (eds.) SEER Cancer Statistics Review: 1973-1990, National Cancer Institute, Table
XXVH-1, Nffl pub. no. 93-2789,1993.
Natural Resources Defense Council, Handle -with Care: Children and Carcinogens, October 1994.
National Academy of Sciences, National Research Council, Pesticides in the Diets of Infants and
Children, 1993.
Needleman, H.L. and Landrigan, P J., Raising Children Toxic Free, Farrar, Straus and Giroux, New
York, 1994.
Wargo, John, Our Children's Toxic Legacy, Yale University Press, 1996.
32
-------
Course Two; How Can We Best Use TR1 to Prevent Pollution?
Richard C. Bird, Jr., MD, MPH, Bowdoin Street Health Center
The Role TRI Can Play in Preventing Risk to Children's Health
The Importance of TRI and RTK in Protecting Health
A First Step Only
OUTLINE:
I. Background on:
RTK (The Worker Right to Know) and TRI (Tories Release Inventory), a component of both
SARA (Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act) & The Massachusetts TURA (Tories
Use Reduction Act)
a. RTK: was a state- by- state and later national effort in the late 1970's and early 1980's to require
workplaces to list, in accessible locations, the dangerous chemicals that are present in the workplace
and information known about the hazards associated with these chemicals (MSDS's, material safety
data sheets)
b. National TRI: was born out of a coalition of environmental groups lobbying to improve the Superfund
Law, featuring the importance of the New Jersey Right to Know and work by people such as Dave
Siroken of Inform.
c. The Massachusetts TURA: was developed from 1984-1986 when nationwide we were faced with
industry initiatives to expand hazardous waste treatment (incinerators in the northeast). California had
started the first ban on land disposal of hazardous waste. In Massachusetts, under the Source
Reduction Program, we moved beyond technical assistance and land bans to integrate prevention
within the environmental management system, establishing the first comprehensive pollution prevention
program in a state as follows:
1. Consolidated Reporting Requirements (TRD:
2. Required Industry TUR Plans but of voluntary choosing for each process (with prevention defined
as changes to reduce pollution before hazardous releases from a process);
3. A Multi- Media Enforcement Task Force (based on the California concept but also promoting TUR
to meet environmental regulations);
4. Agency Research (analyzing and acting on the information in the reporting requirements);
5. A University Based Technical Assistance and Engineer Training Program (Choosing the Univ. of
Lowell - directed ever since then by Ken Geiser);
6. A Tax on Inputs or Feedstock Chemicals (Later Changed to a Waste end tax when legislated). This
became the Toxics Use Reduction Act of 1989 (or TURA). We successfully incorporated TRI into
SARA as a first step towards A National Toxics Use Reduction Act, but, subsequently, despite the
efforts of people like Joel Hirschorn and Kirsten Oldenberg of the Congressional OTA (Office of
Technology Assessment), National TUR was stopped by Industry, fiercely preferring total
independence as opposed to systematic participation in a preventive environmental management
program.
EL So We Are Left W/ TRI & Information Only, Still as a First Step
A. What Can Be Done with TRI Information ?:
1. Is the Bulk of the burden on the Surrounding Communities to protect themselves?
2. How is the information Translated into effective information that prevents disease and protects
33
-------
Course Two; How Can We Best Use TRI to Prevent Pollution?
health? The intended mission of our environmental agencies, and
3. In a way which supports Industry / Society improvements both in terms of Environmental and
Economic Viability.
4. From The Community Group's Perspective: (based on work by John O'Connor of the former
National Toxics Campaign) TRI should include The Right to Know. The Right to Inspect, and
The Right to Negotiate: more recently adding The Right to Understand (through the help of
technical assistance grants)
5. But, we have vast and widespread industrial hot spots, which, in too many cases, are surrounded
by communities that do not have adequate protection or health care.
6. Environmental Groups are few and far between, they struggle to survive, and they can not
adequately protect community health alone.
B. How Effective is the Worker RTK - As Information Only?
1. This information is critical when a worker comes with an illness potentially related to their job
(whether to a Health Provider, Industrial Hygjenist or Health and Safety Union Representative).
2. It is required that the company, regardless of size, list the chemicals used and provide access to
MSDS (Material Safety Data Sheets). Construction jobs are still exempt.
3. But, the vast majority of workers are afraid to ask for the information or to report to a supervisor
that they think they have an illness related to the chemicals that they have worked with.
4. Even if they do seek help, most doctors know very little about chemical hazardsV and those who
do must fight to find the access, time and resources to support workplace evaluations, not to
mention treating the sick worker and keeping workers from losing their job. (Dr. David Keara
recently lost his program reporting on interstitiel lung disease in synthetic fiber manufacturers in
RI; The closing of his program was supported by Brown University.)
5. So information is not enough - we must have active programs to improve workplace conditions
and worker's health.
6. The following examples remind us that workplace health and safety practices also impact children:
• A 16 year old boy was having trouble with school and wanted to know why he was not doing
as well as his Siblings had done. A work history revealed he had worked four years directly
loading PCE into dry cleaners and removing wet clothing.
• A case of Obstructive Hepatitis was reported in the literature that clearly developed in a six
week old infant when a nursing mother was visiting the father's workplace for lunch only (she
would feel dizzy after 30 minutes). The father, it turned out, was working with PCE in a
leather cleaning factory and was suffering from personality change, dizziness, and confusion.
PCE was measured at increased levels during lunchtime visits in the mother's milk; fortunately
the obstructive hepatitis condition reversed in the newborn when exposures stopped.
• In our community Worker's Health Clinic, an exterminator was sick from using his bare hand
to mix pesticides in a spray tank; He was also spraying homes in subsidized housing units,
where children live, and was cleaning out the tanks in the bath tubs.
C. There are Many Similarities Between: Workers In More Hazardous Jobs and
Communities Living Near More Hazardous Industries
2. Workplaces are both large and small.
3. TRI pertains only to large - large enough to manufacture, process or otherwise use ("use"
34
-------
Course Two: How Can We Best Use TRI to Prevent Pollution?
refers, for instance, to clean up solvents for which the reporting threshold is 10,000 # / year).
For individual chemicals the reporting threshold is 25,000 # / year.
4. For the large firms, the value of this information is that they tell the companies themselves,
the surrounding community, and the agencies which and how much of the major hazardous
chemicals are being released into the air and water, and which are being used in the process
to put into a product or as hazardous waste.
5. The obvious exclusion is small firms and smaller amounts of hazardous chemicals.
6. nnmnminity examples of very small and hazardous shops include dry cleaners, exterminators,
nail salons, furniture manufacturers and auto body shops.
D. Substantial Benefits To The Current TRI Information
1. The information provides the surrounding and national community, including health
providers and health departments as well as other regulatory agencies, the chance to
analyze, investigate and develop improvement strategies around
a) the largest industrial emitters and producers, and,
b) the chemicals released and used in the largest quantities that often have a greater
chance to impact health and the environment.
2. Beneficial Strategies using TRI Information include:
a) Responding to immediate health protection, exposure assessment, epidemiology, and
clinical health care needs.
b) Working with industry to encourage implementation of Toxics Use Reduction Process
Changes and unproved pollution controls
c) Identifying the sources more widespread and global concerns with strategies to
diminish threats to short and long term health: e.g, global warming, pesticides in food
supplies, releases from tank farms, pesticide manufacturing, refineries, battery
manufacturing.
HL Case Examples of Endangered Communities & The Role of TRI
A. Alcolac - Acrylic Monomer Manufacturing, Sedalia, Missouri
1. Produced > 25,000,000 # /year from 1978 -1991 when closed down.
7. Now owned by Rhone Pollenc
3. The area is rural with 125 homes within one quarter to one half mile, surrounded by active
farmland including crops, livestock and milk production.
4. The Community Population was 20,000 beginning at one half mile and the most dense after
one mile.
5. The plant had huge reactor vessels, leaking valves, large transport and storage activities and
a poorly operating incinerator.
6. Acrylic monomer easily polymerizes in an explosive fashion if not handled very carefully.
7. The Feedstock chemicals include many known carcinogens (e.g., epichlorhydrin), reproductive
toxins (acrylic acid, and others), neurotoxins (n-hexane, di-methyl sulfate & others), and both
upper & lower respiratory tract irritants (sulfuric acid mist, maleic anhydride).
8. Reactor vessel explosions occurred with evacuations approximately 5 times, and with major
release events approximately 15 times over 13 years.
35
-------
Course Two: How Can We Best Use TRI to Prevent Pollution?
9. Community members described, for instance, muffled explosions, plumes of dark then white
mist like clouds.
10. After one major release in June 1990: 429 people were interviewed in a community survey:
a) Over half had headaches, burning mucosa, (in the eyes, nose, throat), and coughing.
b) Approximately one quarter had significant difficulty breathing, a rash, irritability and
insomnia, nausea, vomiting and diarrhea.
c) Many saw dead animals, had sick or dead pets, discolored crops or gardens.
d) Some Elderly were forced to the hospital with chest pain and shortness of breath.
e) Many children had uncontrolled allergies, running noses, nose bleeds, new asthma, and
frequent colds.
11. The psychological hardship has impacted the great majority.
12. TRI and other regulatory intervention were lacking.
13. The community was not able to organize to protect itself.
14. The plant was eventually finally shut down for failing to improve manufacturing pollution
safety equipment.
15. How TRI information might have helped the community near Alcolac in Sedaiia,
Missouri; (if the company complied with TRI reporting, if the community had been
stronger, or if the regulatory agencies had been more protective or proactive):
a) Physicians and/or environmentalists could have had access to locate information much the
way MSDS are requested for workers exposed.
b) Agencies could have had greater knowledge about company releases, could have arranged
for exposure assessment, epidemiology, and health care for those impacted, could have
shut the plant down sooner until improvements (including Toxics Use Reduction options)
were implemented.
IV. Case Examples of Endangered Communities & The Role of TRI
A. Ortho / Chevron: Agricultural Product Manufacturing, Refinery & Incinerator, North
Richmond, California
1. The area consisted of three thousand acres in North Richmond next to poor urban housing
projects.
2. Five to seven thousand people living within one quarter to one half mile who had located there
after Chevron.
3. The Perres Elementary school was within fifteen hundred feet.
4. An additional sixty thousand people lived from one half to one and one half miles away.
5. When touring this site in the mid 1980's the air was unbearable with a strong pesticide odor at the
housing project area.
6. A typical day was described as either heavy pesticide like odors and the smell of rotten eggs / or
solvents depending on the wind from the direction of pesticide production or the refinery.
7. Ongoing symptoms/complaints include: skin rashes, irritated eyes, nose, throat and lungs,
breathing difficulties, asthma, and headaches with inability to think or remember.
g. The Perres elementary school Standardized Achievement Scores in this valley had consistent
results in the bottom one percent compared to other elementary schools in California.
9. An informal community survey reported finding a report of cancer in every home and high rates
of asthma
36
-------
Course Two; How Can We Best Use TRI to Prevent Pollution?
10. County cancer rates were reportedly elevated (included the highest leukemia rate in the state with
known high benzene emissions from the site).
B. What did TRI do For the North Richmond Community?
1) Through the leadership of the West County Toxics Coalition and Communities for a
Belter Environment TRI provided important information helping the community to help
themselves in relation to the refinery, but Ortho was not required to report on pesticides
at that time (they now are).
2) The community reported having little to no help from the local air department in charge
of administering the clean air act but they were given access to the TRI information from
the EPA.
3) They waged a cooperative campaign with the company for Toxics Use Reduction or
pollution prevention changes at the refinery since chemical specific information was
available there; this led to a mass balance audit of the water discharges to the S. F. Bay
reducing releases from 50 million gallons /day to 11 million gallons / day,
including chrome releases from 1800 # / yr to 600 by changing from a chrome based to
a biodegradable pipe cleaner.
4) Formal health studies have never been done.
5) The EPA does not have a pollution prevention program specifically for pesticide
formulators or manufacturers but reports that they are working towards this.
6) There was no TRI pesticide production data at that time and the company was not
cooperative with requests to negotiate to decrease pesticidal releases.
7) The Community did learn of the storage of anhydrous ammonia from the TRI which
posed a serious concern in the event of an emergency release since the community so
close.
8) The community therefore waged a campaign against the incinerator which was not fully
licensed and against the anhydrous ammonia.
9) Under community pressure to present an emergency release plan, the company closed its
incinerator and pesticide production plant June 1997.
V. Recommendations: STEPS beyond the current TRI
Expand The Toxics Release Inventory to include the Worker Right to Know information
This will provide surrounding communities with information on
smaller companies & smaller quantities of chemicals being used at a
given facility
Implement A National Toxics Use Reduction Program modeled after the Massachusetts TUR
program
(Discussed Earlier)
Respond to the Health Care Needs of Communities Impacted by Environmental Releases
(well beyond that mandated by Superfund and carried out by ATSDR)
The Examples of Sedalia, Missouri and Richmond, California are glaring proof of the abandonment
that has occurred in many communities nation-wide at industrial hot spots. We must develop a
37
-------
Course Two; How Can We B«st Use TRI to Prevent Pollution?
responsive health care system integrated with environmental, occupational and public health programs
to:
• Perform formal health studies around impacted communities
• Develop medical care plans for those communities including:
Exposure assessment,
Interim protection plans to decrease ongoing exposures,
Clinical care access to providers with experience in hazardous substances,
Psychological assistance, and
Housing, with relocation when needed.
38
-------
Counc Two; How Can W« Best U«c TRI to Prevent Pollution?
Session D - What are the Benefits of Using TRI?
Session Leader
Lisa Doerr, Citizens For a Better Environment
Speakers
Paula Smith, Indiana Office of Pollution Prevention and Technical Assistance
David Olmscheid, Citizens For a Better Environment
William Reiily, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region III
Mohammed Ansari, American Institute of Pollution Prevention
Lisa Doerr, Citizens For a Better Environment
Session Abstract
Session Goal - Provide examples from a range of stakeholders of programs which have utilized the TRI to
promote and implement pollution prevention. Identify benefits and limitations of the data for program
implementation.
Panelists will present a brief overview of the program in which they have used TRI to promote pollution
prevention, including or followed by an analysis of the benefits and limitations of the data for the program.
Paula Smith, Indiana Office of Pollution Prevention and Technical Assistance
Outline of Presentation
Overview/Benefits
- History of TRI in Indiana
- BDEM's Quality Assurance Program for TRI
Phone calls to verify information
Confidential compliance assistance
TRI Compliance Assistance Workshops
How Indiana Uses Section 8 Data
Incorporation of Release Data in Indiana
Analysis of State Trends for Pollution Prevention Measurement Limitations
EPA focus on release information
On-site landfill vs. Off-site landfill
Section 8 data - how it is used nationally
Enforcement
David Olmscheid, Citizens for a Better Environment
Protecting and improving our environment is a shared responsibility - one that requires action on the part of
business, labor, activists, communities, academia, and government. By working together, these interests have
an opportunity to develop solutions that are fair, practical and beneficial to our society and our environment.
Too often these opportunities have been missed due to a job-versus-environment mentality, both in Minnesota
and nation-wide.
39
-------
Course Two; How Can We Best Use TR1 to Prevent Pollution?
Citizens for a Better Environment (CBE) has been working since 1993 to overcome this mentality and work
with labor groups to decrease pollution in Minnesota while preserving jobs and enhancing economic stability.
Through our Good Neighbor program CBE worked to involve workers and union representatives in pollution
prevention dialogues with industry owners and surrounding community members. This program received
Minnesota's Governor's Award for Pollution Prevention in 1996.
William Reilly, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region III
Analytical Review of Source Reduction Activities by SIC as Reported in Section 8. JO of the Form Rfor
EPA Region III for 1993-1995
Yingxia Chen
Debra Foreman, PhD
William Reilly
Analytical Review of Source Reduction Activities by SIC as Reported in Section 8.10 of the Form R for EPA
Region m for 1993-1995
An analytical review of source reduction activities by standard industrial classification as reported in Section
8.10 of the Form R was conducted for EPA Region H for 1993-1995.
For 1995, the Lumber and Furniture SICs reported the highest source reduction activity level with 2.2 per Form
R. Tobacco SIC reported the lowest source reduction activity level with 1.0 per Form R.
Good operating practice was the most reported source reduction activity at 29%, process modification was
second at 22% and spill & leak prevention was third at 15%. Petroleum and Fabricated Metal SICs reported
good operating practice most frequently while Electronic & Electrical and Paper SICs reported process
modification most frequently.
Participative Team Management was the most frequently reported method to identify source reduction activities
at 30% with Internal P2 Audits second at 21%. Federal Government Technical Assistance was last at .02%.
Questions were also asked at TRI Workshops held in Region DDE during the Spring of 1997 for reporting year
1996 regarding reasons for waste reduction activities. Cost reduction was listed 98% of the time - with scrap
reduction 84%, pollution prevention 82%, workplace improvement 80% and rework reduction 64% following.
Factors considered in the analysis of waste reduction activities were: materials (listed by 86% of the
respondents), waste disposal (80%), labor (79%), equipment (70%), regulatory compliance (59%), process
efficiency (52%), material storage (50%), employee compensation insurance (29%), insurance (27%) and
heating air & conditioning (20%).
For a complete copy of this report, please contact Bill Reilly.
40
-------
Course Three; Success Stories of TRI Use
Session A - How Has Industry Applied TRI Data?
Session Leader
Robert Kallsh, The Dow Chemical Company
Speakers
Richard M. Strong PhJX, P.E., Eastman Chemical Company
Robert Lockemer, Rhone-Poulenc Company
John Pine, EdJ)., Research Institute for Environmental Studies, Louisiana State University
Edwin L. Mongan m, P.E., DuPont Company
Robert Kalish, The Dow Chemical Company
Session Abstract
The TRI requires a considerable amount of resources from manufacturers every year to compile their data for-
releases to the environment and for wastes that are generated. The main objective of this program, of course,
is for community awareness, but how useful is all this information to the manufacturers themselves? In this
session, representatives of three companies and a member of academia will discuss how the TRI data can be
helpful.
Richard M. Strong PhJ)., P.E., Eastman Chemical Company
Tennessee 2000 Initiative Pollution Prevention Outreach Efforts
Summary
In 1996, the Tennessee 2000 Initiative completed a hazard ranking of air pollutants in Tennessee. Both TRI
and Criteria Pollutants were included in the analysis. The ranking was based on reported emissions, which were
weighted by Threshold Limit Values (TLVs) to yield a "relative potential toxicity." Based on these results, the
Initiative is now engaged in an educational outreach effort to encourage both industry and the public to reduce
emissions with a focus on reducing relative toxicity rather than pounds.
The 2000 Initiative
The Tennessee 2000 Initiative is a partnership between educational institutions, environmental interest groups,
government and industry. Members share the common goal of improving the quality of Tennessee's
environment. They believe that the most meaningful improvements are made with the knowledge gained from
careful study of the problems. To this end, the Initiative performed a study of air pollutants in Tennessee.
The Air Pollutant Study
The study, published in June of 1996, found that air pollutants are emitted from cars, power plants,
industries, government and commercial institutions and from our homes. Air pollution is an unwanted by-
41
-------
Coarse Three: Success Stories of TRI Use
product of our lifestyle. We can all do things to improve air quality, but we need to recognize that pollutants
vary as to their potential to affect human health. Recognition of this reality can help us target our efforts
where we can achieve the greatest benefits.
The study included data on industrial air pollutants, which are published annually by the U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency (EPA) in the Toxics Release Inventory (TRI). Also included were data on carbon monoxide,
nitrogen oxides, participates (referred to as particulate matter less than 10 micrometers in diameter or PM10)
and sulfur dioxide. These air pollutants are called "criteria pollutants" and are related to fuel combustion from
sources like cars, power plants and industrial boilers. These data are also published annually in another EPA
document called National Air Pollutant Emission Trends. EPA has proposed adding some of the criteria
pollutants to the TRI.
Interpretation Problem
The principal problem with the traditional interpretation of these reports is that the pounds of air pollutants
emitted are equated with toxicity, pollution (damage), and concern. Rankings are published showing the "most
toxic" facilities and the "most toxic" states based solely on the number of pounds emitted. Because of this,
efforts to reduce emissions have been misdirected toward pound reduction rather than toward toxicity reduction.
In reality, the pollutants on these databases differ greatly in their toxicity. Some of the pounds reported are for
highly toxic substances and some are not.
To illustrate how this interpretation issue can be addressed, the 2000 Initiative adopted a ranking technique first
developed by Vanderbilt Professor Edward Thackston and used by the Tennessee Conservation League in a
report issued in April 1992. Workplace health criteria established by the American Conference of
Governmental Industrial Hygienists and referred to as Threshold Limit Values (TLV) were selected as a
common toxicity measure. A low TLV is indicative of a highly toxic substance while a high TLV indicates a
less toxic substance.
A common relative toxicity score was calculated for each pollutant emission studied by simply dividing the
pounds of the pollutant which were emitted by the pollutant's TLV. The resulting number was called the
"Relative Potential Toxicity" or RPT. The RPTs can then be used to compare emissions, which differ in both
their toxicity and in the number of pounds being emitted. The magnitude of the calculated RPTs tend to
increase with increasing pounds of emission and with lower (more toxic) TLVs.
This ranking technique is a valuable tool for comparing emissions and incorporating the notion of toxicity into
the analysis, but it is not a risk assessment. The results of this study do not include any information on actual
exposures and cannot be used to draw conclusions about health risks.
The 2000 Initiative study included data for 1993 on over two hundred industrial air pollutants (TRI) and four
air pollutants (criteria pollutants) which are associated with combustion sources such as cars and power plants.
Major findings of the report include:
The top four air pollutants based on both pounds emitted and "Relative Potential Toxicity" are the criteria
pollutants (carbon monoxide, nitrogen oxides, particulates and sulfur dioxide) which are associated with
combustion sources. Together, these pollutants represent 99% of the statewide "Relative Potential Toxicity"
42
-------
Coarse Three: Si
StorlM of TRIUie
for the pollutants considered in this study. Their position at the top ofboth rankings is due to die comparatively
large quantities that are emitted and their relatively high toxiciries (low TLVs).
Pollutants reported by industry in the TRI represent 1% of the statewide "Relative Potential Toricrty." While
some TRI pollutants are highly toxic, the TRI air pollutants emitted in the largest quantities are generally less
toxic (higher TLVs) man the criteria pollutants. When the air pollutants are re-ranked according to "Relative
Potential Toxicity," most of the large quantity industrial emissions drop out of the top of the list and are
replaced by smaller emissions of substances having higher toxicities (lower TLVs).
Based on these findings, the 2000 Initiative recommends that the TRI be expanded to include the criteria
pollutants and all sources of these emissions and that the TRI incorporate more information on relative
pollutant toxicities. The Initiative is engaged in an outreach effort with the public and industry in Tennessee
to promote emission reduction strategies that focus on relative toxicity. This outreach effort includes press
releases and interviews with die news media and regional pollution prevention seminars. A complete copy of
the Tennessee 2000 report may be obtained from the Internet at hrtp://rurmelweb.utcc.utk.edu/~cis/ by clicking
on "Forms and Publications" after loading the available Adobe Acrobat Reader.
• A • A •
tiative
Industry Outreach
P2EA (615) 532-8005
UTCIS (615) 532-8883
43
-------
Course Threw Sacccs* Stories of TRI Use
A Partnership
+ Industry
4> Environmental Advocacy Groups
4- Educational Institutions
State Government
H(SB)RSrtngA11
Industry Members
Arcadian Fertilizer
Baxter Healthcare
DuPont Corporation
Eastman
Inland Container
Lenzing Fibers
Nissan Mortor Corp.
Quebecor Printing Corp.
Saturn Corp.
TVA
Viskase Corp.
Wheland Foundary
Zeneca Inc.
44
-------
Course Three: Sncccs* Stories of TRI Use
Advocacy Group Members
+ American Association of Retired Persons
+ American Lung Association
+ BURNT (bring urban recycling to Nashville today)
4 Environmental Action Fund
+ Kids for a Clean Environment
+ Oak Ridge Local Oversight Committee
+ Nature Conservancy
+ Sierra Club
H (98) R String A13
Advocacy Group Members
Tennessee Association of Business
Tennessee Conservation League
Tennessee Environmental Council
Tennessee Environmental Education Association
Tennessee Farm Bureau Federation
H(5B)RSInngA14
45
-------
Coin* ThniK SMCCSS Stories of TRI Use
Academic & Government Members
+ Fisk University
4- Tennessee
Technological
University
4- University of
Tennessee
4- Vanderbilt University
4 Tennessee Department
of Education
4 Tennessee Department
of Environment and
Conservation
H (SB) R String A15
2000 Initiative Vision
4 cooperation and communication with knowledge
and understanding leading to shared goals
4 credible, respected source of factual information ....
on issues, risks, priorities and solutions
+ working together to make meaningful environmental
improvements
46
-------
Coin* Three: Saccen Stories of TRI Use
The 2000 Initiative Study of Air
Pollutants in Tennessee
June 4,1996
H(SB)RSkingAt7
n oi» it,.
Definitions
* Toxics Release Inventory (TRI)
* Criteria Air Pollutants (CAP)
4 Threshold Limit Value (TLV)
H(5B)R3lr»njA18
47
-------
Coirw Tbm: SKCCH Stories of TRI UM
Study Recommendations
+ EPA should provide more information on air
pollution by expanding the TRI to include the Criteria
Air Pollutants and their sources
4- EPA should add information on pollutant toxicity to
the TRI so that different emissions can be compared
and priorities set for making improvements
H (SB) R SMng A20
Percent of Total Emission
H|S8)RStrangA21
Pollutant
Carbon monoxide
Sulfur Dioxide
Particulate PM10
Nitrogen Oxides
TRI Emission
PM 10
14%
Ibs Released
4,402,790,760
2,060,126,600
1,254,106,140
1,187,639,080
116,734,579
48
% total
48.8%
22.8%
13.9%
13.2%
1.3%
-------
Coarse Three: Sacres* Stories of TRI Us*
Sources of Pollutants
H(S8)RStnngAZ2
Rasidentla
6% Area
9%
source
Mobile
Utilities
Industrial
Area
Residential
Gov/Comm
Ibs released
4,446,913,700
2,243,508,540
965,904,619
783,865,600
554,677,460
26,527,540
MobiU
49%
Utilities
25%
% total
49.3%
24.9%
11.0% (includes TRI)
8.7%
6.2%
0.3%
Pounds * Toxicity
H(5B)RStangA23
49
-------
Comn» Thnt: SMHH Storta of TRI UM
Relative Potential Toxicity
Example: RPT = Ibs emission / TLV
Pollutant EmissionTPPY TLVT mg/m3 RPT
Mn 100,000 0.2 500,000
Ch3OH 10,000,000 262.0 38,000
H(Sa)RSMngA24
Pollutant TLVs
Pollutant " TLV
acetone 1780
toluene 188
methanol 262
Mn 0.2
CS2 31.0
Methylene 0.05 1
bisphenylisocyanate
H(9B)ftSMngA29
Pollutant TLV
S02 5.2
NOx 5.6
CO 29.0
1p9p|:
*^nr-^
50
-------
CoimTfent:
Storia of TRI UM
Pollutants as a Percent ofRPT
PM 10
Pollutant RPT Value
Particulate (PM10) 418,035,380
SO2 396,178,192
NOx 212,078,407
CO 151,820,371
TRI 8,160,456
% total
35.2
33.4
17.9
12.8
0.7
H (SB) ft String A28
Sources as a Percent of RPT
Utilities
37%
Residential
3%
Area
20%
Source
Utilities
Mobile
Area
Industrial
Residential
Gov/Comm
RPT Value
430,363,630
343,126,436
237,258,447
129,896,244
41,206,651
4,331,400
MobiU
29%
% total
36.3
28.9
20.0
ll.O
3.5
0.4
51
-------
Coin* Thru; SBCCTU Storto of TRI Vs»
Current Drivers
Criteria Pollutants - Command and control regulatory
program based on achieving National Ambient Air
Quality Standards
4- TRI Pollutants - Voluntary reductions, Future
Command and Control of HAPs under CAA Future
command and control of TRI?
H (SB) R Smng A2S
2000 Initiative
Moving Toward Our Shared Vision
Corporate Challenge
Success Stories
H(M)ftStnngA29
52
-------
Conn* Three: Success Stories of TRI Use
Voluntary Improvements
Use the RPT technique to rank your emissions
Verify reported emissions, invest in monitoring
Evaluate potential for exposure
Target reduction opportunities
Let us know about your "Success Stories"
M'!B)RSnngA30
Robert Lockemer, Rhone-Poulenc Company
Complying with TRI; The Rhone-Paidenc Experience
Complying with TRI
The Rhone-Poulenc
Experience
53
RCLocfcamar
August 1097
-------
COWM Tbnt: SMCIH Stnrtai of TRI Ui«
Rhone-Poulenc at a Glance
6th largest chemical company In the world.
- 55 manufacturing sites in U.S.
- 6,000 employees in U.S.
We make:
- Pharmaceuticals
- Basic and specialty chemicals
- Plant and animal health products
A global company
RC LodtoiTNN*
August 1997
TRI and the
5 Stages of Industry Evolution
• Surprise
• Fear
• Relief
• Refinement and Embarrassment
• Commitment
Even Neanderthals can evolve.
54
RC Lodunwr
August 1897
-------
Coin* Threat Siccca Stories of TRI Us*
Surprise
Historically, we focused on point sources.
Often, the numbers had never been added
up.
- For different production units.
- For different manufacturing plants.
"The number is how big?!!!
RCLodcemer
August 1997
(ft*
Fear
Of public reaction
- Fear
- Anger
- Confusion
Of media reaction
- Sensationalism and fear mongering
- Misrepresentation
- Confusion
Fear of the unknown.
1 *a\I
55
RCLocfcamer
August 1897
-------
Course Three; Success Stories of TRI Uw
Relief
Our fears were unfounded.
People acted intelligently and rationally.
The media acted responsibly.
It wasn't so bad after all.
CfP OHiONE-POULENC
RC Lockemw
Auguit1997
Refinement and Embarrassment
• Measurements became more accurate.
- Experience
- Comparison of alternate calculations
• Measurements were simplified and
computerized
- Improved consistency
- Reduced time
• Sometimes, large discrepancies were found.
- Overestimates & Underestimates
It's fun to tell your neighbors you goofed.
CtP RHQNE-POULENC
56
RCLocfcemer
August 1997
-------
Coirs* Three: Success Stories of TRI Use
Corninitinent
TRI allows us focus on an issue important to
our neighbors.
TRI is a useful tool for measuring our
progress in reducing pollution.
TRI creates a dialogue between industry and
the community.
TRI is good.
RC Lockemer
August 1897
Rhdne-Poulenc TRI Releases
5,000,000
•Air BWatar BOn-site Land
RCLocfcemar
Au0usl1997
-------
Coene Three: Sicon Stories of TRI Use
Rhdne-Poulenc 33-50 Releases
•Air BWrttr BOiMito Land
3,000.000
1988 1989 1900 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1998
RC Lockemar
August 1997
Toluene Optimization Project
A TRI Success Story
58
RCLodcamar
Augtot19S7
-------
Coarse Three: Seeeea Storiei of TRI Use
Starting Point
1.2 million pounds of toluene released
to the air in 1992.
- From a chemical plant near Charleston,
WV.
- Over half of all TRI releases from Rhone-
Poulenc in the U.S.
Largest release. Significant community interest.
3-Phase Project
RC Locfcamar
August 1907
• 1993: Install better centrifuge seals.
• 1995: Vent header collection and recycle.
• 1996: Process Thermal Oxidizer
Simplest to most complicated.
Lowest cost to highest cost.
59
RCLodnmar
AUQU*M9B7
-------
Coarse Three: Success Stories of TRI Use
Toluene Reduction
Rhone-Poulenc's Institute, WV Plant
1020.7
413.5
1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998
• Thousands of Pounds of Toluene to the Air
-POULENC
RCLocfcemer
AuauaM997
Final Results
Toluene reduction: 1.02 million pounds
Cost: $3.2 million
Savings: $280,000/yr
Good for the environment. Bad investment
60
RCLoctoow
AugiwM997
-------
Conn* Three: Success Stories of TRI Use
TRI Could Be Better
Stabilize the list
- Easier to assess progress
- Less confusing
Limit reporting to releases to the environment.
- Focus on community and environmental impact
- Avoid misuse of data
Focus on the important things.
Auguu 1997
John Pine, Ed.D.. Research Institute for Environmental Studies. Louisiana State University
Louisiana Environmental Leadership Pollution Prevention Program
Sponsors: Louisiana Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ)
Steering Committee Representatives:
• Louisiana Environmental Federation
• Louisiana Chemical Association
• Governor's Environmental Task Force
• Louisiana Association of Business and Industry
• Louisiana Mid-Continent Oil and Gas Association
• Louisiana Technical Assistance Program (University of New Orleans)
• Georgia Pacific
• Citizens for a Clean Environment
U.S. EPA
• Air Products and Chemicals, Inc.
LA DEQ
Purpose: To encourage Louisiana industry to volunteer to go beyond compliance to reduce
hazardous waste and emissions.
Participating Facilities have agreed to the following:
61
-------
CoarM Three; Safrttt Storiet of TRI Uie
• Minimising the impact of hazardous substances on human health and the environment.
• Facilities will have internal environmental management systems to encourage continuous
improvements in their environmental performance.
• Facilities will use the waste management hierarchy (source reduction, recycling, treatment,
and disposal) as guidance for managing environmental issues and for optimizing production
processes, and
• Facilities should be proactive in communicating with their neighbors and the larger community
regarding environmental matters.
To participate in the program, facilities agreed to provide measurable objectives for waste and emission streams
and annual reports on progress towards these objectives. Facilities are encouraged to target those waste streams
which will do the most to reduce risk and enhance the quality of the environment.
The objectives may be modified at any time by the facility and the objectives will not be used by the
Department of Environmental Quality in regulatory matters.
The Program is supported through a grant from U.S. EPA to the Department of Environmental Quality.
Number of Facilities: 56
Overall Reduction 1995 -1996
1. Toxic Release Inventory Substances 60,222,988 IbsVyear
2. Hazardous Waste 1,049,780,843 IbsVyear
3. Non-hazardous Waste 525,850,677 IbsVyear
4. Air Emissions 622,159,205 IbsVyear
5. Wastewater Volume 964,614,167 IbsVyear
Examples of Pollution Prevention Activities
A. Georgia Gulf Corporation Plaquemine, LA
• Piping modifications in a treatment tank fill pipe lead to a reduction of 38,865 pounds of TRI
chemicals (1996).
• Installation of scrubber at the phenol storage facility reduced 9,433 pounds of TRI chemicals
(1996).
• The relocation of a methanol stripper purge line resulted in a recovery of 9,300 galls per year
of methanol previously sent to biological treatment.
B. Marathon Oil GaryvUle, LA
• Processing equipment was installed to neutralize Acid Soluble Oil, an ignitable hazardous
waste stream generated by the refinery's hydrofluoric acid alkylation unit. The new system
converts the former hazardous waste stream into a useful product and a non-hazardous waste
stream.
62
-------
Coine Three: Soccest Stories of TRIUM
• Installation of a thermal desorption unit to dry hazardous oily waste. Recovered over 120,000
barrels of oil.
C. Novartis Crop Protection, Me. St. Gabriel, LA
• Distributed 1300,000 Ibs. per year of over sized, unusable lime raw material for use by local
fanners as a soil pH modifier.
• Distributed over 4,000 tons per year of calcium carbonate to farmers for use as a soil pH
modifier.
• Reduced total solid waste generation (22%) and TRI emissions (69%).
Does this program work? Why?
Wide industry participation-Location of industry in close geographic proximity-Association support-Voluntary
effort-Facilities share prevention strategies-Facility to Facility support-Direct Ongoing Economic Benefits.
For Further Information: Dr. Harry Freeman, University of New Orleans
(504) 280-6072 Fax 280-6305 Email: hmfce@UNO.EDU
Prepared by: John C. Pine Ed.D., Associate Professor-Research Institute for Environmental Studies, Louisiana
State University, (504) 388-1075 Fax: 388^296
Email: jpine@unixl .sncc.lsu.edu
63
-------
Course Three: Success Stories of TRI Use
Session B - How Can TRI be Used to Provide Environmental Impact and
Health Assessments?
Session Leader
Kristin Haldeman, Investor Responsibility Research Center
Speakers
Robert Greenspun, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Bruce Rothrock, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Ingrid Saukaitis, Neuberger & Herman Investment Management
Tracey Woodruff, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Dan Axelrad, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Kristin Haldeman, Investor Responsibility Research Center
Session Abstract
This panel will focus on the use of TRI data in evaluating risk in several different areas. A member of the
investment community will discuss how she uses TRI to evaluate companies for a socially responsible
investment portfolio. Two members of EPA's Office of Policy Planning and Evaluation will discuss how they
have used TRI and other EPA data in a study to examine the relationship between environmental impact and
health assessments. Another EPA representative will discuss the Office of Enforcement's efforts to use TRI
to evaluate certain existing risk models used to help identify enforcement targets.
These panelists have had an opportunity to use the data provided through the Toxic Release Inventory to lend
credence to their assessments. Each will discuss the scope and findings of their projects, how the TRI is used
within that context, the advantages as well as limitations to this data set and a "wish list" of how the data set
might be made even better.
Robert Greenspun, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Bruce Rothrock, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
The outputs of five models that predict relative risk to humans, by chemical and by releaser, from pollutant
releases to the environment, were compared, using TRI releases as input. Rankings by releaser and chemical
were generated and examined in detail, and risk was summarized over releasers, chemicals, release media and
exposure pathways. Some of the input data other than releases that were important in the models - physical
and chemical constants, stream flows, stack heights and toxicity - were also scrutinized, and an attempt was
made to understand the differences in model outputs, especially which of the variables examined seemed the
most important. Significant differences between model results were found for nearly every output variable
studied. This study, which has not yet come to any conclusion on which models might be said to be better or
more suitable than others for ranking risk, or even on whether such ranking in the absence of detailed local data
is possible, is continuing.
64
-------
Course Three: Success Stories of TRI Use
Ingrid Saukaitis, Neuberger & Berman Investment Management
How Can TRI be Used to Provide Environmental Impact & Health Assessments?
Overview ofNeuberger&Berman, LLC
Neuberger & Berman, LLC (N&B) is a money management company based in New
York City. Founded in 1939 the firm is known for its value-oriented approach to equity investing. Neuberger
& Herman's Socially Responsive Investment Group seeks to manage socially responsive portfolios without
compromising long term consistent performance. All companies must pass N&B's financial criteria first. After
a stock is deemed financially
attractive, the company is then screened for the desired social criteria (see hand out for sample of screening
categories).
Use of TRI
Most of N&B's Environmental Screening is based on two basic principals: to seek companies with good
environmental records with demonstrated commitment to change and to avoid companies with egregious
environmental records. The Toxic Release Inventory is used as a starting point for corporate environmental
performance analysis. The information is used as initial gage for how the company compares to its industry
as well as to its own past performance. When using TRI data various influences need to be taken into
consideration including: date and time period of information, industry classification, changes in company due
to mergers & acquisitions, and varying TRI reporting requirements. TRI is most useful for further discussion
with the company. Questions posed to the company may include details of TRI reduction goals to general
information on environmental policy and management systems.
Example Company
Using a company example outlines the initial environmental screening process. Morton International TRI data
from 1992-1994 shows an absolute and normalized decrease in toxic emissions. The data also show an industry
trend towards reduction. A change in industry classification from specialty chemicals to diversified chemicals
clearly impacts the company's relative performance (see hand out- last graph). TRI data serves as a starting
point for analysis. Examining the data without further information may be misleading. How has the company
reduced its TRI? Did the company spin off a highly inefficient facility? Has the company reduced TRI from
the source? Does the company have stated goals for reduction? etc.
Looking Ahead
Increasing industry coverage and new normalization of data based on production will strengthen TRI. For the
investment community, faster turn around of data will improve accuracy of analysis.
Ingrid Saukaitis
Neuberger & Berman, LLC
sri@nb.com
65
-------
Coarse Three: Sicceu Stories of TRI Use
Socially Responsive Investing
& the Use of the Toxic
Release Inventory
Ingrid Saukaitis
Manager, Social Research
Neuberger & Berman, LLC
Neuberger & Berman, LLC
• Established in 1939
• Sole Business Money Management
• $47 Billion under management
• Serving institutions, individuals, mutual
funds
66
-------
Coone Three: Siccett Stories ofTRI Uw
Neuberger & Berman's Socially
Responsive Investment (SRI)Group
To manage socially responsive portfolios
without compromising long term consistent
performance. Doing well and doing good
are not mutually exclusive.
Screening Process
All Securities
Financial Fundamentals Screen
Socially Responsive Screens
Resultant Portfolio
67
-------
Course Three! Success Stories of TRI Use
Screening Categories
• Environment
• Workplace (Diversity)
• Corporate Citizenship (Community)
• Human Rights
• Product
• Public Health (e.g. Tobacco)
• Weapons
Overview of Environmental
Screening Principles
• Seek companies with good environmental
records and demonstrated commitment to
change
• Avoid companies with egregious
environmental records
68
-------
Caane Three; Succest Stories of TRI Use
Starting Point: Toxic Release
Inventory
• Aggregate data (company wide Vs. facility)
• Normalized data(adjusted for sales)
• Trends( company and industry)
• Industry(weighting based on env. impact)
A Closer Look: Toxic Release
Inventory
• Examine date and time period of
information
• Verify industry classification, and TRI
industry coverage
• Consider changes due to mergers &
acquisitions (facilities)
• Consider changes in TRI reporting
requirements
69
-------
Count Three; Sacceti Storto of TR1 UM
Discussion with the Company:
Toxic Release Inventory
• Current status of TRI and contributing
factors
• Reduction Goals
• Environmental Policy and Reporting
• Environmental Management Systems
• Audits
• Initiatives
Example: Morton International
• Company TRI
• Industry TRI
• Total TRI
70
-------
Course Three: SucceM Stories of TRI Vse
Toxic Chemicals:
Transfers & Releases
3,500,000
3,000,000
2,500,000
2,000,000
1,500,000
1,000,000
500,000
0
1992
1993
1994
IRRC's :Emission Efficiency
Index(lbs. per $1,000 in
Revenues
Industry
Company
1992 1993 1994
71
-------
Courn ThrM! Succtti Storltt of TRI UM
Percent Reduction in Transfer &
Releases: 1992-1994
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
Industry
Company
Next Steps for TRI
• Broaden Industries required to report
• Normalize Data (in terms of production in
process)
• Faster turn around of Data
72
-------
Court* Three: Succen Slorln of TR1 Uie
Session C - How Have Community Advocacy Groups Applied TRI?
Session Leader
Nevtn Cohen, INFORM
Speakers
Edward Cohen-Rosenthal, Cornell University Center for the Environment
Eric Wcltraan, The Toxics Action Center
Stephen Brittle, Don't Waste Arizona
Mary O'Brien, Citizens for Public Accountability
Nevln Cohen, INFORM
Session Abstract
Studies have shown that advocacy organizations are the groups most frequently contacted by the public for TRJ
information. By publicizing and helping to analyze and interpret TRJ data, these organi/ations have been
effective at persuading companies to reduce their chemical emissions. They can facilitate the public's use of
TRI information by reorganizing, interpreting, and simplifying TRJ data to make them more meaningful to the
public. They may also directly help citizens to use TRJ data to lobby firms and government regulators.
This session focuses on the successful ways that TRJ data have been used by a variety of advocacy groups -
to track waste, encourage pollution prevention, and more effectively press for reductions in toxic chemical
emissions. The examples provided by the panelists will highlight how advocates - from environmental
organizations to worker health and safety groups - can use TRJ data to urge investment in pollution prevention
technologies, elimination of the use of certain chemicals, and better management practices. The panelists will
also discuss the benefits to advocacy organizations of expanding the TRJ to include data on materials
accounting and toxic chemical use.
Edward Cohen-Rosenthal, Cornell University Center for the Environment
The Power of Workers:
TRI Tells the Story
Ed Cohen-Rosenthal
Cornell University
Work and Environment Initiative
73
-------
Count Three: Success Stories of TRI Us*
a'artplact tjni™*mtnlai /Vnponi/
4TAT
itor* and CfmrownriN /mriafnv
Comtll (Jimmitv
ECOLOGY
WORKPLACE ECO-AUDITING
WHAT GOES IN
Reduce Volume
Eliminate. Reduce.
or Substitute
Toxic Materials
Avoid
Environmentally
Precious Resources
Use Quality
Recycled Content
riN. "^
^
^^^
^^
HOW WE WORK
Reduce or Eliminate
Waste Energy and
Materials in System
Lower Toxic
Exposure in Process
Reclaim and Reuse
Resources
Look to Improve the
Whole Process
^^^
•jj^L
^^
WHERE IT GOES
Product Stewardship
Pass to Next User in
a Safe Way
Reduce Packaging
Use Least Impact
Transportation
Design for Reuse or
Remanufaclure
-^ ^
&
ECONOMY
Note: 6Es ire from the Swedish Confederation of Profession!! Employees (TCO) Development Unit
Analysis done by John Bunge, professor
of social statistics at Cornell ILR and
colleagues
Conservative approach to examining the
data which eliminated spikes and
awareness of limitations on data reliability
Various kinds of statistical tests were
done to ascertain the validity of the
results and compare with other
74
-------
Course Three: Success Stories of TRI Use
• Realign resources far more on
organizational change than currently
• Insist that technological and outside
vendor assistance include methods for
internal engagement
• Consider requiring or inspiring internal
strucutures broadly representative of
the workforce
• Consider eco-auditing at the workplace
• Benchmark best practice of those with
proven results
• Expand EHS issues beyond managerial
and technical circles
• Look for the aggregate performance not
just the flashy projects
• Invest in a culture of ecological
understanding to drive down costs and
increase performance
75
-------
Course Three: Success Stories of TRI Use
Insist on an active role at the table on
environmental issues
Empower membership to make a real
difference in occupational and
environmental health
Use TRI to target workplaces where the
probability of health hazards are high
Insist on best possible performance by
employers in alliance with the community
• Continue research which explores
other statiusitical relationships with
new data bases
• Prepare for new TRI data
• Conduct case studies on best practice
• Develop manuals for business, labor
and government on how to spread best
practices.
76
-------
Course Three: Success Stories of TRI Use
Employee and
organizational engagement
makes a BIG difference
If these practices were widespread then
millions of barrells of toxic waste would
not have to be buried and hundreds of
millions of dollars would be saved
• Since 1991 questions have been on TRI
on methods of source reduction
• No analysis had been done on what
makes the most difference in reported
reductions
• The primary questions were how can
we spread best practice
• Use TRI to identify who does something
right
77
-------
Course Three; Succm Storto of TRI UM
Preliminary analysis of the Toxics Release* Inventory.
Table 2 Comparison of PREL by single source reduction
method
Source reduction method
T01 — Internal audit
not T01
T02 — External audit
notT02
T03— Materials audit
nor T03
T04 — Part, team mgmt.
not T04
T05 — Informal empl. rec.
nor T05
T06— Formal empl. rec.
not T06
T07 — State tech. asst.
notion
T08— Federal tech. asst.
norTOS
T09— Trade assoc. asst.
no* T09
T10— Vendor asst.
no/TIO
Til— Other
nor Til
# forms
4168
6742
382
10528
1163
9747
4873
6037
1729
9181
1058
9852
71
10839
22
10888
511
10399
1995
8915
1662
9248
Median
PREL
-9.1
-5.7
-8.0
-6.8
-8.1
-6.7
-7.3
-6.5
-4.0
-7.5
-10.0
-6.5
-3.0
-6.9
-13.8
-6.9
-1.1
-7.1
-6.4
-7.0
-5.7
-7.0
iqr
51
50
62
49
47
50
50
49
52
50
50
50
67
50
44
50
52
50
42
51
51
49
Table 3 Comparison of PREL by combinations of T01
T04, and T06
Source reduction method
forms Median
PREL
78
iqr
T01 &T04
not T01 &. not T04
T01 &T06
not T01 &. not T06
T04&T06
not T04 &. not T06
T01 & T04 & T06
not T01 &. not T04 &
nor T06
1642
3511
362
6046
507
5486
213
3109
-10.0
-5.3
-15.7
-5.5
-10.0
-6.0
-15.8
-5.0
51
49
64
50
50
49
63
50
-------
Conne Three: Sncceu Stories of TRI Use
T01
T04
T06
Flgnre 1 Relationship of T01, T04, and T06
T01
T04
T03
figure 2 Relationship of T01, T04, and T03
79
-------
Coarse Three: Success Stories of TRI Use
T01
T04
T10
Figure 3 Relationship of T01, T04, and T10
Eric Weltman, The Toxics Action Center
Presentation at Building for the Future: Toxics Release Inventory and Right-to-Know Conference
My name is Eric Weltman, and Fm with the Toxics Action Center, a non-profit environmental organization
based in Boston which works with residents fighting toxics and pollution hazards in their communities. We just
changed our name this year from the Massachusetts Campaign to Clean Up Hazardous Waste. Since 1987,
weVe helped over 200 groups fight to clean up hazardous wastes, stop the siting of dangerous industrial and
waste facilities, and prevent pollution at existing facilities. We provide organizing assistance - such as helping
get media attention, pick appropriate political targets, understand environmental laws, and design effective
materials. While our work has primarily focused on Massachusetts, just last week we opened a second office
in Hartford, Connecticut.
Environmental activists and advocates in Massachusetts are very fortunate in having access to not only the TRI
data, but information on toxic chemical use by Massachusetts industry. This data is submitted under the state's
landmark Toxics Use Reduction Act.
The Toxics Use Reduction Act, or TURA, was passed in 1989 in a unanimous vote by the legislature. At the
time, it was supported not only by environmental groups, such as MASSPIRG, but by the Associated Industries
of Massachusetts, the chief business group in the state.
One of the impetuses for the law's passage was a successful struggle to defeat a hazardous waste incinerator
in Braintree, a suburb of Boston. As such, the stated overall goal of the law is to promote toxics use reduction
as a means to reduce hazardous waste.
80
-------
Coarse Three: Success Stories of TRI Use
The law applies to what are called "Large Quantity Toxics Users," which are companies that use over 10,000
pounds of one or more toxic chemicals annually, and have more than 10 employees. Each of these companies
must:
* Annually report its toxic chemical use.
* Develop, and update every two years, a plan describing how it will reduce its toxic chemical use.
Implementation of this plan, however, would be voluntary.
The TUR law also established the Office of Technical Assistance, which provides free help to companies in
reducing chemical use, and the Toxics Use Reduction Institute, which conducts research and provides training
on TUR. These agencies are supported by fees the reporting companies pay according to how much chemicals
they use.
The data submitted by companies is divided into different categories. Each company submits data on its:
1.) Total Use, which refers to the amount of chemicals a company creates, incorporates into a products,
or processes.
2.) Shipped in Product, which refers to chemicals contained in the final product.
3.) By-Product, which is waste generated in production. By-Product refers to any chemical that leaves the
production process as fugitive emissions in the form of evaporation losses, stack emissions, waste
waters, solid waste, or hazardous waste. The by-product figures show the greatest potential for toxics
use reduction.
4.) Finally, Transfers and Releases are chemicals which leave the facility either through emissions or
shipping to other treatment facilities.
There are a number of formats in which you can obtain the data. For example, you can request the data on a
town-by-town basis. For example, if Fm from Chicopee, I can call up the Department of Environmental
Protection and ask for all of the reporting companies in Chicopee. Or, say Tm interested in toluene, I can get
a list of all the companies using toluene. Or you can get it by SIC code, so you can compare different
companies within an industrial sector.
In discussing the toxics use data, I'd like to focus on two questions. First, what information about the risks of
toxic chemicals are we made aware of by having access to the TUR data? Second, strategically, how does
focusing on reducing toxic chemical use help reduce these and other risks?
As we see it, the lifecycle of toxic chemical use by industrial facilities poses risks to residents; workers; and
consumers. These risks are manifested in numerous ways. From:
* transportation accidents;
* routine releases;
* catastrophic industrial accidents;
* worker contact during routine use, spills, or accidents;
* waste disposal;
* use of the product; and,
* disposal of the product itself.
The TUR data helps us understand the full range of these risks - from how much toxic chemicals are being
81
-------
Coorit Three; Succeti Stories of TRI Use
transported through out communities, to how much toxic chemicals are being handled by workers, to how much
toxic chemicals are ending up in the products themselves.
We've been working with a citizen group in Westminster which is opposing the proposed expansion of a
chemical plant which borders a residential neighborhood. The company, ChemDesign, proudly touts its
investments in new emissions control devices.
Well, the devices didnt help the six workers severely burned in an explosion - which occurred because a
welding contractor wasnt told about the explosive chemicals stored nearby.
The devices havent helped prevent the company's numerous other spills and accidental releases, including one
which they were fined $26,000 by the EPA for failing to report promptly, and one in which they spilled
monochlorobenzene and thought it was oil.
Having access to the TUR database has helped the residents understand the risks they face due to the company's
proneness to accidents and its mishandling of the toxic chemicals it uses. And it has helped define for them
what the solutions are to these risks — not just more pollution control equipment and accident response systems
— but pollution prevention and toxics use reduction.
Our organization has also repeatedly worked with a citizen group in Wilmington. I say repeatedly because these
people live near an industrial park where companies have had a series of chemical accidents, several of which
prompted the evacuation of the neighborhood.
After one such accident, the neighbors, plant workers, and company officials set up a committee to help resolve
problems at the plant. Initially, the residents thought that most of their concerns revolved around chemicals
causing odors at the plant. After looking at the list of chemicals used, however, they realized that there were
more serious hazards. The committee set about to reduce the company's use of toxic chemicals. Since that time,
there have been improvements in the company's operations, and emissions have gone down.
Again, the TUR data and the TUR program overall has helped define problems and solutions for activists. For
example, in Springfield, the Western Massachusetts Coalition for Occupational Safety and Health organized
a forum for unions and local activists to discuss joint work to reduce the threats of toxic chemical use.
In Western Massachusetts and in Lawrence, local groups have organized forums for local companies on how
to reduce toxic chemical use. So, groups who otherwise might be battling against these companies are able to
present solutions to their pollution problems.
Finally, Td like to briefly discuss some of our own work with the TUR data.
First, is a map of Massachusetts, showing where the Large Industrial Toxics Users are located.
Also, for most of the past few years, our organization has released the TUR data to local media. We usually
generate a tremendous amount of press coverage.
The first is a "toxic profile" of Essex County, which lists all of the communities, the amount of toxic chemicals
82
-------
Course Three; Succcu Stories of TRI Use
used in each community, and the amount of extremely hazardous substances used. Extremely hazardous
substances, as defined by the EPA, are chemicals which, due to their high'
toxicity and reactivity, can lead to fires and explosions. I conducted the analysis myself to determine how much
extremely hazardous substances were being used.
The second report, a "toxic profile" of New Bedford, lists each company, total toxic chemical use, use of
extremely hazardous substances, and use of neurotoxins, which, again, I analyzed.
So, what kind of articles did the media write? Ill pass around three examples which illuminate how the toxics
use information can be mischaracterized, how it can be accurately portrayed, and how the data's limits can be
highlighted.
The first article, from the Chicopee Herald Weekly, is headlined "Pollution report on Hampden County
disheartening." Well, we're not talking about pollution, we're talking about toxic chemical use.
The second article, from the Springfield Sunday Republican, and based on the same report, is titled,
"Springfield said to lead in toxin use," and subtitled, "The report offered no accident, injury, or health statistics
to show the impact of chemical use on human health and safety." Which is
true. We made no attempt to correlate the high use of chemicals with actual deaths, accidents, or cancer rates
- while these may exist — it's beyond our expertise to conduct such an analysis, and what we were focusing
on was risk of accidents.
Finally, the third article gets it right. Titled, "County views chemical risk," the article notes that "large
companies in Essex County annually use millions of pounds of toxic chemicals, some of which could become
major public health hazards through accident or mishandling."
Mary O'Brien, Citizens for Public Accountability
Summary of presentation on the Right to Know law of Eugene, Oregon
In November 1996, the City of Eugene, Oregon passed (55% to 45%) the first comprehensive local materials
accounting law as a charter amendment.
This law requires all large manufacturers to track and annually and electronically report their hazardous
substance inputs and outputs such that the (up to four) inputs and (up to eleven) outputs balance. The reports
will be available through the Eugene public library.
"Large manufacturers" includes all manufacturers and hazardous and medical waste incinerators that have total
inputs of more than 2,640 pounds of hazardous substances during a year. "Hazardous substances" includes
all substances (currently about 1,300) listed as hazardous in
federal laws, including radioactive substances.
Reporting units for all hazardous substances will be one kilogram (2.2 pounds) and for extremely hazardous
substances, ten grams (O.022 pounds). Reporting facilities are to use measurement data if they are available;
otherwise, they will use a hierarchy of mass balance estimates, published emission factors, or engineering
judgment to estimate inputs and outputs.
83
-------
Coarse Three: Success Stories of TRI Use
If a chemical is claimed as trade secret under state and federal law, an independent auditor will annually report
to the public as to whether that chemical is being used in the most protective manner and whether there are
safer substances or technologies that the facility could be using.
The local Fire Marshal's office will audit the reporting process of every reporting facility at least once every
three years.
A Toxics Board of seven citizens appointed by the City Council implements and enforces the law. The seven
members include three representatives of businesses that will be reporting under the law; three citizens with
a track record of advocating for public right to know; and a seventh member nominated by the six.
The Toxics Board is completing a handbook for the reporting facilities to use in tracking 1998 inputs and
outputs. The first reports will be submitted by April 1,1999.
The Toxics Board has adopted as policy that only the aggregate inputs of hazardous substances need be
reported if total inputs for that hazardous substance are less than 50 pounds during the year (or five pounds
of extremely hazardous substances).
The Toxics Board will enforce against wilful disregard of the law or failure to exercise care and improvement
in reporting, but is not interested in fining companies for mistakes in chemical tracking.
Eleven Eugene manufacturers filed a suit challenging the law, and lost in Circuit Court; they are appealing their
loss. The 1997 Oregon Senate passed a bill that would have prevented any city or county in Oregon from
requiring reporting of any toxics information by any private company
if the primary purpose is to inform the public; the House failed to act on the bill before adjournment.
The Toxics Board is working well together, and the charter amendment enjoys broad public support.
For copies of the law (Eugene Charter Amendment IV) or for a copy of the handbook (1998 Hazardous
Substance Reporting Forms and Instructions), write to: Glenn Potter; City of Eugene; Fire Prevention Bureau;
99 W. 10th Ave., Suite 395; Eugene, OR 97401. (541) 682-8355.
84
-------
Coarse Three: Success Stories of TRI Us
Session D - How Have the Media Presented TRI?
Session Leader
Carole Macko, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Speakers
Dr. Paul Hill, National Institute for Chemical Studies
Montressa Elder, Oklahoma Department of Environmental Quality
Patrick Garvey, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Carole Macko, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Session Abstract
Each year when TRI data are made available to the public - states, companies, advocacy groups, and EPA
write and distribute reports. Presenting TRI data in a straightforward and easy to understand manner to the
media can be a challenge. This session will address successful examples of media presentation of TRI through
the accounts of an industry representative, a state official, a non-profit organization, and an EPA official.
Dr. Paul Hill, National Institute for Chemical Studies
The West Virginia Scorecard Program initiated by the National Institute for Chemical Studies in 1988 has, as
its goal, greater public involvement in TRI information. Statewide media have come to anticipate and trust the
Scorecard as a source of carefully analyzed and easily presentable data. With a structure which includes
stakeholder review and comment on the analyses, graphic presentations and annual conclusions, Scorecard has
become a recognized source on which the media can rely for quick, factual TRI reporting. Establishing this
relationship with media contacts has greatly expedited the flow of TRI information to all stakeholders.
Montressa Elder, Oklahoma Department of Environmental Quality
THE HEADLINE:
"Water Toxins Rose
Sharply"
6-16-97 Tulsa World, Front Page
85
-------
Course Three: Success Stories of TRI Use
DEQ'S MESSAGE:
"Total waste is decreasing
in Oklahoma, Pollution
Prevention is working"
TWO DIFFERENT
EPA said:
- toxin can cause
skin and lung
allergies
-release... is
considerable
- the public should
find out what is
causing release
chemical is a m
irritant
this is not a major
"concern... overall
release to water
is small
water is at a safe
health level
86
-------
Coarse Three: Success Stories of TR1 Use
WHAT WENT WRON
Failure to coordinate between the State
and Regional EPA
Failure to appreciation specific local
concerns
Failure to communicate with the facility
THE FACTS
• Facility reported 82,000 Ibs. of
Diethanolamine released to water
• Surface water releases in Tulsa
reportedly increased from 19,000 Ibs. to
134,000 Ibs.
tTotal waste in OK decreased 26% from
-------
Course Three: Success Stories of TRI Use
MPORTANT LOCAL IS
Water quality in the Arkansas River
- On going controversy of releases from
chicken farms into the river
- City fathers concern over increase in
NPDES fees
- Emotional attachment to the river
WHAT ACTUALLY
HAPPENED AT TH
FACILITY
Facility reported amount of
diethanolamine purchased, not released
Rushing to meet reporting deadline
Thought over-reporting would not hurt
them
-------
Course Three; Success Stories of TRI Use
IMPORTANT DEQ ISS
• Air emissions = 24 million Ibs.
• Water discharges = 700,000 Ibs.
• Air emissions have decreased over
50% since 1988
Voluntary pollution prevention program,
"arget '98, reached goal ahead of
jdule
LESSONS LEARNE
Check for anomalies in the data and
investigate
Be aware of general concerns for individual
localities
Don't get stuck on "the message"
ake sure your State and EPA have
ssed the data and agree on
tions
89
-------
Coarse Three: Success Stories of TRI Use
DAMAGE CONTRO
Obtained the correct release
information from the facility
Did interviews with local "talk radio"
drive time news programs
Gave corrected figures to Chamber of
ommerce and INCOG
contacted newspaper with
ted figures-(6-21-97)
Patrick Garvey, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
The EPA created the Envirofacts Warehouse to provide the public with direct access to the vast amounts of
information and data in its national systems. The Envirofacts Warehouse helps EPA fulfill its responsibility
to make information available to the public, as required by the 1996 Superfund Reauthorization Act and other
federal legislation. Envirofacts is available from the Internet, allowing EPA to disseminate information quickly
and easily.
Envirofacts Warehouse contains:
• a relational database of the national database on Superfund sites, hazardous waste handlers,
discharges to water, toxic releases, and air releases;
• the relational database also contains the facility index system, the Envirofacts Master
Chemical Integrator, locational reference tables, and other spatial data
• demographic data; and
• awarded grants information is in the relational database.
Applications are available from the Envirofacts Warehouse Home page to query the databases and to create
maps.
90
-------
Course One: What Information Do Our Communities Need?
Session A - What Information is Needed on Chemical Effects?
Session Leader
Carolyn Raffensperger, Science and Environmental Health Network
Sneakers
Sandra Steingraber, Author
Doug Johnson, Consortium for Sustainable Agriculture Research and Education
Mary O'Brien, Citizens for Public Accountability
Dick Wormel, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Lynne McGrath, Hoescht Celanese Corporation
Carolyn Raffensperger, Science and Environmental Health Network
Session Abstract
"What information do people need on chemical hazards? What information do we have, and what information
is missing, particularly in rural areas? In the face of scientific uncertainty, who decides when to take action to
reduce chemical hazards to human health and the environment? And on what basis should action be taken (the
precautionary principle, risk assessment, technology options analyses)? What is the community's
'right-to-know1?"
Doug Johnson, Consortium for Sustainable Agriculture Research and Education
Good Afternoon. In America's heartland, we can see and measure the benefits of "being able to know." One
of the best examples of the extraordinary benefits of the EPA's Community Right to Know Programs can be
found in The Great Lakes Watershed. In the Great Lakes we can see how Toxic Substances Control Act
(TSC A), Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA), and Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization
Act (SARA) have all contributed to the development of better information resources that have led to informed
decisions for individuals, communities, and for the nation. Prudent use of this information by public and private
parties has led to decision making which has greatly contributed to significant reductions in industrial
discharges and emissions into the Great Lakes Watershed. The approach taken thus far has contributed to the
deliberations and agreements made in partnership with Canada under the auspices of the International Joint
Commission (LTC).
However, the information available to citizens, the UC and other decision making entities is far from complete.
The availability of information on agricultural contributions to contaminant loading of air, water, and land is
severely limited. It is difficult, at best, to make a rural home-siting or purchase decision, for example, with an
informed knowledge of chemical use in the area. It is even more difficult to determine on a daily basis whether
children are adequately, and gardens are secure, from possible contamination from aerial spraying nearby. This
is in stark contrast to the hazardous incident management plan likely to be in place at any urban chemical
facility where danger zones are illustrated in a bullseye around the facility.
Currently, the nation's Community Right to Know programs function largely to the benefit of urban
constituents. The EPA, appropriately enough, first addressed the information needs of concentrated populations
91
-------
Course One: What Information Do Our Communities Need?
located in the vicinity of the manufacture or use of the most toxic and persistent chemicals in the environment.
There remains, however, a significant gap between the information available to urbanites, and the quantity and
quality of information available to rural constituents. In the heartland, the transportation, storage, use, and
disposal of highly toxic and persistent compounds continues with a minimum of federal, state, county,
community, and individual oversight. Indeed, it is not uncommon to hear the refrain, "I don't think my
neighbors have a right to know what I do on my farm, what chemicals I use, or when I use them." Let me
illustrate an emerging conflict in the agricultural sector over right-to-know issues related to pesticide use.
On one hand, the World Pesticide Market expands: In California alone, "There were 543.1 million pounds of
pesticide active ingredients reported sold in California in 1995, according to a summary released by Cal/EPAs
Department of Pesticide Regulation."
"The world pesticide market grew for the third year in a row, according to three independent industry estimates.
The British Agrochemical Association (BAA) reports that sales around the world rose 3.6% in 1996 to
approximately US$321.25 billion. Another estimate by the German Industrial Association (IVA) shows a total
world sales rising 4.4%. A third estimate by Allan Woodbum Associates, a UK consulting firm, reports a 2.2%
increase in the 1996 world market.."
"Estimates show North America accounting for the highest level of pesticide sales. Approximately 30.6% of
sales were in North America compared to 26% in Western Europe and 22.5% in East Asia, according to BAA.
South America accounted for 11.9% of sales and the rest of the world accounted for the remaining 9%. In
1996, North American sales of transgenic crops also rose, with sales of more than US$200 million."
Source: Agrow: World Crop Protection News, July 11, 1997. Contact: PANNA. For a copy of the 12-page
sales summary report, contact Pesticide Enforcement Branch, California Department of Pesticide
Regulation, 1020 N Street, Sacramento 95814-5624, phone (916) 445-3920. The report includes a brief
narrative summary, and a list of active ingredients with total pounds sold. A breakdown by type of pesticide
is also included.
On the other hand, we have Organic Sales Up in 1996:
"For the seventh year in a row, U.S. organic industry sales grew more than 20%, to US$3.5 billion in 1996
from US$2.8 billion in 1995, according to a recently published survey in Natural Foods Merchandiser. Dairy
products are one of the fastest growing sectors of the organic market, with 1996 sales in natural food stores
of at least US$120 million—up from US$30 million in 1995. (Sales data is only from retailers specializing
in natural products and does not take into account organic sales at conventional markets). Industry insiders
attribute dairy's explosive growth to consumer concerns about genetically engineered milk spurred by
widespread reports about Monsanto's bovine growth hormone. Eric Newman, president of Organic Valley, an
organic food company, pointed out that consumers really appreciate the difference between organic and
conventional milk. He stated that "conventional farmers feed their cattle everything from pesticide-filled
tomato-pulp to cotton feed. That's spurring our growth."
Sources: Natural Foods Merchandiser, June 1997 and June 1996; San Francisco Chronicle, August 2,1997.
Contact: PANNA.
The rapid growth and expansion of the U.S. organic industry is changing the face of agriculture and the need
to know. Every company that farms, produces, process, markets, and participates in the organic supply chain
has tremendous assets at risk relative to the presence or absence of pesticides in the food supply chain. The
92
-------
Course One: What Information Do Our Communities Need?
food supply chain starts with the land and the substances used upon it. For the farmer, certification of organic
status requires a three year period without the use of petrochemical pesticides. An organic farmer needs
information to know whether the farm's boundaries remain secure from fugitive, or transboundary chemical
usage. The purchasers and processors of organic agricultural commodities need pesticide use information to
assess the potential for risk to their reputation and heavily mortgaged branded product identities. Now that
major food companies are entering the organic food sector, the need for reassurance that adequate quantities
of organic commodities will be available is increasing. The common thread found in the food chain, whether
producer or consumer is having the ability to know. As a nation, we need to know.
With the codification of the USDAs National Organic Standards, the quaint and local character of the organic
agricultural sector is being rapidly transported into the arena of science and law, risk assessment, liability and
litigation. In the future, if a party lacks the ability to know, we can expect that they will assert their right to find
out. The Midwest and Vermont are still struggling with the rBST-milk-labeling issue, and only recently has
Ben and Jerry's been able to successfully argue for the right to inform. Indeed, some agricultural industry
professionals, and some farmers, too, can be heard expressing frustration with the increased role of the public
in the assessment and adoption of agricultural technologies. Last week, an agricultural extension agent said
to me, "I just want to understand why some people will not adopt a technology when all the facts show it is
profitable, effective, and low risk."
Risk assessment, effectiveness, and profitability are important factors in the safe use of pesticides. But in our
research program on quality of life, it is clear that people do not make decisions strictly based on facts, figures,
or expert risk assessment. We also know that people have different ideas of what constitutes the good life, or
a quality life in-town, on the farm, and in their community. The notion of community well-being is not one
easily rendered into a calculus that only one person in a thousand is at risk from substance A. Risk assessment
leaves every member of the community insecure. When a government agency, university researcher, or
corporate safety officer states that only one person is at risk, individuals wonder, even blame the agencies,
researchers, and company officers for allowing that low level of risk. Risk assessment is not risk assurance.
This perception of risk can only be mitigated with the ability to know, the ability to make informed decisions,
and to give informed consent or dissent to the use of pesticides in or rural areas and food supply chain.
I am confident that with adequately and timely information on pesticide use, we will be able as individuals, to
make better decisions that reflect consideration and respect for others quality of life criteria; we will be able
as agricultural and agrisupply enterprises, to realize reduced risk, reduced liability, and increased profitability;
we will be able as a nation, to formulate appropriate policy and measure the response to local, regional, and
international negotiations over long-term contaminant reduction. Our review of quality of life research suggests
that the need for timely and reliable information is a critical component of rural quality of life. It is time for
the EPA to give serious consideration to the expansion of Community Right to Know programs to fulfill the
information and regulatory needs of America's rural constituent.
Mary H. O'Brien, Ph.D.
What a Community Needs to Know About Effects of Chemicals
I do not believe that information about effects of toxic chemicals, whether in the form of a risk assessment, or
information about "no effect" responses in particular studies, can, or should, provide peace of mind to those
who are being exposed.
93
-------
Course One: What Information Do Our Communities Need?
Unfortunately, on the other hand, some toxics information, out of context, can be counter-productive in that
it can produce citizen paralysis, depression, or cynicism.
Then what information about chemical effects do citizens need in order to take appropriate action on behalf
of life in their community and region, including their own lives, the lives of children and neighbors, and the lives
of wildlife? When enough information is present, a community can know:
1. That the community already knows a lot about chemicals being toxic;
2. That what they dont know about toxic chemicals can hurt them; and
3. That most toxics use is not necessary.
When a community understands this, they are likely to effectively pursue reducing their unknown, unconsented,
and unnecessary exposure to toxic chemicals. This large picture of toxics is made up of factual, scientific, and
technological information.
The first essential factual information a community needs is what hazardous substances are in their midst, and
from what sources and whether the amounts are tiny or large. If a citizen will have to breathe, touch, absorb,
or ingest a toxic chemical, she has a fundamental right to know that it is coming her way and from where. I do
not believe, therefore, in thresholds of amounts of chemicals below which a citizen must remain ignorant. The
production, use, and disposal of hazardous chemicals is a profoundly public act.
Now, once citizens have gained access to information about the presence of specific toxic chemicals, they
fortunately can obtain access in this nation to information about what is so far known of chemical effects of
that substance. I generally recommend as a starting source for any citizen, the information available at the
Environmental Research Foundation (ERF) of Annapolis, Maryland, along with its handbook, HOW TO
RESEARCH CHEMICALS.(2) Information on thousands of chemicals can be accessed by low-income citizens
via ERF's computer files or other sources to which ERF can direct a citizen.
It is important for citizens to be able to turn to a responsible, accuracy-respecting source such as ERF, because
ERF believes in the right of all citizens to all information known about toxic chemicals, rather than only some,
selective information.
But it is not enough for citizens to be provided with information that is available on the effects of single
chemicals, because critical information will inevitably be missing on any given chemical, and because we dont
and will never know all the ways multiple chemicals interact.
Therefore, other pieces of information are important: For instance, citizens should be able to learn
epidemiological stories about people who have lived near toxic dumps, who have drunk contaminated or
chlorinated water, lived near radioactive sites, or worked near agricultural chemicals; who have been house
painters; whose parents have worked around solvents; who have lived in a room white with leaded paint; or who
have lived near incinerators. In short, citizens should be aware that we already know a LOT about exposure
to toxic chemicals even though there may be little or no information on the particular combinations of chemicals
in their community. We know that exposure to toxic substances has caused illness and death; degradation of
intelligence; and alteration of emotions and behavior.
Next, citizens should have access to the HISTORY behind past recognition of the toxicity of particular
chemicals or sites of pollution. They could look at the social history of DDT, PCBs, x-rays, nuclear plants,
94
-------
Course One: What Information Do Our Communities Need?
Love Canal, Times Beach, the Hanford Nuclear Reservation, lead, asbestos, benzene, dioxin, 2,4-D, PVC.
Who first said there was a potential problem? Who reported effects? Who denied that the chemicals could be
toxic or could be causing these effects? How was it eventually shown that the chemical or site WAS having
effects? How long did it take? What role did the public health department play? Who were the scientists who
presented opposing opinions of toxicity? What studies were they citing? Who did which studies? What role did
the chemical or nuclear companies play?
These social histories are important information for citizens as they try to learn about the toxic effects of all
industrial or agricultural chemicals in their community. This historical context informs, so that they need not
repeat history, but rather can build on history, knowing at least some of what to expect from whom, and whom
to listen to.
Next, citizens need to have some information on such topics as immune suppression, endocrine disruption, and
neurotoxicity so that they are acutely aware of what has likely NOT been studied regarding the toxic chemicals
in their midst. If they are aware of the interconnections of the immune, nervous, and endocrine systems and the
subtle ways these systems can be weakened and damaged, they will then know that NO ONE is able to tell them
that the chemicals and chemical mixtures they are encountering in their community can be considered safe.
They will know that any risk assessment that claims that the chemicals will pose only insignificant risk is
probably whistling in the wind.
Two other critical pieces of information needed about chemical effects are that (1) humans are, to all intents
and purposes, RATS (and whales, birds, and turtles) when it comes to our endocrine, nervous, and immune
systems; while, at the same time, (2) individual humans can vary GREATLY among themselves with regard
to susceptibilities, sensitivities, and accumulated stresses. One chemical may be felt like a straw to one person,
but that same chemical may be the straw that breaks the figurative back, or the literal pre-cancer, or immune
barrier in another. In effect, then, we can be both very much LIKE some distant relatives in the animal
kingdom, and very much UNLIKE each other.
Finally, a piece of information that is crucial for understanding the meaning of what we know and dont know
about particular chemicals and mixtures is whether ALTERNATIVES exist to their use or release. If a
community learns that a given chemical does not NEED to be used or released into the community, many hi
the community will rightfully demand that it NOT be used.
I have served five years on the United Nations Methyl Bromide Technical Options Committee which is charged
with examining the alternatives worldwide to the use of the highly toxic and highly ozone-depleting fumigant
methyl bromide. During this tenure, I have become aware of numerous sound, tried and true, effective
alternatives to the use of methyl bromide as a soil, commodity, and structural fumigant, as well as the option
of not growing particular crops in locations that are inappropriate. The continued profligate use of thousands
of chemicals such as methyl bromide depends on keeping communities unaware of alternatives. I believe that
the right to know about alternatives that exist to toxics use is as fundamental a right as the right to know about
the use of toxics because the social tolerance for pollution by a given toxic chemical is greatly lowered hi the
face of knowledge that its use is not necessary. In other words, why should I, or you, ever be put in harm's way
unnecessarily?
The assessment of alternatives to toxic chemicals is far more essential than the so-called "risk assessment" of
how much toxic exposure is safe, insignificant, or acceptable. NO risk is acceptable if there are alternatives.
95
-------
Coarse One: What Information Do Onr Communities Need?
What information, then, does a community need about chemical effects? Citizens deserve all the information
needed to complete an essential "three-part inquiry" about toxic chemicals: (3)
Information on our past,
our present situation,
and an alternative future.
References
(1) Author address: Mary O'Brien; P.O. Box 12056; Eugene OR 97440.
(2) Pellerano, Maria. 1995. HOW TO RESEARCH CHEMICALS: A RESOURCE GUIDE. Environmental Research
Foundation; P.O. Box 5036; Annapolis MD 21403-7036. ($10; Available also on email: erf@rachel.clark.net.
(3) Steingraber, Sandra. 1997. LIVING DOWNSTREAM: AN ECOLOGIST LOOKS AT CANCER AND THE
ENVIRONMENT. Reading, MA: Addison- Wesley Publishing Company, hie.
96
-------
Course One: What Information Do Our Communities Need
Session B - What Information is Needed on Facilities?
Session Leader
Mark Dorfman, INFORM
Speakers
Tom Natan, Environmental Information Center
Wilma Subra, Subra Inc.
Peter Molinaro, Union Carbide
Sanford Lewis, The Good Neighbor Project for Sustainable Industries
Andy Comai, United Auto Workers
Wilma Subra, Subra Inc.
Prior to TRI, citizens were told that the smoke stacks at industrial facilities were only emitting steam. Then
came TRI. Industry reported data suddenly proved that much more than steam was coming out of the stacks.
In fact such a large amount of chemicals was being emitted from the industrial facilities, that Louisiana was
the #1 state in the nation in Toxic Releases. As a result of the early years of TRI data reporting, community
members living around industrial facilities demanded that emissions be reduced. In the state of Louisiana, the
facilities reduced their emissions by about one-fifth as a result of public outcry and regulatory agency
initiatives. What industries did not do was change their permits. The industrial facilities have used the excess
permitted emission capacity to increase production. As a result of increased production toxic releases are now
on the rise.
Community members need information to combat the emission trends in their neighborhoods and know which
facilities located in their communities are required to report under TRI.
In response to the issue of which facilities, you have to first educate the community on the TRI program. Then
you put before them a list of facilities that report in their area. Their first response is all of those facilities
release toxic chemicals! After their first initial reaction, they start asking questions about facilities that are not
on the list but are located in their community. Why are they not required to report?
In the case of Calcasieu Parish, 21 facilities in the industrial complex are required to report under TRI. The
Chamber of Commerce puts out a map with a list of the major industrial facilities in the same area. The
Chamber list consists of 43 facilities in the same area. Thus less than half of the industrial facilities are required
to report. The community members want information on toxic releases from all of the facilities in their
neighborhoods.
The state of Louisiana Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ) publishes an annual TRI report for the
citizens of the state. Through 1994, all of the reporting facilities were listed and ranked on the basis of total
releases and transfers. If a citizen was able to obtain a copy of the report, they could search through the 300
plus facilities and find the facilities in their area. In the 1995 report, DEQ was limited on the number of pages
it could have in the report, so DEQ decided to omit the list of reporting facilities. Now it is impossible to
determine which facilities are in your community that release toxic chemicals unless you have a computer and
net access. Most citizens in Louisiana do not have these capabilities.
97
-------
Coarse One: What Information Do Onr Communities Need
What chemicals do the TRI reporting facilities release into the air, water and land?
The Exxon Chemical Plant in Baton Rouge, Louisiana releases approximately 2 million pounds of toxic
chemicals into the air each year. One of the less utilized TRI aspects is the differentiation of fugitive versus
stack emissions. Over three reporting years, the Exxon facility emitted 25 to 36% of toxic air emissions from
the stacks. The largest portion of the toxic emission sources - 64-75% - were from fugitive sources. These
sources are from leaking flanges, valves, connectors, etc. and are usually close to the ground. These emissions
have the potential to have the largest impact on the surrounding communities.
If the community only works to require tighter controls of permitted stack emissions, the majority of the toxic
releases will continue to be emitted. We have to focus on both fugitive and permitted stack emission reductions.
This need for a focus on fugitive emissions is clearly demonstrated if you consider emissions from oil refineries.
The fugitive emissions make up 85 to 99 percent of the air emissions from these refineries in Ohio, Louisiana,
Texas and Washington. Other oil refineries throughout the United States have fugitive emissions in the 50 to
90% range with the majority on the higher end of the range. Focusing on the permitted stack emissions would
overlook the majority of toxic air emissions.
Community members have a need for information on the health effects associated with the facility emissions.
One method of providing the data is to include health effects in conjunction with the chemical specific release
information.
After considering the health effects, the community will want to know "What are the dangers (risk) associated
with living near these facilities." At this point it becomes necessary to look beyond the TRI data. One source
of additional data is the accidental releases, emergency occurrences and upset conditions. These situations are
called in by the company to the regulatory agency and followed up by a written report. It requires physically
going to the agencies files and performing a file review of documents that are sometimes less than complete.
Data from the files for the Shell NORCO Refinery - East Facility near New Orleans, Louisiana for the first
3% months of 1997 consists of chemicals and quantities released. A more detailed tabulation also provides
source of release and cause of release. For example on January 11, 1997 33,500 pounds of propylene was
released from a steam damaged O ring that sealed the main valve.
In April 1996, a workshop was held in Calcasieu Parish for citizens living around the large number of
industrial facilities. As part of that workshop, a file review was performed of the accidental releases from a
number of the facilities. One of issues being debated in the area was the need for a buffer zone around the
industrial facilities. The citizens used the TRI data tables and accidental release data to demonstrate a need for
a buffer zone. The CONOCO Refinery is located adjacent to and on property bought from the
African-American community of Mossville. The citizens of Mossville have a long history of being impacted
by releases from CONOCO and Vista Chemical. CONOCO proudly presented a list of releases provided to
the Calcasieu Parish Local Emergency Planning Committee by the State Police. During the first four months
of 1996, CONOCO had no releases which exceeded the Reportable Quantities. However the file review of
accidental releases demonstrated that CONOCO had reported verbally and in writing that their facility had
reported 24 accidental releases occurring over 47 days during the first three months of 1996 which released
approximately 80,000 pounds of chemicals. The citizens were prepared for the debate with data in hand.
Reviewing the accidental release data is made more personal if community members have kept a log of impacts
they have experienced. Communities that have been encouraged to keep logs of odors experienced, health
98
-------
Count One: What Information Do Our Communities Need
effects, reports of fires and explosions, etc. are encouraged when accidental release information is compared
to their personal logs. Patterns start to emerge that correlate specific odors and community health impacts with
reportable release incidents from the facility. The community starts to understand the risks associated with
living near these facilities.
Conclusion
The TRI data is an excellent process by which information is available to the community. The data can be used
to educate citizens on what chemicals are emitted in their area. Community members need a mechanism for
easy access to the information, health information associated with the chemicals and potential impacts of
exposure to the chemicals.
Peter Molinaro, Union Carbide
I think an appropriate subtitle for this presentation should be a quote of unknown origin I picked off the
internet "Not everything that can be counted counts, and not everything that counts can be counted."
The Need For A New Paradigm
The sharing of information between industry and their communities must evolve from the current data-driven
system to a new dialogue-driven paradigm. The original TRI was bom of a relationship based on mistrust, and
poor communication. It helped bring about a recognition that we couldn't hide behind fences and white lab
coats, and that public acceptance was a prerequisite to the ability to do business. The Chemical Industry,
through its Responsible Care initiative, committed itself to improving community outreach. We have an
obligation to recognize and respond to community concerns about chemicals and our operations.
We've had a good beginning, particularly in the establishment of community advisory panels at most major
facilities. But the chemical industry is officially dissatisfied with its own progress. The industry's leaders see
the need for a step-change improvement in the quality of dialogue and public participation. We have asked
ourselves, at the highest levels of the industry, the question, Does the public have all the Information they
need to accurately judge our performance? Clearly the answer is that they do not. But what type of
information, and perhaps more importantly, it's method of delivery are the major questions before us. True
understanding and empowerment come not from the information contained in a report, but from what I call the
transaction of information between the community and the facility. The latest report or compilation of data
on the internet will never substitute for frequent and serious face to face conversation. That is because TRI
data, whatever its form, is only an introduction to a larger conversation. Conveying information does not by
itself lead to knowledge and understanding.
The Public Wants To Know Many Different Things
Our plants and others surveyed receive a wide variety of requests for information, and concerns expressed by
the community. Some examples are:
•Does the facility have an adequate safety program in place for its employees/subcontractors?
•Are there any subcontractors that refuse to work for the facility?
•Causes of accidents
•Actions to prevent recurrence
•Groundwater quality beneath the facility
•Water use/conservation measures
99
-------
Course One; What Information Do Our Communities Need
•Energy efficiency
•"Worst-case" scenarios
•Sources and health effects of odors and emissions
•Hazardous material transportation methods/safety practices
•Local employment/payroll
•Local purchases
•Do medical histories of employees tracked indicate dangerous health trends among the facility
employees?
It is difficult to neatly build a database to answer these questions. In fact, reliance on a data driven system,
and the seemingly endless debate over what data to include, can be an obstacle to effective dialogue between
the facility and the community. It is an obstacle in that the delivery of data can become a substitute for rather
than complementary to direct dialogue.
New Model Based On The Quality Of Dialogue
I'd like to suggest that the model for the future be based more on the quality of dialogue than the quantity of
data. It should leverage off of and improve upon our experiences with things like community advisory panels
and project XL stakeholder groups. Mechanisms for greater stakeholder involvement need to be developed.
Following are some ideas:
Method of local stakeholder selection:
•Open selection process
•Neutral facilitator to do recruitment
•Attention to diversity, inclusion of critics
Groundrules:
•Agreed-upon rules of procedure
•Developed jointly by the group
Groundrules must contain, at a minimum, agreed upon mechanisms for:
•Recruitment and selection of additional members/replacements
•Reaching agreement
•Incorporating dissenting views in final actions
•Establishment of the roles and responsibilities of participants
•Resolving disagreements
•Including methods to independently verify the quality of information
•Selection and funding any third-party technical assistance
•Broader communication with the entire community
•Information sharing and confidentiality (when appropriate)
•Monitoring progress
There is definitely a place for more and t etter information, but as part of a process rather than as an end in
itself. The information age carries with it a number of obstacles to a data-driven system. We know from
surveys and discussions with various stakeholders that many feel overwhelmed with mountains of unintelligible
information. One community activist told us that the reports we are required to submit are written "by
engineers, for engineers." industry also has a growing concern that broad dissemination of certain types of
100
-------
Course One; What Information Do Our Communities Need
information will compromise intellectual property, product formulas and process economics. Our surveys also
corroborate public concern about the potential for loss of American competitiveness.
But I sense within our industry that the desire to improve its outreach to stakeholders can be accomplished
while still protecting our technological and competitive advantage. I don't think we can resolve that issue solely
by debating what new data element to add to the TRJ. We need to focus more on outcomes. By doing that we
can have a more productive discussion of how to improve TRI and satisfy the public's Right to Know.
Sanford Lewis, The Good Neighbor Project for Sustainable Industries
Corporate Sunshine Rules: Bringing the Right-to-Know into the Information Age
We live in the Information Age, yet our Right to Know laws just scratch the surface of what we need to know.
Much of the information needed to assess industrial impacts on local communities is routinely withheld from
local citizens by corporations. Here are a few of the frontiers for citizen activism.
* "Sunshine Rules "for Access to Info on a Need to Know Basis.
As citizens obtain data through the Toxic Release Inventory, broader info needs on corporate activities arise.
These include a need for access to detailed documentation on matters of public concern — beyond lists of
numbers. For instance, community groups have been demanding disclosure of technology studies from local
companies regarding available pollution prevention opportunities, and options for making a plant inherently
safer. Some community groups have won rights to review detailed corporate studies through Good Neighbor
Agreements. But the big polluters have also succeeded in 23 states in passing "Corporate Secrecy Laws" (a.k.a.
Environmental Audit Privilege laws) which encourage concealment of documentation from the public and the
courts. (Contact GNP for more info on this trend.) Unfortunately, the Freedom of Information Act only applies
to government files, not to the information that corporations have in their files. New Corporate Sunshine Rules
are needed to ensure the right to all of the information and documentation needed for safe, healthy communities.
A case hi point: most refineries which use the deadly chemical hydrogen fluoride have studied options for
replacing it with a much safer alternative. But so far none that we are aware of have shared these studies with
their neighbors. See the GNP Report: Beyond the First Line of Defense: Safer Alternatives to Hydrogen
Fluoride in Refineries.
* Filling Gaps in The Inventory of Toxics.
Despite the passage of the Toxics Release Inventory and EPA Chemical Accident prevention rules, there remain
serious gaps in publicly available facts and figures. For instance, there is a critical need for a Right to Know
about Toxics in Transit. A recent GNP investigation revealed that communities are kept hi the dark on types
and quantities of hazardous materials passing through local railyards and rail lines—due to an exemption from
Right to Know laws for toxic shippers. See our report: Hazardous Materials on the Rails: A Case Study of
the Union Pacific Railroad, Another gap is the failure of our Right to Know laws to require a Hazardous
Materials Balance by the larger chemical users. Such a balance sheet is necessary to illuminate the full picture
of a firm's toxic flows, and to enable more recognition of pollution prevention opportunities.
* Now That I "Know, "Do I Need a Right to Understand?
Sometimes, the huge tallies of the amount of toxics dumped to air and water speak for themselves. Other times,
the numbers disclosed under the Right to Know laws need to be interpreted for their health and environmental
implications, as well as their accuracy. Community groups, especially in low income and minority communities,
101
-------
Coarse One: What Information Do Our Communities Need
want access to technically competent helpers to aid them in translating the data into meaningful assessments
of concerns, as well as action plans.
* The Right to See for Ourselves: The Right to Inspect
A full assessment of hazards and opportunities for pollution prevention requires direct, on-site evaluation.
Neighbors, workers and their experts have performed such inspections, often with great results. For instance,
at particular refineries and chemical plants, plant neighbors have won a right to accompany their own experts
to inspect problem plants. Under the Federal Surface Mining Act, citizens complainants have the right to
accompany federal inspectors. Labor unions also have inspection rights under existing collective bargaining
agreements. See GNP Documents - (1) Precedents for Corporate Community Compacts and Good Neighbor
Agreements, and (2) Principles for Stakeholder Audits.
*A Right to Know, Right Now! Realtime WWW Pollution Tracking.
Current pollution monitoring technologies and access to the Worldwide Web make it a possible to provide plant
neighbors with continuous access to readouts of a plant's current emissions of health threatening and
lung-irritating substances. Such a mechanism could be helpful for confirmation and trouble-shooting when
neighbors experience odors or other indications of elevated pollution. So far, no industries have, to our
knowledge, put the available mechanisms in place.
* Groundrules for Economic and Social Accountability.
New Rights to Know are needed to respond when corporations assert that preventing pollution is unaffordable,
that downsizing or a part time workforce is an economic necessity, or that sweatshops in the Third World are
not harmful. For instance, new "Full Cost Accounting" mechanisms being adopted by some corporations can
be matched with disclosure and standards to ensure that the public costs are included in the corporate balance
sheet. Jobs impact statements can require corporations to provide real documentation of promises to create new,
quality jobs. A Corporate Stakeholders Report (being promoted by a new national Stakeholders Alliance)
would require an annual report on each corporation's social and economic performance. Subsidy disclosure
requirements can help to document whether corporate tax breaks and other government hand-outs are yielding
our money's worth.
* The Right to Tell, the Right to Responsive Action.
Even without an expanded Right to Know industry and government employees often are privy to the dirtiest
secrets of corporations. What good is a Right to Know without a Right to Act? Despite federal Wbistleblower
Protection laws, corporate managers and top government officials often wage various "marginally legal" forms
of pressure to discourage workers' disclosure of embarrassing or costly secrets. Now, to make matters worse,
new anti-whistleblower provisions in two states' environmental audit laws (Colo, and Texas) actually authorize
corporations to bring liability suits against certain people who disclose hazards identified in "audits". These
anti-accountability laws must be challenged in the courts and in the legislatures. In addition to reinforcing
workers' rights to blow the whistle, neighbors and workers need expanded rights and opportunities to ensure
responsive action on identified hazards.
102
-------
Count One: What Information Do Our Communities Need
Session C - How Do We Reach New RTK Constituencies?
Session Leader
Paul Orum, Working Group on Community Right-to-Know
Speakers
Daniel Swartz, National Religious Partnership
Lisa Ragain, AIDS Activist
Antonio Diaz, Ecojustice Network, Institute for Global Communications
Rex Tingle, AFL-CIO
Anne Heanue, American Library Association
Beverly Wright, Deep South Center for EnvironmentalJustice, Xavier University
Peter Young, Rural Coalition
Joan Reiss, Breast Cancer Fund
Liem Tran, Jobs For Youth
Laura Manthe, Environmental Resources Board
Kristin Haldeman, Investor Responsibility Research Center
Paul Orum, Working Group on Community Right-to-Know
Session Abstract
Focused on the question "how do we reach new constituencies?" this session brought together a wide-array of
panelists, representing religious affiliations, computer networks, labor, libraries, environmental justice resource
centers, rural groups, women's health, environmental job training, tribal organizations, investors, and health
care service providers. The panel explored how these and other constituencies might benefit from TRI and
other community right-to-know information, and suggested means through which Right-to-Know information
could be made accessible, meaningful, and useful to them.
The panel generated the following list of 40 ways to reach new constituencies:
Daniel Swartz, National Religious Partnership for the Environment
Religious Congregations
Churches are everywhere, very diverse, and highly integrated into the social structure of communities. Clergy
are also very busy, working on a range of social issues and church duties.
* Work with people you know who are in religious congregations to contact clergy and others
in their congregations.
* Contact clergy with a member of their congregation, if possible. Prefer in-person contact,
rather than phone. In 15 minutes, describe local pollution and tell them how the right-to-know
data help (dont use acronyms such as "TRI"). Provide a success story. Talk values.
* Use clergy to reach other clergy. Work through the council of churches in the community. Use
e-mail and fax networks.
103
-------
Coarse One: What Information Do Our Communities Need
Antonio Diaz, Ecojustice Network, Institute for Global Communications
Computer Networks
People often identify the need for training in using computers.
* For example, training helps people learn the basics, access resources, broadcast their own
materials, and conduct advanced research.
* Incorporate TRI into outreach and training on use of computer networks.
* Dont just cover technology; suggest ways that activists can integrate information into their
work.
* Follow-up all training, even if just with a phone call.
* Develop mentoring programs.
* Acknowledge and work within the technical and economic barriers and the time constraints
that many organizations face.
Rex Tingle, AFL-CIO
Labor Unions
There are 15 million potential TRI users among the AFL- CIO's 78 international unions, along with millions
of other non-unionized workers. The key issue is worker exposure to toxic chemicals, which is routinely much
higher than community exposure.
* Add worker exposure to TRI. Comparable worker exposure information is not kept at OSHA,
"unless maybe it's with the UFO files." More complete information would help to interest
workers by addressing a key concern.
* Incorporate TRI into education and outreach - most workers dont know about TRI.
* Include a training component to help workers understand workplace exposure.
* Involving workers will also help with data quality assurance and pollution prevention.
Laura Manthe, Oneida Environmental Resources Board
Native Nations
Many native Americans are exposed to toxics through fish and game, as well as from landfills, mining, pulp
and paper mills, and other sources. Loss of basic sources of sustenance diminishes culture, beliefs, and
self-reliance. TRI helps educate people on health risks and generate support for stopping pollution.
Right-to-know data have been useful in public testimony, toxic tours, and labor negotiations, among other uses.
104
-------
Course One: What Information Do Oar Communities Need?
* Work through established coalitions such as the Indigenous Environmental Network.
* Provide regular alerts through newsletters and bulletins.
* Compile and present pollution information through materials tailored to local contacts.
Presentation Summary:
I am here representing the Oneida people, numbering more than 13,000. We live in hundreds of different
communities and are heavily impacted by toxic pollution because of our traditional reliance on locally caught
fish and game, which are often contaminated to unhealthy levels.
Studies also show that many Native people also bear a much higher share of the toxic burden from landfills,
incinerators, and other toxic sources located near or on reservations. This overhead depicts the numerous routes
of exposure from a single species.
Because we are forced to abandon our wild foods to protect our health, this damages our cultural beliefs and
traditions, and makes us economically dependant on outside food sources.
Our Native communities can benefit from TRI and other right-to-know information, because when our people
know the sources of continuing contamination, we'll be better able to educate our people about the health risks
and build community support for stopping the pollution.
I serve as coordinator of the Oneida Environmental Resources Board, and I must be sure to provide the Board
with accurate data on a range of local pollution issues.
One example of our use of this data would be a conference the Oneida Tribe organized, called Clean Paper
Making Techniques for the 21st Century. Our Environmental Resources Board wanted to demonstrate to
Oneida Tribal leaders the need for the conference, and used the TRI data illustrate that the Pulp and Paper
Industry was by far the largest industrial source of toxic releases in Wisconsin. Industry lobbyists tried to argue
that they'd made so much progress in recent years that further improvements were unnecessary, but the TRI
data showed otherwise.
The data were clear, and our Board received permission to organize the conference, in an effort to find positive
solutions to these concerns about toxics.
Ways of Reaching Native People
A Contact established coalitions, such as the Indigenous Environmental Network, or the National Tribal
Environmental Council. They can help locate key people within each Tribe who can be contacted to use
the information.
B Provide regular alerts and notices to each of these key people, and request that notices be printed in the
newsletters of the coalitions listed above.
C Have a centralized team compile local data on a regular basis to send specifically tailored information to
each local tribal contact. This would save the local person the work of compiling the information from a
variety of technical lists, and with a skilled computer technician, the data could be compiled into easy-to-
understand pie charts, tables and graphs tailored locally and ready to use by local activists. This initial
105
-------
Coarse One; What Information Do Our Communities Need?
technical step is where much of the TRI use falls off.
Local Ways We've Used TRI Data;
1. Toxic Tour - We've produced a guidebook and hired buses to drive citizens around to see 23 sites of toxic
pollution. TRI data provided much of the background.
2. Clean Air Press Release - We used TRI air emission data to illustrate why the new Clean Act standards
are so important to protecting local health, as part of a local press conference.
3. We used TRI data as part of our testimony at several public hearings- to illustrate why regulators need to
evaluate the cumulative and additive effects of air pollution.
4. We alerted a local labor union about the extremely toxic emissions coming from their facility, and about
the possible risk to worker health. We helped them do further investigations and lobby the company to
reduce emissions as part of their contract renewal process. Achieved significant reduction.
5. We used the Material Safety Data Sheets along with the TRI data to show the significance of worker
exposure concerns at local mills.
Sleeping mats,
Basket
Clothing,
Shelter
A Food
Traditional
Practices
_«n» Contamination
Water «=_-i;_
Cooking
Pot
People are inextricably intertwined with the environment through unique and
multiple uses of resources for food, cultural, ceremonial and religious practices.
106
-------
Conn* One; What Information Do Oar Communities Need?
Typical Exposure Assessment Model
- Suburban lifestyle
Air release
Groundwater
release
A more suitable exposure assessment
with a single species (Cattail):
Pollen:
cakes
Human
food,
other
uses
Reeds:
food storage
baskets
Habitat, feed
Uptake from water
and sediment
Roots: "^^ s
baked /
Soil contact
during collecting
and preparing
Decomposition and release
of long-lived contaminants
-------
Coarse One; What Information Do Onr Communities Need?
UWonsot
Pounds
ENVIRONMENTAL EMISSIONS BY SIC CODE
1994 SARA 313 Data Summary '
12
10
MF
*irt
tST
17 MMf, *•••••.•
4
M Cix«nl> » Oiiwr Cwaml » C*i«nn
u M
atll^c. IUm<«c»ii»t • ••in 1 1
4* T
10 11 14 It If Z7 1* If 10 It U
I 34 31 II » M n 41
SIC Coda
_t : ___ IffHM
ra 7» N n fi t» J*
ITNM11
Total Emissions: 35,002.789 pounds
Figure 15
108
-------
Course One: What Information Do Our Communities Need
Anne Heanue, American Library Association
Libraries
The public naturally looks to libraries for information. Libraries have skilled staff who are willing to help.
Some 700 depository libraries have the TRI CD ROM. Many more libraries have on-line access to government
information. Libraries are increasing public access to high quality computer resources through public work
stations.
* Suggest to librarians ways to use and make available TRI data; they're helpful people.
* Make use of libraries' skilled staff to access and link other information from public health
agencies, the U.S. Geological Survey (for maps), chemical handbooks, etc.
* Support libraries policy of confidentiality in accessing information.
Librarians could help you with programs to reach new constituencies; they are your allies in providing public
access to the Toxics Release Inventory data. People naturally look to the library to find information they need.
The CD-ROM set of the TRI and its users manual are in more than 700 depository libraries around the
country. Other libraries may have it if they bought the set from the Government Printing Office. That means
that there are librarians who know TRI and can help members of the public use it effectively.
As more and more libraries provide public access to the Internet and the World Wide Web, they will be able
to make this information available to the public online at public work stations. For people who do not have
Internet access at home or at the office, the library is a key place in the community to get that access.
Nearly 1,400 libraries around the United States are depository libraries, a program administered by the
Government Printing Office (GPO) in public, academic, state, law schools, and many federal libraries. Through
GPO's online GPO Access service you can find out which depositories have TRI publications. For example,
through GPO's online service you can see the depositories that have the EPA publication, "Expanding
Community Right-To-Know: Recent Changes in the Toxics Release Inventory (1995)." This, of course, makes
it much easier for the public to find right-to-know information in their local communities.
Libraries have skilled staff who can help people with large government data sets. Depository librarians are
familiar with information from the broad range federal agencies like the Occupational Safety and Health
Administration, U.S. Geological Survey, Department of Health and Human Services, Bureau of Indian Affairs,
Federal Highway Administration, and Department of Defense, that may be helpful as you look at the TRI. They
have state and local government information, and maps. There are dictionaries and chemical handbooks to help
people understand terminology. And there will be a policy of confidentiality as questions are asked by library
patrons.
Check out your local library, librarians can help you reach new constituencies by providing public access to
TRI. The latest TRI CD-ROM set of 2 disks is dated November 1996, and costs $46. Call the GPO Access
user support team at 1-888-283-6498 or 202-512-1530. The Washington, D.C. GPO bookstore order desk
telephone number is 202-512-1800.
109
-------
Course One: What Information Do Oar Communities Need
Liem Trail, Jobs for Youth
EnvironmentalJob Training Programs
Training programs develop job skills for youth. Training includes environmental technology and regulation,
information resources, geographic information systems (GIS), and professional development. Such training
programs increase the number of skilled workers, improve incomes, and increase people's stake in their own
communities' environment.
* Incorporate TRI and other environmental information resources into job training programs.
* Work to place trainees in jobs.
Peter Young, Rural Coalition
Rural Workers and Residents
Many rural people are concerned with issues such as farm worker safety and community development. Many
rural areas face environmental problems, or may be targeted for toxic
industries such as waste disposal because of their political vulnerability. To make decisions, communities need
information.
* Inform community groups about right-to-know. EPA and states could conduct a "Mr. Yuk"
style educational campaign.
* Help established local institutions spread the word with public service materials and resources
the right-to-know about right-to-know.
* Conduct training to build capacity at the local level.
* Use maps. Maps are a very effective way to convey information (whether GIS or simpler
alternatives).
* Provide maps through EPA's TRI hotlines and other sources.
Dr. Beverly Wright, Deep South Center for EnvironmentalJustice, Xavier University
Environmental Justice Resource Centers
Many minority and low income communities face serious pollution and quality of life problems. Environmental
justice resource centers use TRI and other right-to-know data to help disadvantaged communities demonstrate
and document their environmental conditions; they inform, train, and organize disadvantaged communities.
* Use spatial and demographic data to illustrate environmental justice issues.
* Develop community environmental profiles using TRI and other information.
110
-------
Course One: Whit Information Do Oar Communities Need
* Use environmental profiles in workshops and training for local communities (on computers,
pollution, and other issues).
* Use workshops and profiles to organize communities for pollution prevention and clean-up.
Presentation Summary:
The presentation began with a discussion of the Deep South Center for Environmental Justice and the formation
of a community + university (communiversity) partnership to address training needs. The Deep South Center
for Environmental Justice (DSCEJ) was developed in 1992 in collaboration with community environmental
groups and other universities within the region to address environmental justice issues. The DSCEJ provides
opportunities for communities, scientific researchers, and decision makers to collaborate on programs and
projects that promote the rights of all people to be free from environmental harm as it impacts health, jobs,
housing, education, and a general quality of life. The Center strives to achieve three key objectives: (1)
partnership between universities and communities; (2) interaction between program components; and (3)
legacy. The Center has three components for reaching its objectives: research and policy; community
assistance and education; and primary, secondary, and university education. The Center's goals are to produce
paradigms to address environmental justice and curricula which can be replicated. It also attempts to
demonstrate an integrative approach to research and policy, and serve as an effective model of a
community%university partnership.
It is often said that "knowledge is power." Since their inception, "Right-to-Know" and TRI have both been used
by environmentally impacted communities to reduce dangerous emissions, improve industry efficiency, shape
environmental policy, and as an educational tool. In its longstanding history of providing service to
environmentally impacted communities, the Deep South Center for Environmental (DSCEJ) has continued to
forge ahead, training communities along the Mississippi River Chemical Corridor in the effective use of TRI
and Right-to-Know.
This presentation highlighted community training by the DSCEJ, utilizing both TRI and Right-to-Know, and
how it is making a difference in communities' struggle for environmental justice. Center director, Dr. Beverly
Wright, believes that, "Empowering community residents with the knowledge and Tcnow-how1 to protect
themselves builds capacity." Both TRI and Right to Know have proven themselves to be successful parts of
the training equation: COIVEMPUNITY+INFORMATION-EMPOWERMENT The center is involved in
valuable community environmental research and in providing technical assistance and training to communities
in the immediate area. We have developed community based training manuals and conducted training sessions
for over 500 impacted community residents.
Lisa Ra^aln, AIDS activist
Health Care Service Providers
Sensitive populations have special needs-people with AIDS, pregnant women, young children, the elderly,
chemotherapy patients, and others. In Milwaukee, Wis., more than 100 people died in one contamination
incident. Water utilities and public health departments have lacked sufficient information and communication
vehicles for reaching the public- especially populations that are difficult to reach.
111
-------
Course One: What Information Do Our Communities Need
Utilize new Safe Drinking Water Act right-to-know provisions to inform millions of
people about water contaminants through water bills and desk top computers (through
a national occurrence database).
Work with people who provide services to sensitive populations-nurses, dieticians,
meal providers (such as Meals on Wheels), and service groups for AIDs and cancer
patients.
Joan Reiss, The Breast Cancer Fund
Women's Environmental Health Groups
Breast cancer is increasing and is now the most common cancer in women. Environmental factors appear to
play a major role. People need to know what is in the environment in order to do responsible research and to
work proactively for prevention.
* Use TRI and other data to inform research and help breast cancer study groups
determine what to look for.
* Move more funding into research on environmental causes.
* Use the news media, which are very interested in environmental pollution and
health.
* Build coalitions of informed and proactive organizations.
Kristin Haldeman, Investor Responsibility Research Center
Investor Research Organizations
Investors are interested when studies show a positive link between environmental and economic performance.
TRI releases are an indicator of a firm's potential exposure to future environmental regulation, pollution control
costs, and liabilities.
* Use company profiles to gauge potential future exposure to environmental costs and
to determine level of investment.
* Morm pension fund managers, not only of funds invested with social criteria, but
also mainstream Wall Street investors.
* Disseminate academic studies that map TRI data against financial performance and
that link environmental practices to better financial results.
* Use investment newsletters to inform individual and institutional investors.
* Use presentations at investment conferences to communicate with investors.
112
-------
Course One; What Information Do Oar Communities Need
Presentation Summary:
Who is IRRC and who are our core constituencies?
The Investor Responsibility Research Center is a 25-year old, not-for-profit, impartial research organization
dedicated to providing information to the institutional investment and corporate communities on a variety of
social and corporate governance issues. Our core constituencies are:
• Large institutional investors (different pension funds)
• Fund Managers
• Socially Responsible Investors (SRI)
• Corporate Community
The Investment Community is probably not one of the first groups to come to mind when we think of
constituencies in need of Toxics Release Inventory data. However, environmental issues are increasingly
relevant to the financial performance of major corporations and the portfolio decisions of investors. In the
United States, widespread public interest, constantly changing environmental regulations, growing enforcement
of a variety environmental statutes that govern the handling of hazardous substances and discharge of
pollutants and proliferating litigation over who should pay for environmental liabilities related to past waste
disposal practices have brought environmental issues to the attention of management at corporations in a broad
spectrum of industries.
What toxic pollution issues do these constituencies face?
Companies that have higher levels of emissions of toxic chemicals may face greater environmental risks than
companies with lower emissions levels because of the potential for negative publicity, tort actions utilizing TRI
information, and increasing costs for pollution control and waste management. Moreover, as EPA promulgates
additional costly regulatory requirements governing releases of toxic chemicals under other statutes, companies
and industries with higher TRI emissions are likely to face additional costs for controlling these releases.
To the extent that TRI emissions are an indicator for exposure to future environmental regulation, companies
with lower IRRC Emissions Efficiency Index® values than their competitors seem likely to have a competitive
advantage in terms of environmental performance. As additional chemicals and industries are added to TRI
reporting requirements, the index will become a better gauge of such environmental exposure.
All face financial risk /liability associated with pollution problems. Studies are showing a link between better
environmental performance and better financial performance. Our constituencies want both. TRI data helps
them evaluate the environmental performance side.
A much larger, related group, some of whom already are counted in IRRC's constituency, is the "mainstream"
investment community (as distinct from the SRI community). However, this group is a tough nut to crack when
it comes to factoring environmental performance into a financial risk analysis. As the link between good
environmental performance and good financial performance becomes more well-established, and corporate
accounting begins to factor true environmental costs/benefits into the ledgers, this group will begin to take more
notice.
How do our constituencies use TRI information?
• Screening (in or out of a portfolio)—Many of our clients use environmental data to screen
companies in or out of their portfolios. If a company has a poor record on environmental
performance, many 'socially responsible1 investors will not include the company in their holdings.
113
-------
Course One; Whit Infomution Do Onr Commanlttei Need
Others will maintain shares in the laggard company and use their leverage as a shareholder to push
the company to change its performance record.
• Benchmarking—Many of our corporate clients use environmental data to evaluate their
company's environmental performance against that of their industry peers.
• Both constituencies use the data to track corporate environmental performance/progress over time
and measure improvement (or lack thereof).
How do we reach more of them as well as "mainstream" investors?
• Press releases to investment newsletters, magazines and newspapers such as Pensions &
Investments, The Wall Street Journal, Investor's Business Daily.
• Web site updates/links
• Speaking/exhibiting at investment-related conferences like the National Association of Securities
Analysts' conference.
• Academic studies linking environmental and financial performance
114
-------
Coarse One; What Information Do Our Communities Need
Session D - How Should We Apply Rankings and Other Interpretive Measures
toTRI?
Session Leader
Gary Davis, Center for Clean Products and Clean Technologies, University of Tennessee
Speakers
Steven Hassur, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Nicolaas Bouwes, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Paul Templet, Institute for Environmental Studies, Louisiana State University
Mark Saperstein, ARCO
Nancy Hammett,
Gary Davis, Center for Clean Products and Clean Technologies, University of Tennessee
Session Abstract
Chemical ranking and scoring (CRS) is a tool to provide practical information on the human health and
environmental hazards of chemicals for risk management decisions. CRS is consistent with, but not identical
to, the concept of risk assessment. CRS typically includes some way of expressing both the hazard of and the
potential for exposure to chemicals. Most often, a few endpoints presenting human health and environmental
effects are evaluated, along with a relatively simple representation of potential for exposure.
Over 150 C The information needs and complexity of different CRS applications may be thought of as a
continuum from evaluation of a single factor to complete site-specific risk assessment. RS systems have been
developed and used for a variety of purposes, including industry product stewardship programs, communication
of risk information, identifying data gaps and priorities for chemical testing, chemical regulation and regulatory
reporting. One important use of CRS is in prioritizing TRI chemical releases for pollution prevention or for
other risk management decisions.
The University of Tennessee Center for Clean Products and Clean Technologies performed a comparative
evaluation of CRS methodologies, and the presentation will describe some of die general types of CRS
methodologies that have been developed. The presentation will also discuss a general framework for CRS that
was developed during a multi-stakeholder workshop sponsored by the Society of Toxicology and Chemistry
and organized, in part, by the Center for Clean Products. Finally, the use of CRS for prioritization of TRI
releases will be discussed and illustrated with examples.
115
-------
Course One; What Information Do Our Communities Need?
CHEMICAL RANKING AND SCORING
AND THE TOXICS RELEASE
INVENTORY
Gary A. Davis, Director
Center for Clean Products and Clean Technologies
University of Tennessee
Toxics Release Inventory and Right-to-Khow
Conference
September 10,1997
CHEMICAL RANKING AND SCORING
DEFINITION
Chemical ranking and scoring (CRS) is a tool
to provide practical information on the
human health and environmental hazards of
chemicals for risk management decisions.
CHEMICAL RANKING AND SCORING
HOW USED IN RISK MANAGEMENT
Screening
RtakAi
neat
Risk Ma
CHEMICAL RANKING AND SCORING
PURPOSES
> Organize and Transmit Information
> Inform Management Activities
116
-------
Conne One: What Information Do Our Communities Need?
CHEMICAL RANKING AND SCORING
RELATIONSHIP TO RISK ASSESSMENT
Hazard
o
Risk
o
npk* n»*
FiifVttai
CHEMICAL RANKING AND SCORING
GENERIC FRAMEWORK
SCOPING/GOAL DEFDWrnON
*1-J*S
SELCCTION
SCORING/BANKING
(VAUJATION)
1 (
ODTPOT/PBESENTATION
CHEMICAL RANKING AND SCORING
TYPES OF SYSTEMS
* Checkoff/categorization
* Dedckmrule
* Endpoint scoring, without aggregation
* Endpoint scoring, with aggregation
* Hybrids of decision rafc/endpolnt scoring
* Generic risk calculation
117
-------
Course One: What Information Do Our Communities Need
Steven Hassur, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Nicolaas Bouwes, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
FACT SHEET
Toxics Release Inventory (TRI)
Relative Risk-Based Environmental Indicators
The Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics (OPPT) has developed an environmental indicators model based
on Toxics Release Inventory (TRI) reporting under the Emergency Planning and Community Right-to-Know
Act of 1986 (EPCRA). The TRI Relative Risk-Based Chronic Human Health Indicator provides a risk-based
measure of the relative impacts of chemical emissions regarding chronic human health. The model is available
as a Microsoft Windows-based computer application; 16-bit (Windows 3.1) and 32-bit (Windows 95) versions
have been developed.
Four Indicators are eventually planned: potential chronic & acute human health and chronic & acute ecological
impacts). The Indicators are numeric relative ranking values, incorporating reported TRI multimedia emissions
and weighting factors representing toxicity, exposure characteristics, and receptor populations based upon EPA
models and databases. The Indicators use TRI data and models to calculate Indicator Elements for each
combination of facility, chemical, and media reported under TRL Each Indicator Element reflects a surrogate
dose weighted by toxicity and exposed receptor population. Of the 578 discrete chemicals and 28 separate
chemical categories that are subject to 1995 TRI reporting, 372 chemicals and chemical categories have
toxicity weights (many others have no or zero reporting, or have very low reported emissions). Each year of
TRI reporting generates approximately 500,000 of these Indicator Elements; which when summed provide
unitless Indicator Values. By comparing each year's Indicator Value to the base year of 1988, or to another
previous year, one can obtain a risk-related perspective of trends in environmental well-being as a function
of chronic human health. The chronic ecological indicator is currently under development.
In addition to using the Indicators to examine trends, the Indicator Elements can be combined in a variety of
ways to provide additional analytical capabilities. For example, individual Indicator Elements can be viewed
by medium, chemical, geographic area (EPA Region, state, county, city, zip code), industry sector (2-, 3- or
4-digit SIC code), facility or a combination of these and other variables. The model produces six alternative
outputs: TRI reported pounds alone; TRI reported pounds sent to underground injection weighted by toxicity;
pounds as reflected by the model; "modeled" pounds weighted by toxicity; modeled pounds weighted by toxicity
and population; and the full model (relative risk-based results) which includes exposure, toxicity and receptor
population. The flexibility of the Indicators model provides the analyst with the opportunity to not only
examine trends, but also the ability to rank and prioritize chemicals for strategic planning, risk-related targeting
for enforcement and compliance purposes, and community-based environmental protection. Since the model
results are exportable in a dBase or Excel format, they can be used for further analysis in other software
applications such as performing statistical tests or preparing reports.
OPPT is modifying the TRI Relative Risk-based Chronic Human Health Indicator to investigate environmental
justice (EJ) from a risk-related perspective. The EJ Module will evaluate the cumulative impacts from all TRI
on- and off-site releases and transfers that affect a given geographic location. Combined with additional
demographic information on affected populations (such as race, income, educational level, or age), the TRI
Environmental Indicators can be used to investigate environmental justice issues related to the distribution of
environmental impacts across segments of the population in user-selected geographic areas. The EJ Module
118
-------
Course One; What Information Do Our Communities Need
will store detailed exposure data that can be analyzed using the present tool or exported to other geographic
information systems (GIS) such as Arc View.
EPCRA section 313(d)(2) sets out criteria for adding chemicals to the section 313(c) list of chemicals subject
to TRI reporting under section 313(a). For a chemical (or category of chemicals) to be added to this list of
toxic chemicals, the Administrator must determine whether there is sufficient evidence to establish that the
chemical meets the statutory criteria for acute human, chronic human and/or environmental toxicity. EPA
examines all of the studies available for a chemical to decide if the chemical is capable of causing any of the
adverse health effects or environmental toxicity in the criteria. The review utilizes Agency guidelines to assess
toxic effects and makes a qualitative judgment regarding the potential of each chemical to meet at least one of
the criteria. There is no correlation between the toxicity criteria and methodology used to make listing/delisting
decisions under EPCRA section 313 and the methodology used to rank chemicals for the Indicators. The goal
of the TRI Indicators is to use data reported to the Agency to investigate the relative risk-based impacts of the
releases and transfers of these chemicals on the general, non-worker population. To do this, the Indicators must
differentiate the relative toxicity of listed chemicals 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
exposure pathways only relative to other chemicals which are included in the Indicators; not to some benchmark
or absolute value.
A full technical discussion of the Indicators is provided in the document, TRI Relative Risk-Based
Environmental Indicators Methodology (EPA, June 1997). An expanded discussion of the methods used in
deriving the toxicity weightings for the Indicators has also been published and is tided, TRI Relative Risk-Based
Environmental Indicators Project: Interim Toxicity Weighting Summary Document (EPA, June 1997). Since
the toxicity weights for various TRI chemicals are undergoing further review, and modifications of the scores
and the addition of new chemicals are likely, interested individuals should consult the most recent listing of the
toxicity weights used hi the TRI Environmental Indicators. Please contact the authors to obtain the most
recently published listing.
The toxicity weights prepared for the TRI Environmental Indicators Project were the subject of an April 29,
1997 review by the EPA Science Advisory Board's (SAB) Environmental Engineering Committee (EEC) -
"Getting to Risk": Review of the Use of Toxicity Weighting Factors in OECA 's Sector Facility Indexing
Project (SFIP). On July 2,1997, the EEC conducted a formal review of the entire Indicators methodology and
provided a consultation on the development of the TRI Relative Risk-Based Chronic Ecological Indicator. Both
final SAB reports should be available to the public in the early Fall.
Many potential applications of this screening-level tool are now being explored, as the developers of the
Indicators model test the prototype Windows 95 version. As the necessary sensitivity and uncertainty analyses
have been completed, the model should be available to a wide audience of users.
For further information or inquiries, please contact:
Nicolaas W. Bouwes, Sr., Ph.D. Steven M. Hassur, Ph.D.
(202)260-1622 (202)260-1735
bouwes.nick@epamail.epa.gov hassur.steven@epamail.epa.gov
119
-------
Course One; What Information Do Our Communities Need
Nancy Hammett
Introduction:
• Auto Sector of EPA's Common Sense Initiative: multi-stakeholder, consensus process;
• Desire for both industry and community profiles for sector;
• Linked to development of Alternative Regulatory System and Community Technical Assistance
concepts for sector; and
• Team, developed comprehensive data report and recommendations to EPA (available in very
near future?).
Profile Report Content:
• Three main sections: 1) Industry sector-wide data, 2) Community-based profiles, and 3)
Observations and Recommendations;
• Industry-wide data: Side-by-side comparisons of 56 auto assembly plants, including the
following information: economic (production), environmental (TRI, RCRA, VOC/NOx), and
demographic (population density, minority, below poverty level, high school completion)
• Assembly Plant/Community Profiles: comprehensive profiles for each assembly plant and
community, including above information as well as other TRI releases within 3 mile radius;
• Observations and Recommendations: includes methodology and background, analyses of
industry-wide data, and recommendations for future EPA data management efforts; and
• Main Observation: EPA's existing data resources are not well-suited to either industrial sector
or community-wide assessments.
Key Recommendations:
• EPA should explore ways to improve the viability, accessibility and usefulness of data
resources. If other community-based or industry sector-based initiatives are undertaken,
improved reporting formats, uses of data or presentations are needed and should involve
industry, environmental groups, state and local governments and other stakeholders.
• EPA should take steps to address the problems of data accuracy, completeness and consistency
that were identified by the Project Team.
Examples of Problems:
• Consistency of data sources-difficult to compare (e.g., facility i.d., TRI v. RCRA, differs
among states);
• Data quality-CD ROM errors, for TRI transfers fields; location coordinates; and
• Data completeness-VOC data in AIRS database.
Conclusions:
• Useful, but difficult and time-consuming task;
• EPA should heed recommendations, and continue to improve data resources (including
accessibility and useful compilations of data); and
• Nexus of industry sector and community-based data on the leading edge.
120
-------
Course Two; How Can We Integrate RTK Information?
Session A - How Can RTK Data Provide Community and Ecosystem Profiles?
Session Leader
Steve Young, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Speakers
Molly Whitworth, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Susan Boyd, CONCERN
Susan Boyd, CONCERN
What Communities are Doing
Overview
During the last few years CONCERN has been developing a Sustainable Communities Program to help raise
the visibility of and participation in local, state and national initiatives that will help communities become more
environmentally and economically sound and socially just. In the process we have become aware of the variety
of ways that communities are developing to inventory their resources and communicate where they are and
where they want to be.
We hear a lot about the loss of community, of fragmentation and compartmentalization of programs, but as
we interview people around the country we consistently hear voices that are enthusiastic, dedicated and their
stories are inspiring. Innovative and pioneering approaches to community planning and problem-solving are
sprouting up from the grassroots. Most are based on a philosophy that the overall and long term health of a
community, like that of an ecosystem, depends on the integration and health of its parts: economic,
environmental, social and cultural. When any one of these is stressed the fabric of the community is loosened.
Generally speaking, participants involved in these projects recognize the possibility of win-win solutions and
seek to create more connections, opportunities, collaborators, and participants. Some other general
characteristics include the following:
1. The numbers and types of community-based participatory planning processes that engage the public,
private and civil sectors are increasing around the country. Civic engagement or the increase in 'social
capital* is critical to these efforts.
2. Anticipatory, or preventive, processes that are long-term and which integrate social,
environmental and economic considerations are proving to be the most effective.
3. Whole systems approaches and place-based initiatives are the most compelling and tend to attract the
most interest and involvement. Place-based programs inform us about the region, the community, the
land on which we live- and look at the region from different perspectives, such as geography, geology,
history, politics, and culture.
4. Asset-based approaches (as opposed to deficit or problems needing to be fixed) help
create more positive thinking.
5. Adaptive, learning frameworks that can evolve and change help build in a certain resilience over time.
Selected Community Examples: New tools such as community indicators, visioning processes, and mapping
programs that help citizens to inventory the resources in their communities are having an effect on planning,
121
-------
Course Two; How Can We Integrate RTK Information?
policymaking and decision-making. These processes serve to provide snapshots of the community and its
progress toward or away from sustainability.
In the next few minutes I would like to present various mechanisms and examples that illustrate what
communities are doing and some of the outcomes.
Indicator Projects
Many different institutions and community organizations are developing indicators based on local values,
priorities and needs. Whether national, state, local or neighborhood-based, the development of indicators and
their application to outcomes are a useful way to gauge progress and to channel resources. There are several
national interagency indicators underway but the following examples represent statewide, community wide,
neighborhood and constituency uses.
There are several good resources on how to develop indicators, among them Maureen Hart's book, Guide to
Sustainability Indicators, and The Community Indicators Handbook co-authored by Redefining Progress,
Sustainable Seattle, and Tyler Norris Associates. Another excellent resource is The Ecological Footprint by
Wackernagel and Reed.
How can indicators be used? Do they become integrated into decision making? How do you get local officials
and the business community involved?
Hawaii - Statewide
In 1995, a group of organizations under the direction of the Hawaii Community Council embarked on a process
to develop a vision and chart the course for the future of the state. In this case, the effort developed more from
a planning perspective than a sustainability one.
m the spring of 1995 young people throughout the islands that make up the state were asked to 'describe the
Hawaii you want to live in' and, 6,000 students responded. There was a remarkable consistency in their
statements. The top two issues addressed the desire to preserve the environment and action to provide safety.
Over 50% of the respondents mentioned the environment; 40% raised safety issues. A small group of high
school students tabulated the results and combined the statements into categories which are now presented as
58 indicators, each of which presents part of the overall vision.
Next a public dialogue began around the state to focus discussion on what it would take to achieve this vision
and ways to monitor progress, or effectively, a benchmarking process. Both the Youth and Adult Steering
committee members established a framework derived from the community input in these meetings and a set of
criteria. The report, Ke Ala Hoku: Critical Indicators Report 1996, is divided into six categories, beginning
with the preservation and revitalization of the Aloha spirit. Other categories address its ecosystems, social
environment, economy, education and civic life. How are these indicators being applied in a concrete way?
What are some of the outcomes of this exercise? Overall is it helping with priority setting and decision-making?
Funding (both private and public): The Aloha United Way has committed to allocating 75% of its funds by the
year 2002 to on the basis of the community benchmarks - the County of Maui Departments of Housing and
Human Concerns are making grants based on the specific outcomes recommended.
122
-------
Course Two; How Can We Integrate RTK Information?
Contracting: The Office of Youth Services of the Department of Human Services will contract for services
using outcomes as a criterion.
Legislation: Two bills in particular were passed in the state legislature, one to create a demonstration
benchmarking project and the other a resolution for the Department of Business, Economic Development and
Tourism to report on the viability of including the benchmarking process in the revision of the state plan.
Planning Projects: A number of organizations, among them the Department of Health and the Hawaii
Community Foundation are planning projects based on the outcomes.
Finally, two of the distinguishing aspects of this approach is the broad-based participation at the grassroots
level - that is tapping local knowledge and values rather than a plan prepared by policymakers - and the
intergenerational emphasis. Roughly 8000 people participated in the initial process. Children launched the
vision which was later echoed by surveys of the adult population.
Olympia, Washington - Region/City
In 1993 the city of Olympia adopted a Sustainable City philosophy which it has used to guide and integrate
much of its planning such as the Comprehensive Plan adopted under the State's Growth Management Plan. It
helped to form the Sustainable Community Roundtable in 1991 to serve in a public education, convening role.
In 1993 the Roundtable published its first State of the Community Report followed by an update in 1995, and
regular annual updates. The report contains three sections, one which gives visions for the future of the
community, a second to present a profile of what it looks like now, and finally, what steps are being taken to
move it forward. The value of reporting Steps in the Right Direction has served to focus the efforts of both
public and private institutions and deal with them in an integrative way.
Some examples include:
• A regional land use and transportation plan to develop local sufficient density to support public
transportation
• The convening of a group of constituencies around a local River Management that takes into
consideration the economic, environmental, cultural and historical significance of the river basin.
• A Green Jobs program
• A Community Supported Agriculture (CSA) program a family support center and a coordinated youth
services indicators program
South Bronx, New York - Neighborhood
Melrose Commons is a 35-block area where 6000 residents, principally Hispanic and African American, live
and work. The average income is under $12,000. In 1992 they learned that the city's proposed Urban Renewal
plan - would displace most of the local residents and businesses. Hundreds of volunteers rallied together to form
a group, Nos Quedamos, or We Stay, and defined what they wanted in the way of affordable housing, job
creation, technical assistance, transportation, parks, and schools. Residents conducted block by block surveys,
attended 168 meetings, and held a voter registration drive. They presented their own plan to the City that
focused on parks, water use, housing and the importance of local contractors to carry out the plan.
The plan was adopted and the process brought together the neighborhood and drew attention from around the
country. Recent results of this local profiling and action include the renovation of six more buildings, putting
50 living units back on line. On the way are 27 three-family homes that will be built by a local construction
123
-------
Course Two; How Can We Integrate RTK Information?
firm in the Bronx. Perhaps the greatest improvement to the community is a medical, mixed use facility. The
Bronx-Lebanon Hospital will build a 10,000 square-foot satellite facility that will offer local medical care to
the neighborhood. It will occupy the first floor of an $ 11 million, seven-story building. The rest of the building
will provide housing for low-income families and host a homeless shelter as well as dentistry unit,
mammograph, asthma care unit, and x-ray. It exemplifies mixed-use: as a commercial- medical/residential
facility, as low-income housing/homeless shelter, and as rented/owned property. The builders will be Bronx
contractors who will employ Bronx residents.
Meanwhile, Nos Quedamos is also cooperating with Neighborhood Housing Services (NHS) to help make
low-income loans available to people who stay in the neighborhood and want to refurbish their homes.
Profiling Tools
What tools are available to community members? Some examples include asset-based mapping and geographic
information systems.
Asset-based mapping: Traditionally communities define themselves in terms of what they 'need1 with examples
of unemployment, broken families, child abuse, lead, illiteracy, school dropouts and the like. This lens has led
to a fragmented approach to problem-solving, frequently perpetuating the needs. It also has created dependency
and the idea that outside experts, rather than local residents, should be taking the responsibility for change.
In recent years, John McKnight and Jody Kretzman, two professors at Northwestern University, and co-authors
of Building Communities from the Inside Out, have advocated and helped to implement a new approach, or
Assets or Capacity-Based Development. Coming from a perspective that focuses on local involvement is
critical and that local knowledge, mapping and creativity can yield impressive results. The key to revitalization
is to identify all local assets and have them build on them to leverage results. This helps to build local capacity
and to guide policymaking.
Geographic Information Systems (CIS) mapping -Trenton, NJ
A new application of community mapping is taking place in Trenton, New Jersey under the direction of a local
nonprofit organization, Isles, Inc. In its Brownfields Restoration Program, ISLES collaborates in three
communities with Rutgers University, the New Jersey Institute of Technology, and the Department of
Environmental Protection. The program is nationally recognized as a model. Through an accredited curriculum,
residents are trained in Geographic Information Systems (GIS) mapping, thereby learning about air, water, soil,
and pollution from their own perspective and experience. They have identified linkages between issues such
as environmental hazards and human health. ISLES will be training the Fire and Police Departments to use GIS
systems as well. This application may become more widespread and offer business opportunities for other
communities as well. These are just a few of the many community-based initiatives that represent an integrative
approach to planning and link profiling, indicator development with specific, concrete outcomes. They offer
valuable sources of information and can serve as models for replication elsewhere. Thank you.
124
-------
Course Two; How Can We Integrate RTK Information?
Steve Young, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Community and Ecosystem Profiling
A Vision of Profiling
Community and ecosystem profiles are one way to empower people with environmental information and help
them gain a more holistic view and understanding of a place they care about. A profile should provide a "big
picture" of a place that is understandable and shows how things are connected. For example, a profile might
very well provide information about toxic releases and contamination as one set of components, but it would
also provide a context for analyzing that information in relationship with other environmental indicators and
the people and other things that could be affected.
Think about the weather and think about maps - the information that is available to you.
Two hundred years ago, what did people know about the weather? They had no TV weather forecasters, no
Weather Channel, no satellite loops, no weather radar displays, and few basic weather instruments. All they
could do was rely on their own senses, a few old saws about weather, and the prognostications of The Farmer's
Almanac and other sources. Preparing for the weather was mostly guesswork and luck.
The maps of two hundred years ago weren't much better. They might give a general idea of places, but they
tended to be inaccurate, especially in remote areas in the New World.
fa two hundred years, we've made enormous progress in weather monitoring and in mapping. Now, it's
relatively easy to obtain weather forecasts and accurate maps for any place in the world. We also get to see
an overview, or "profile" if you will, of the weather — not just a set of numbers for relative humidity values or
precipitation quantities.
The challenge now is to make similar progress in making environmental information readily available and
compelling to people. The urgency is especially great because environmental information empowers people
to anticipate possible outcomes; to make positive changes in the outcomes; to be more in line with people's
needs and aspirations.
A profile should tell you what you want to know to understand a place you're interested in; it should help
explain what all the data and information mean.
What Is a Profile?
Profiles provide a wide range of information and set the information within an understandable context. Some
of the information (this is illustrative and is not a complete list!) includes:
Environmental Information
Geology and Soils Toxic Releases
Toxic Contamination Environmental Monitoring Information
Surface and Underground Water (Flows, Quality; Watershed Characteristics) Other Releases and Media Discharges
Location of Communities and Organisms in local Ecosystems Land Cover
125
-------
Course Two: How Can We Integrate RTK Information?
Socio-economic Information
Land Use and Zoning Demographics of People and Industry
Roads and Buildings and Other Human Constructs and Facilities Health Statistics
Economic Activities Including Agriculture, Forestry, Fisheries, etc.
Location of Sensitive Human Populations
And, in general, what are the resources and what are the threats, hazards, and opportunities. Also, what does
the place look like as seen from the air and the ground?
Notice that the information will come from a wide range of sources including agencies at all levels of
government, industry, and non-governmental organizations.
A profile is especially effective when the information is available for times in the past and for future
projections, as well as the present.
Ideally, a profile when on-line will also contain many links to more information about items of interest; for
example, more information about plants and animals that live in the place; more information about toxic
chemicals released or detected in the place; and more information about the companies that operate facilities
in the place. Similarly, on-line profiles should provide tools that can be selected to aid visualization of the
information, like desktop mapping displays. Ideally, profile users should be able to generate forecasts and
projections of conditions in the future under current trends and alternative scenarios.
We can consider two aspects of profiles: general profiling and comparative profiling. General profiling focuses
on the place of interest and seeks to further understanding of the place and its situation, and what makes it tick.
Comparative profiling looks at how the place of interest stacks up against other places (benchmarks) on a
relative basis. Stakeholders might want to assign their place grades on various attributes, establish rankings,
or determine scores or index values.
A good example of an environmental profile is a document produced by the Greater Yellowstone Coalition in
1990 entitled "A Profile of the Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem." Their profile defined what they considered
to be the Greater Yellowstone, and then described it across a wide range of characteristics, using maps and
graphics to help make the information lively and understandable. Except for some subjective statements, it is
a general profile rather than a comparative profile.
Why Profile?
Profiling is a way for stakeholders to help to build a shared understanding of their place, to get people reading
from the same sheet of music in so far as possible and also to try to see the whole picture. For years
environmentalists have talked about how everything is connected, and yet the environmental enterprise tends
to look at bits and pieces of the environment as if they were disconnected. Much of this is probably a legacy
of the way our framework of environmental laws divides environmental issues up along media statutes,
committee assignments, and program offices. Profiling seeks to show the fabric of connectedness, including
the interconnections between the environment and the economy and overall quality of life. And of course,
sometimes restoring damaged environmental resources can present economic opportunities for communities,
as in the brownfields context. Profiles can aid people in identifying some of the opportunities for environmental
progress, as well as the problems.
126
-------
Course Two: How Cap We Integrate RTK Information?
The Emergency Planning and Community Right-to-Know Act (EPCRA) launched the Toxic Release Inventory
and helped found the idea of environmental right to know. Now EPA has an initiative to expand environmental
right to know, EMPACT - Environmental Monitoring for Public Access and Community Tracking -
beginning with 85 metropolitan areas that will be provided much richer environmental information. One
challenge is to generalize the successes TRI has achieved by extending right-to-know to the full range of
environmental and sustainability issues. A second challenge is to answer the question: "What does it mean?"
But the grandest challenge is to use the provision of the information to achieve positive environmental
outcomes. If we are informed, if we understand, and if we are given some options and some ability to evaluate
alternatives, we are not helpless. Profiling is a way to help us take charge of our destiny instead of falling prey
to the belief that the environment, like the weather, is something we can only talk about.
Another key point - federal agencies are required to measure the outcomes of their programs as they implement
the Government Performance and Results Act. What is happening to people, communities, and ecosystems
documents the performance of environmental and other programs. As agencies work to define and track their
performance measures, they will find that the health of people, communities, and other living things serves as
a set of "canaries in the coal mine" and indicators of effectiveness of protection programs.
How to Profile
Every place is different, and profiling is not a simple, cookbook process. Stakeholder groups in different places
are likely to have somewhat different objectives and preferred approaches. But the overall, common objective
of profiling should be to assemble objective, rich information, make it understandable, and use it to help build
a better future.
Some common elements for profiling include:
Defining objectives and performance measures
Looking at other profiling efforts to gam ideas and learn from their experiences
Identifying information sources and assembling information
Analyzing the information and using tools like CIS to produce visualizations of the information
Disseminating the information to the stakeholders
Resources and Tools
Some "Starting Point" Resources for Community and Ecosystem Profiling
World Wide Web Sites
Fedstats -- "One-Stop Shopping for Federal Statistics" (http://www.fedstats.gov/)
The Greater Yellowstone Coalition Home Page (http://www.desktop.org/gyc)
Copies of the "Profile of the Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem" may be available from the Greater
Yellowstone Coalition.
The National Biological Information Infrastructure (NBIT) (http://www.nbii.gov/)
Natural Heritage Information
The Nature Conservancy (TNC) Home Page (http://www.tnc.org/)
127
-------
Course Two: How Can We Intearate RTK Information''
The Association for Biodiversity Information (ABI) and TNC Natural Heritage Network Central Server
(http://www.abi.org/)
RTK Net (http://www.rtk.net)
The Sustainable Communities Network (http://www.sustainable.org)
U.S. Census Bureau (http://www.census.gov/)
U.S. EPA Envirofacts Environmental Data Warehouse (http://www.epa.gov/enviro/html/ef_home.html)
U.S. EPA Maps on Demand (http://www.epa.gov/enviro/html/mod/mod.html)
U.S. EPA Storefront of Community Environmental Tools (http://www.epa.gov/ecosystems/storefront/)
U.S. EPA Surf Your Watershed (http://www.epa.gov/surf)
U.S. EPA Sustainable Ecosystems and Communities home page (http://www.epa.gov/ecocommunity/)
The U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) (http://www.usgs.gov)
USGS Earth Resources Observation Systems (EROS) Data Center (http://edcwww.cr.usgs.gov/)
A book on the Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem:
R. B. Keiter and M. S. Boyce, editors. The greater Yellowstone
ecosystem: redefining America's wilderness heritage. Yale University
Press, New Haven, Connecticut. 1994.
Molly Whitworth, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
What the Community Needs to Know about Ecological Resources
As both a professional analyst and trained ecologist, and as a citizen, I am often confronted with issues that
I am ill-placed to address comfortably because I do not have ready access to basic ecological and natural
resource information. As an analyst in Washington, I am often asked for my "on the spot" assessment or
evaluation of current policies regarding land use, pollutant regulation or endangered species protection.
Although more information than ever is finding its way onto web sites and online networks, deciphering the
good from bad information takes more investigation than time allows. I rely on my professional contacts,
experience, and extensive library, to draw conclusions.
But as a citizen attending the local zoning meetings, for example, I'm really out of luck unless I have a good
source of information readily handy to use in making public statements or am able to ask intelligent questions
related to decisions affecting me, my family, and the quality of the natural environment hi which we live.
At a minimum, for example, I'd like to know:
Where are the protected lands already in existence in my county or locale?
128
-------
Course Two: How Can We Inteerate RTK Information?
What does the landscape look like in its pattern of land use, connectiveness or fragmentation of native
ecosystems, and areas slated for development, industrial or residential?
Where are the streams that are currently not meeting the minimum water quality standards?
What is the current inventory of plants and animals native to my area and where are they? Is the biodiversity
of my region stable or declining?
How much of my night sky is obstructed by lights? How much of my locale is covered by impervious surfaces?
Are these conditions getting better or worse?
How does my region or locale compare to others around me and throughout my state or region in the quality
of its natural environment?
Are there any proposed wildlife sanctuaries or refuges in the planning or proposed stages which I should know
about?
Where are the watershed boundaries in my region/county?
What did my locale look like ecologically before settlement? Has it improved during the 20th century?
129
-------
Co«n«Two: Haw CM W< integrate RTK laforiMttM?
Session B - How Can RTK be Used to Provide Industry Profiles?
Session Leader
Ken Pelletier, Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection
Speakers
Lisa Doerr, Citizens for a Better Environment
Janet Ranganathan, World Resources Institute
Rich Bizzozero, Massachusetts Office of Technical Assistance for Toxic Use Reduction
Leslie Winik, Chemical Manufacturers Association
Ken Pelletier, Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection
Session Abstract
This session will address various programs and projects that utilize TRI and other Right-to-Know databases
to assess industry's progress in toxic use reduction, pollution prevention, worker safety issues and protection
of the environment. The studies that will be discussed in this session are examples of how several groups (state
- technical assistance offices, manufacturing associations, NGO's and cooperative efforts) have integrated
various sources of data [TRI data, state only required data (TURA/MA), economic data and other projections]
to produce both reports and other mechanisms that allow others to:
• assess progress being made by an industry group; effects of all industries in a community on
its environmental health and progress state-wide;
• target industry sectors needing technical assistance; assist in setting up mentoring programs
and facilitate technology transfers;
• allow internal managers and external stakeholders to obtain indicators of environmental
performance as well as the traditionally available financial indicators; and
• create models on how to collect data/information on industry, industry-wide or community
basis to assist government, business community and individuals in their decision making.
Janet Ranganathan, World Resources Institute
Measuring Up. Toward a Common Framework for Tracking Corporate Environmental Performance
This presentation was based on a new WRI publication, Measuring Up: Toward a Common Framework for
Tracking Corporate Environmental Performance, by Daryl Ditz and Janet Ranganathan. The presentation
reviewed the emerging field of corporate environmental performance indicators (EPIs) from the perspectives
of internal managers and of external stakeholders including customers, regulators, and the financial sector.
It also argued for the adoption of four key indicators to help firms and others reach beyond compliance to
focus on resource efficiency and pollution prevention. The four key categories of environmental performance
were:
1. Materials Use: Quantities and types of materials used. This EPI tracks resource inputs, distinguishing
their composition and source.
2. Energy Consumption: Quantities and types of energy used or generated. This EPI, the energy analog
to materials use, also differentiates fuel types.
3. Nonproduct Output: Quantities and types of waste created before recycling, treatment, or disposal.
130
-------
Count TITO; How CM W« Inutrttt RTK
This EP1 distinguishes production efficiency from end-of-pipe pollution control.
4. Pollutant Releases; Quantities and types of pollutants released to air, water, and land. This EPI
includes toxic chemicals, as well as greenhouse gases, solid wastes, and other pollutants.
The presentation explored how these four types of EPIs are already being used by decision-makers both inside
and outside company walls. Just as a company's financial statement can be relied upon to provide information
that is comparable, transparent, and complete, the EPIs of a company could be used to rate its environmental
performance. In this way, EPb can provide the information necessary to measure and motivate progress
towards environment goals. The adoption of a standard framework for EPIs will facilitate comprehensive
analysis of resource consumption and pollution beyond individual companies to entire sectors of industry, or
even countries.
Using examples drawn from within the business community, the presentation described bow such EPIs are
being used inside firms to drive improvements in resource efficiency, while increasing profitability. These
business cases which included Nortel, General Motors, and Hewlett Packard, point to the importance of having
comparable EPIs. Without comparability, businesses can't benchmark their performance against other firms,
nor can they take credit for their successes.
Concurrent with the growing business interest in EPIs, others outside firms are seeking ways to factor corporate
environmental performance into decisions, such as what products to buy, what firms to invest in, and whether
progress towards corporate and national goals is being achieved. The presentation described several examples
from around the globe of how regulators, communities, governments, the financial sector, and others are using
EPIs and how these uses are dependent on EPIs that are available in a comparable transparent format.
Ultimately it will be in the interest of firms, and others alike, to converge upon a standard set of universally
reported EPb. Without this there cannot be consistent standards of accountability for business environmental
performance, or practical means for companies or countries to gauge and communicate progress towards
environmental goals. With this in mind, the presentation outlined recommendations for business, governments,
non-governmental organizations and others to lay the foundation of a new framework for measuring corporate
environmental performance.
Rich Bizzozero, Massachusetts Office of Technical Assistance for Toxic Use Reduction
Industry Trends In Pollution Prevention and Waste Minimization
TRJ data can be used to quantify many of the wastes that are generated at industrial facilities. The data can
be used to identify company and industry trends in waste recycled on and off site, recovered for energy, and
wastes that are disposed of or released to the environment. With the addition of chemical use and other
materials accounting information, industry trends in chemical use patterns and pollution prevention can be
identified and quantified. This information is used to target technical assistance and facilitate technology
transfer.
In Massachusetts, approximately 1.23 billion pounds of chemicals are reported to the state in its annual Toxic
Release Inventory (TRJ) and Toxic Use Reeducation Act (TURA) programs. Approximately forty-three
percent (532 million pounds) of the reported chemicals are incorporated into products by companies. Forty-five
percent (557 million pounds) are consumed or transformed during processing and may be incorporated into
products. The remaining twelve percent (146 million pounds) are generated as byproducts and are either
treated, transferred, disposed of or released to the environment.
131
-------
Course Two: How Can We integrate RTK Information?
A review of the materials accounting data reported by industrial facilities covered by the Massachusetts Toxic
Use Reduction Act (TURA) combined with the waste minimization data collected by the TRI yield insights into
industry trends in chemical use and waste management. Certain industrial sectors are focused on reducing
releases to the environment through treatment or transfer, while others are focused on pollution prevention by
reducing the use of otherwise used chemicals, integral recycling, etc. Some industrial sectors that use relatively
small quantities of chemicals are responsible for significantly larger percentages of the state-wide off-site
transfers and releases of chemicals to the environment. This information has been used to target assistance
needs and direct technical assistance resources.
132
-------
Course Two; How Can We Integrate RTK Information?
Session C - How Can RTK Data Support Permitting and Enforcement?
Session Leader
Michael Walker, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Speakers
Charlie Tebbutt, Western Environmental Law Center
James Hirtz, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region IV
Gina Bushong, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
James Conrad, Chemical Manufacturers Association
Cindy DeWulf, Ohio Division of Air Pollution Control
Dan Kraft, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Nora Lopez, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region II
Michael Walker, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Session Abstract
The Emergency Planning and Community Right-to-Know Act (EPCRA) TRI data has been around for ten
years; the data can and has played an important role in permitting and enforcement. Data quality; the
appropriate use and interpretation of TRI data remains a concern. What can be done to improve the use of this
data? General Topical Areas for discussion:
How EPA/States currently use TRI data? How data will be used in the future?
• Targeting for inspections;
• Better assessments of ecosystems; (chemical usage patters on Chesapeake Bay tributaries);
• Potential chemical exposures to sensitive receptors; ecologically sensitive areas; low or
minority income populations;
• Identification of facilities for outreach for compliance assistance;
• Identification of sectors that represent under represented reporting groups, i.e. refrigerated
warehouses with commercial coolants like ammonia;
• Measurement of progress, i.e. pollution prevention over time;
• Use of TRI for permitting; wholelistic facility management; and
• Settlements/supplemental environmental projects.
How the public uses TRI data?
• Current uses;
• Projected uses; and
• Informed participating in permitting/sitting considerations.
The Industry Perspective:
• We use TRI for better site management and chemical stewardship;
• TRI reductions demonstrate real progress - this cannot be overlooked;
• TRI aggregate data may be misinterpreted; EPA must help to interpret data; and
• Tangible TRI pollution prevention progress should be used to reward facilities; i.e. ELP.
133
-------
Course Two; How Can We Integrate RTK Information?
Dan Kraft, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
TRIData Use in EPA Region 2 Enforcement and Environmental Protection
TRI data is used in various ways in Region 2 including to enhance our enforcement and environmental
protection efforts. EPA Region 2 serves New York, New Jersey, Puerto Rico and the Virgin Islands.
Since 1990, Region 2 has had an active focus on multi-media compliance monitoring and enforcement. Our
Multi Program Enforcement Steering Committee plans and oversees selection of targets and performance of
10-15 full Regional multi-media compliance inspections annually, and coordinates any subsequent enforcement
actions that may result from these inspections. Targeting methodology has varied over the years and continues
to evolve as the larger facilities have been inspected. TRI data, specifically total releases of carcinogens and
non-carcinogens, have been included as one of the factors for selecting multi-media inspection targets.
The TRI media specific compliance/enforcement program considers total releases to air, land and water in
setting priorities for data quality inspections. We also target these data quality inspections at facilities where
TRI reports of zero air releases appear questionable.
Our Air Compliance Branch is using TRI data to identify facilities operating without required state air permits.
They are comparing lists of facilities ranked by their total air releases with facility data in the AIRS database
to identify facilities reporting high TRI air releases that do not have air permits. This effort has already been
successful in identifying a major air source that was operating without a permit. Enforcement action is pending
by the delegated State agency.
TRI data is also used to help identify candidates for Community Based Environmental Protection projects
(CBEPs). Beginning in 1995, EPA Regional and National Program offices have been directed to focus
significant Agency resources to address local environmental problems with active local community evolvement.
Among the first of these CBEPs initiated by Region 2 was in the Barceloneta-Manati area of Puerto Rico.
Our review of the TRI releases in Puerto Rico indicated a significant clustering of high releasing facilities in
the Barceloneta-Manati municipios on the North Shore of Puerto Rico. Further review indicated these high
releases were predominately dichloromethane. The TRIPQUIC TRI analysis tool provides an effective way
to help visualize relative releases. About 3 million pounds/year of dichloromethane is released by 5
pharmaceutical facilities in the Barceloneta-Manati area. This represents about 5 % of all dichloromethane
releases reported nationally under TRI and almost half of the dichloromethane releases from this
pharmaceutical sector in the U.S.
The area was also of interest to the Water program; they had recently started a wellhead protection program
in the area. Groundwater is a major source of potable water along the Western North Shore of Puerto Rico.
All the pharmaceutical facilities have been inspected by EPA and were found to be in compliance with their
air permits, despite the large releases.
Next steps include seeking voluntary reductions by the facilities. This may be complicated by the FDA
regulation of their process operations.
134
-------
Course Two; How Can We Integrate RTK Information?
James Hirtz, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region VII
INTRODUCTION;
The targeting strategy developed by Region Vn combines data and reporting requirements under the Emergency
Planning Community Right to Know Act (EPCRA) to identify facilities that have significant releases of toxic
substances. Annual chemical emission estimates obtained under Section 313 of EPCRA are used to estimate
daily releases. These estimates are then ranked to prioritize facilities that have TRI daily emissions exceeding
the Reportable Quantity (RQ).
This target list is then further analyzed to determine the applicability of the Continuous Release provisions
under Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act (CERCLA) § 103 for those
facilities that have exceeded the daily RQ. A review of the TRI data for Region Vn, has identified
approximately 125 candidates. The second step is to determine if the facility has an exemption under CERCLA
or a federally enforceable permit associated with these releases.
AUTHORITY;
• The above information can be collected under a CERCLA 104(e) request;
• The methodology for assigning RQ's are defined under rule making; and
• The emissions data collected is based upon the facility's estimate of their releases using data
that is available to their facility as required under EPCRA § 313.
AREAS OF NATIONAL SIGNIFICANCE;
• Determination of Regulatory Requirements in the context of 'Tederally Permitted Releases"
(MACT Standards, NSPS and NESHAP standards under the CAA, and Tide V Operating
Permits, etc.); and
• Incorporation of the data collected under Continuous Releases into the EPA's Pollution
Prevention, Enforcement, and Compliance Assistance Strategies.
OPPORTUNITIES;
The result of this review provides the opportunity to gather source specific information on processes that
release significant quantities of hazardous chemicals to the environment through the completion of the
Continuous Release application. This information can be used to identify:
• Pollution Prevention Opportunities;
• EPCRA § 304/CERCLA § 103 Enforcement Initiative;
• Program Prioritization of Tide V Operating Plans under the CAA; and
• Setting enforcement priorities for Multi-media audits, EPCRA § 313, Data Quality
inspections, CAA inspections, (MACT Stds), & Chemical Safety Audits
135
-------
Course Two: How Can We Integrate RTK Information?
Session D - How Should We Integrate Multiple Sources of Data?
Session Leader
Mark Greenwood, Ropes & Gray
Speakers
Mark Day, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Bilinda Townsend, Boeing Corporation
Maureen Hart, Environmental Data Analyst
Mark Greenwood, Ropes & Gray
Session Abstract
The public access strategies pioneered by TRI are now being adopted by a variety of government programs.
A wide variety of data bases are now available for public use. Better integration of these data sources could
enhance the value of such information for the public and reveal opportunities to eliminate unnecessary
reporting. The Panel Session will include an outline of the major data integration efforts now under way and
provide a panel discussion of the issues raised by data integration for government agencies, the business
community and public interest data users.
Mark Day, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Reinventing Environmental Information
Reinventing Environmental Information & Integrating Data: The Devil is in the Details
Integrating Data: The Goals
• Integrated Multimedia Information
• Improved Holistic Program Support
• Increased Value of Information
• Improved Ease of Use
• Improved Context for Decision Making
Integrating Data: Where We Are
Multiple Legacy Systems
• Designed to Support Individual Program Operations
• Successful in Primary Mission to Date
• Mission is Changing
• Prior Attempts to Integrate
Integration As Strategic Goal
Administrator's Commitment to Improvement
136
-------
Course Two; How Can We Integrate RTK Information?
Key Issues: Devil is in the Details
Policy Issues
• Federal/State/Industry Relations - Report Process
• Security/Quality Issues
• New Role for EPA - Data Integrator and Provider
• Legislative Barriers
Technical Issues
• Many Architectural Approaches
• Integrating Key Identifiers
-Assignment of Facility ID
-Chemical Coding for Compounds
• Sound Data Dictionary
Practical Issues
• Governance of Shared Data
-Priority of Program Work vs. Efficiency and Agency Gains
-Cost Allocation
-Human Capital
-Shared Decision Making
• Which Data is First - Staging Legacy Systems
EPA is Committed to Greater Data Integration
EPA is Committed to the Hard Work
EPA Welcomes Your Interest and Input
Maureen Hart, Environmental Data Analyst
Sustainable Business in a Sustainable Community
Over the last 30 years, there has been tremendous progress made in improving the state of the US environment
through the combined, although not always cooperative, efforts of environmental activists, environmental
agencies, and the business community. The reason it hasnt always been cooperative is that there is a general
perception that environmental protection and economic progress are incompatible; that economic progress is
only possible at the expense of a clean, healthy environment and environmental protection is only possible by
limiting economic progress. This faulty perception is due to the ways in which we measure economic and
environmental progress. The traditional measures of progress are narrowly focused indicators that ignore the
interconnection between the economy and the environment. By ignoring the linkages, these traditional measures
are actually hampering the additional progress that needs to be made.
137
-------
Course Two: How Can We Integrate RTK Information9
Figure 1 shows how traditional indicators tend to divide up a community into independent parts. The
environmental indicators are used to measure air and water quality and the state of natural resources.
Environment Economy
Water Quality
Air Quality
Natural
Resources
Society
Stockholder
Profits
Materials for
Production
Jobs
Education
Health
Poverty
Crime
Figure 1 Traditional way of viewing and measuring the
components of a community.
Economic indicators measure profits and loss, costs of materials and jobs. Social indicators are used to
measure health, education, poverty and crime. Progress in any area is measured independent of changes in
other areas. For example, a traditional measure of economic progress is the Gross Domestic Product or GDP.
The GDP is a measure of how much money is flowing between companies and individuals. The more money
flows, the better the economy. However, the GDP does not take into account why money is flowing between
businesses and individuals: the GDP goes up when there is a ten car pileup on the highway because of the
money spent on medical fees and repair costs. On the other hand, if ten people decide not to buy a car and walk
to work instead, their health and wealth may increase but the GDP goes down. Similarly, according to
traditional air and water quality measures, tremendous improvements have been made in the state of the
environment. However, while we have made great strides in reducing the problems associated with point
releases of pollution, the environment is becoming increasingly overwhelmed by nonpoint source pollution-
pollution due to the collective social behaviors of each and every one of us. Efforts to contain, control, or
eliminate these behaviors have met with great resistance because the measures that we have been using are
disconnected from the economic and social factors that are the root causes of the problems.
There is a growing realization among communities that a more holistic approach to defining and measuring
progress is needed, one that acknowledges the interconnections between the economy, the environment, and the
society. Figure 2 is a graphic representation of the connections between the same economic, social, and
environmental issues shown in Figure 1.
138
-------
Course Two; How Can We Integrate RTK Information?
Water Quality
Stockholder.
/Profits
Air Quality
Educatiqn
Health
Materials for
Production
/Poverty
Natural
Resources __
Jobs ~~Crime
Figure 2 Some of the interconnections between
economic, social and environmental components of a
community.
The natural resource base provides the materials for production on which jobs and stockholder profits depend.
Jobs affect the poverty rate which is related to crime. Air and water quality and materials have an effect on
health. They may also have an effect on stockholder profits. For example, if a process requires clean water
as an input, cleaning up poor quality water prior to processing is an extra expense. Likewise, health problems,
whether due to general air quality problems or exposure to toxic materials, have an effect on worker
productivity and contribute to the rising costs of health insurance. Communities are not just the three boxes
of environment, economy and society, rather they are a complex web of the interactions between these different
areas. But when traditional measures treat these components as separate, the resulting solutions to the
individual problems often make one component better at the expense of another-resulting in the perception that
environmental quality and economic well-being are incompatible.
There is also a growing understanding that the types of measures traditionally used are part of the problem
The most common measure is a measure of a state-the state of the environment, the state of the economy, the
state of the society. Table 1 shows some common indicators of the state of the environment, parts per million
or billion of some air pollutant, number of days that air quality standards are met, amount of waste material
generated. In fact, many reports from environmental agencies are called "State of the Environment" reports.
139
-------
Course Two; How Can We Integrate RTK Information?
Pressure
State
Response
Number of pounds of toxics
emitted in production or use of
products
Number of people driving cars
Amount of single use, disposable
products being produced
Parts per million/billion of
particular air pollutant
Number of days that air quality
standards are met
Amount of materials being
landfilled or incinerated or
recycled
Number of air permits issued
Percent of fleet meeting
emissions standards
Number of permitted landfills
with adequate liners
Table 1 Indicators of pressures, states, and responses
Table 1 also shows traditional response indicators: how many permits have been issued, what percent of the
cars manufactured meet specific emissions standards, how many landfills have been permitted or inspected.
However, until very recently, the types of measures that have been largely ignored are the pressures that are
causing the state and requiring the response: the number pounds of toxic materials are being used, the number
of cars on the road, or the number or single-use, disposable, non recyclable products being consumed.
The key word here is consumption. Up until very recently, the combined efforts of environmentalists,
environmental agencies, and businesses have been focused on the production of goods: what materials are used,
how are they used, what happens to waste products after they are produced. However, it is becoming more
obvious that the real problems are not on the production side of the equation, rather the problems are on the
consumption side of the equation. Or, more accurately, the problems are due to economic measures that say
that increasing production is good for the economy without recognizing that increasing consumption is bad for
the environment. The economic indicators are encouraging the 'pressures' that create the problems with the
'state' and require the 'responses' shown in Table 1.
The biggest problem that communities are facing is not a lack of data, but a lack of understanding of how to
connect the economic, environmental and social data that already exists. A related problem is the unwillingness
of specialists, trained to work in a particular area, to understand the connections between their area of expertise
and other components of the overall community. These experts, environmentalists, economists and social
scientists, need to start working together and working with communities to develop indicators that highlight the
linkages in order to better inform policy makers and the public about the real problems that we are facing.
The good news is that there is a growing movement, both in the US and around the world, which looks at the
interconnections of economy, environment and society. At the national level, there are a number of efforts
underway to adjust economic measures for social and environmental impacts. For example, there are attempts
to recalculate the national accounts of countries in order to reflect the depletion or degradation of natural
resources. Although there is no country that has a GDP adjusted for natural resource depletion, work is being
done on what are called satellite accounts. Satellite accounts attempt to quantify the natural resources in non
numeric terms such as the quantity of lumber and the age or size of the trees in a forest. Another measure of
140
-------
Course Two; How Can We Integrate RTK Information?
economic progress that attempts to include social and environmental aspects of that progress is the Genuine
Progress Indicator or GPL
20000
16000
o>
12000 --
8000
4000
•Gross Domestic Product
Genuine Progress Indicator
1950 1955 1960 1965 1970 1975 1980 1985 1990
Source: Cobb, Halstead, Rowe, Genuine Progress Indicator
Figure 3: GDP vs GPI
Developed by a group called Redefining Progress in San Francisco, the GPI starts with the GDP as a base and
subtracts money spent for "non -beneficial' purposes. For example, toxic chemical spills, floods and hurricanes
do not improve the overall welfare of a community. Money spent on cleaning up after these events only brings
the community back to the level of well-being it was at prior to the disaster. Money spent for these purposes
is included in the GDP. However, money spent for these purposes are not included in the GPI. (Cobb, 1995)
As shown in Figure 3, although the GDP has increased continuously in the last 40 years, the GPI did not.
Another measure that connects the economic, social and environmental aspects of a community is called the
ecological footprint (Wackernagel and Rees, 1996). The ecological footprint is a measure of the amount of
resources consumed by a person expressed in the number of acres of land needed to supply those resources.
Figure 4 shows the average ecological footprint of citizens of the US, Canada, the Netherlands, India and the
average for the world. If everyone in the world consumed resources at the same rate as people in the US, the
number of acres of land needed to supply those resources would equal the area of three Earths. (The ecological
footprint is not just a measure of standard of living however, it is also a measure of living style. A person in
the US uses three times as much energy as a person in Sweden and rive times more water than a person in the
Netherlands. On the regional and state level, there have been attempts to develop measures of progress that
combine economic, environmental and social factors. For example, the pollution prevention movement has
sought to reduce the effect of manufacturing on the environment without adversely affecting the ability of
companies to produce goods. In Massachusetts, the TRI data has been used in conjunction with the state's
Toxic Use Reduction Act data to measure progress in reducing toxics. Table 2 shows how the use of toxics,
generation of toxic byproducts, and toxic emissions have changed in Massachusetts from 1990 to 1993. Toxics
reported in each of these categories has declined during the four years examined. When the data was
normalized to take into account production changes, the decrease was even greater. (Harriman and Hart, 1996)
141
-------
Course Two: How Can We Integrate RTK Information?
India ^11.04
World average
Netherlands
4.68
8.632
Canada
11.18
US
13.26
4 6 8 10 12 14 16
Acres per person
Source: Wackernagal&Rees, Our Ecological Footprint
Figure 4: Ecological Footprint
Measure
Total toxic chemical use
Byproduct generated
Toxics shipped in or as product
% Change 1990-1993
Actual
-17%
-13%
+5%
Normalized for
change in
production
-19%
-14%
+3%
Table 2 Measuring Toxics Use Reduction Progress in Massachusetts
There are also a number of communities that are looking at the intersection of economic, environmental and
social progress. A good example of the work that is being done is in the state of Washington in Pierce County,
the area around the city of Tacoma. As shown in Table 3, their indicators of a clean environment include a
comparison of the pounds of toxics to the number of employed manufacturing workers, the amount of energy
consumed by households, the amount of commercial and industrial energy consumption compared to the
number of workers. For economic indicators they are comparing the number of employed residents with the
number of jobs available in the county. (+24% vs +18%). The fact that the number of employed residents is
going up faster than the number of local jobs implies that people are spending more time commuting.
142
-------
Course Two; How Can We Integrate RTK Information?
As businesses, environmental agencies, and nonprofit organizations take on the task of continuing to improve
the state of the environment, they will do well to look at the examples being set by the many groups that are
looking at community well-being as an interconnected whole, rather than the sum of its parts.
Measure
Number of employed residents
Number of jobs in county
Vehicle miles traveled
Number of transit riders
Number of manufacturing jobs
Amount of toxics released
Number of all jobs
Commercial and industrial energy consumption
Income needed to support basic needs
Median family income
% Change 1989-1995
+24%
+18%
+14%
-5%
+3%
+4%
+18%
+38%
+43%
+33%
Table 3 Pierce County: Measuring the connections between economy, environment, and society.
References:
Anielski, Mark. Resource Accounting: Indicators of the Sustainability of Alberta's Forest Resources.
Presented at the Second Meeting of the International Society of Ecological Economics (ISEE) "Investing in
Natural Capital-A Prerequisite for Sustainability," Stockholm, Sweden, August, 3-6,1992.
Cobb, Clifford, Ted Halstead and Jonathan Rowe. The Genuine Progress Indicator: Summary of Data and
Methodology. (San Francisco, Calif.: Redefining Progress, September 1995).
Harriman, Elizabeth and Maureen Hart. Measuring Progress in Toxics Use Reduction and Pollution
Prevention. (Lowell, Mass: Toxics Use Reduction Institute, Technical Report No. 30, 1996).
Pierce County Dept of Community Services. Pierce County Quality of Life Benchmarks. (Tacoma,
Washington: Dept of Community Services, February, 1997).
World Resources Institute. World Resources 1992-93: A Guide to the World Environment: Toward
Sustainable Development. (New York, New York: Oxford University Press: 1992).
Wackemagel, Mathis and William Rees. Our Ecological Footprint: Reducing Human Impact on the Earth.
(Gabriola Island, BC: New Society Publishers, 1996).
143
-------
Course Three: How Can We Work Better Together?
Session A - Have Local Emergency Planning Committees Been Effective?
Session Leader
Michael Lindell, Hazard Reduction & Recovery Center, Texas A&M University
Speakers
Paul Hill, National Institute for Chemical Studies
Stuart Greenberg, Environmental Health Watch
Elizabeth Gonzalez, Pasadena Texas LEPC
Karen Shanahan, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Paul Hagen, Beveridge & Diamond
Michael Lindell, Hazard Reduction & Recovery Center, Texas A&M University
Session Abstract
External Contextual And Internal Structural Factors Affecting LEPC Effectiveness
A series of studies (see References) has examined the effectiveness with which LEPCs in three Midwestern
states have developed their communities' emergency preparedness for toxic chemical releases. We defined
LEPC effectiveness in terms of 3 types of measures. The first measure of effectiveness was LEPC chairs'
ratings of their organizations' performance on 13 planning and preparedness tasks. The second measure was
LEPCs' submittal of site specific emergency plans to the State Emergency Response Commission (SERC),
while the third measure consisted of SERC staff ratings of each LEPCs effectiveness. Subsequent analyses
indicated that these three measures were correlated with one another and tended to yield similar
results. Our studies have shown that there are systematic differences among the three states in LEPC
effectiveness. LEPCs in the state that provided technical assistance and funding support tended to be more
effective than those in the state that provided technical assistance but not funding support. LEPCs in the state
that provided neither technical assistance nor funding support tended to be the least effective.
Analysis of external contextual factors for each LEPC showed community hazard vulnerability and community
resources had statistically significant correlations with LEPC effectiveness, but the magnitudes of these effects
were not large. However, there was a statistically significant and large correlation of community support (e.g.,
community group endorsement, media coverage, and attention from elected officials) with LEPC effectiveness.
Even more significant were correlations of an LEPC's internal structure and processes with LEPC
effectiveness. In particular, LEPCs were more effective when they had paid staff, broad representation of
community groups, a subcommittee structure, and formal orientation for new members. LEPCs also tended
to be more effective when they had more frequent and formalized meetings (i.e., a routine schedule and location,
an agenda circulated in advance, written meeting minutes) with a high proportion of members in attendance
and set annual goals (and evaluated progress toward those goals). Finally, LEPCs were most effective when
they made more frequent external contacts with state and federal agencies as well as with other LEPCs.
Our research also showed that LEPC team climate characteristics are significantly correlated with members'
affective and behavioral outcomes. These outcomes include their feelings of commitment to the LEPC and their
sense of job satisfaction (the affective outcomes), as well as their effort, attendance, and willingness to take
144
-------
Course Three; How Can We Work Better Together?
on additional duties (the behavioral outcomes). Moreover, LEPC team climate characteristics also are
significantly correlated with community context and LEPC structure.
One of the most important implications of this research is that LEPC effectiveness is most strongly related to
factors that are within the control of the LEPC members to change. LEPCs have relatively little control over
state support and community budget but financial resources are not as important as other factors in affecting
LEPC effectiveness. Another contextual factor, community support, is important but can be controlled
indirectly if LEPCs systematically build a constituency supporting Superfund Amendments and
Reauthorization Act (SARA) Title HI activities through steady progress toward annual goals coupled with
outreach activities capable of mobilizing support from potential stakeholders in emergency relevant agencies
and community groups. Moreover, the results of these studies suggest that team climate, and thus member
outcomes, can be improved indirectly if LEPCs adopt appropriate organizational structure. Finally, team
climate can be improved directly if LEPC members engage in the types of actions that change leader
characteristics, role characteristics, team characteristics, and work motivations.
Acknowledgments
This research was supported by the National Science Foundation under Grant BCS 9222600. None of the
conclusions expressed here necessarily reflects the views of the sponsoring organization.
Michael Lindell, Hazard Reduction & Recovery Center, Texas A&M University
Are LEPCs effective?
Overall Effectiveness of LEPCs
• LEPCs haven't achieved all of the legislative aims of SARA Title HI
• But neither have other disaster planning organizations (e.g., nuclear power plants, chemical
stockpile sites, or earthquake, hurricane, or flood-prone communities)
LEPCs Vary in Effectiveness
• Across functions
Usually are best at hazard assessment and emergency preparedness
Poorer at risk reduction and risk communication
• Across jurisdiction
Between States
Between LEPCs within states
Members Within LEPCs Disagree on LEPC Functions and Goals
• Technical problem to be solved by experts vs. political process requiring continuing interaction
among stakeholders
• Product (analyses and plans) vs. process (dialogue)
• Hazard assessment and corrective response for damaged equipment vs. risk reduction and
protective response for exposed populations
• "The financial bottom line" vs. "Public health and safety"
145
-------
Coarse Three: How Can We Work Better Together?
External Contextual and Internal Structural Factors Affecting LEPC Effectiveness
LEPC Effectiveness Measures
• LEPC chairs' ratings of organizational performance on 13 planning and preparedness
• LEPCs' submittal of site specific emergency plans to the SERC
• SERC staff ratings of LEPC effectiveness
Systematic Differences in LEPC Effectiveness Among the Three States
• Highest in the state that provided both technical assistance and funding
• Next highest in the state that provided technical assistance but not funding support
• Lowest in the state that provided neither technical assistance nor funding support
External Contextual Factors Varied in Importance
• Community hazard vulnerability and community resources had modest correlations with LEPC
effectiveness
• Community support had moderate correlations with LEPC effectiveness
Karen Shanahan, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Have LEPCs been
effective?
USZEA
ienc7 Hannmg and
gyh C\ilOfniaF^Hat
(SEB£)
SEHCv/»s to cream a Local
(LZPC) - most did cue per county
LEPC Role
liiy eooicinnrnf
oat :be plan
Racave >Totificatioa
u
lovcotocy
» Most develop aplao to prepare for
I I
1994 George Washington
University Study
» -80% ofLZPCi sre, ir ie most
pen; in compJiaocs -*iih £F
* public
Tifn* WES
33 3& 3TB4 WbCTS
146
Where are we in 1997?
s Ihicraet
» Ciznoa prioriry is C3ZK
r Expanded TRI
= Sjalc Management Plans (CAA)
i • RisfcCoi " "
-------
Course Three: How Can We Work Better Together?
LEPC Focus:
Hspnigtoc
oxty uooci
data That is available to than.
Local Level Synergy
Agenda
••CAPs
» Othet..
Stuart Greenberg, Environmental Health Watch
What Is an Effective LEPC?
There is widespread agreement among environmental and community activists that LEPCs overall are not
effective and are not functioning in the ways envisioned by the Emergency Planning and Community Right to
Know Act (EPCRA). Major failures are in the areas of community representation, communicating risks to the
public, and promoting risk reduction. Here are some criteria for evaluating an LEPC.
LEPC Goals
• fewer accidents
• less severe accidents
• better emergency response
• lowered risk of accidents
• easy public access to information on chemical hazards
LEPC Structure and Process
• broad-based, balanced membership representation
• adequate funding and professional staffing
• mission statement and by-laws
• regular meetings (at-least quarterly)
• meetings accessible to the public (time, place, notice)
• active sub-committees
• policy independence from host agency
• annual report on accidental releases, chemical inventories, Extremely Hazardous Substances
(EHS) facilities, risk reduction actions, drills and exercises, etc.
• public education and outreach program
• compliance assistance for facilities
• enforcement program to detect and prosecute violations
147
-------
Course Three: How Can We Work Better Together?
For Facilities with Extremely Hazardous Substances (EHS) :
Hazards Analysis
• EHS facility data obtained via questionnaires, requests for other documents (e.g. Occupational
Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) Process Hazard Analysis) and site visits
• computerized hazards analysis capability
• hazards analyses prepared for "worst case" and lesser releases for each EHS facility and for
transportation
• sensitive population sites, vulnerable environmental features and critical facilities identified
• community maps developed with EHS facilities, vulnerability zones, transportation routes, etc.
identified
• hazards analysis reviewed with EHS facility managers
• hazards prioritized
Emergency Response Planning
• coordinated ER planning facilitated between EHS facilities and fire departments
• joint drills and exercises conducted
• fire department training
• hazards analysis data incorporated in fire department pre-plans
• alert and warning systems established
• shelters and evacuation routes planned
• medical response planned and coordinated
• protective capacity of shelter-in-place structures evaluated
• public education provided on protective actions (evacuation and shelter-in-place)
• inventory of emergency response resources maintained (e.g. equipment, material, expertise)
• plan made accessible to the public
• limits of emergency response capabilities for population protection recognized and
acknowledged
• emergency response planning seminars held for facility and fire department personnel
Risk Reduction
• improvements in safety systems promoted
• exploration of inherent safety opportunities promoted
• information on risk reduction resources (e.g. financing, expertise) provided to facilities
• risk reduction seminars for facility fire department personnel held
• best practices shared
• major risk reduction efforts given public recognition (e.g. annual award)
Community Right-to-Know
• Tier n information required
• data computerized for ease of access and analysis
• information request process convenient for the public
• availability of information publicized
148
-------
Course Three; How Can We Work Better Together?
Session B - How Can Industry and Environmental Advocates Work Better
Together?
Session Leader
Katharine McGloon, Environmental Issues Management
Speakers
Tamara Van Horn, Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment
Rich McClintock, Colorado Public Interest Research Group
Linda Wennerberg, Environmental Business Strategies
John Huber, Petroleum Marketers Association of America
Bob Van Vorhees, Chemical Manufacturers Association
Tom Tillman, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Rich McClintock, Colorado Public Interest Research Group
Outline of presentation regarding the pollution prevention partnership
»
L Outcomes
A. The most important aspect is to focus on measurable results.
B. What are pollution prevention results - getting the terms right
C. Measurement issues
n. The Story of the Pollution Prevention Partnership
A. Background
B. Initial results
C. Future goals
m. Recommendations for other partnerships
A. Being clear on narrow, mutual goals
B. Accountability - what happens if things do/don't work out
C. How this relates to the big picture of environmental protection
Copies of the Pollution Prevention Partnership Progress reports or other info on the PPP can be
obtained by calling Rich McClintock at CoPIRG 303-573-7474X313 or by writing to:
COPIRG1530 Blake Street Suite 220
Denver, CO 80202
Tom Tillman, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Community-Based Environmental Partnership (CBEP) ("Helping Communities to Help Themselves")
Key Steps:
• Develop a "partnership" among local businesses, residents and government agencies
• Recognize the linkage between environmental and economic improvements
149
-------
Course Three: How Can We Work Better Together?
• The community identifies the environmental issues to be addressed
• Assessment of environmental issues and the recommended actions drawn from that assessment
should be a "partnership" effort
Benefits of the CBEP Approach
• Allows the community to set a local agenda for improving its environment
• Can provide the community with a comprehensive picture of the local environment
• Encourages the community to work beyond regulatory requirements toward voluntary solutions
• Cultivates a community that is more informed about and invested in the local environment
Challenges of the CBEP Approach
• Every step in the process takes a considerable amount of time. (Perhaps 3 years to build a
sustainable local environmental initiative)
• Comprehensive environmental information at the community level is not readily available. (TRI
data is often not enough)
• Yet, collecting the environmental information is easier than interpreting the information to the
community. Our ability to collect environmental information still far exceeds our ability to explain
it.
The Community Environmental Partnership in South Baltimore Setting:
• Heavily industrialized area of South Baltimore and Northern Anne Arundel Co.
• 150 businesses, 11 TRI facilities, medical waste incinerator, Publically Owned Treatment Works
(POTW), capped and active landfills, sludge composting facilities, 3 interstate routes
Partnership Milestones:
• Partnership launched in May 1996 after year-long effort to cultivate local businesses, community
residents, and government agencies
• Large community meeting held in July 1996 to identify and prioritize environmental issues
• 5 committees established to assess environmental issues and develop recommendations
• Committees present findings and recommendations in April 1997
TRI and the Baltimore Partnership
• Air Quality: the highest priority in the community
• TRI data helps but only part of the puzzle
• Other sources of information: a state-operated air monitoring station and state air permits for non-
TRI reporting facilities
• Computer model of the community's air quality developed from all of these sources
• Important contribution of mobile sources to air quality
150
-------
Course Three: How Can We Work Better Together?
Session C - How Can We Support TRI Internationally?
Session Leader
Fran Irwin, World Resources Institute
Speakers
Mary Taylor, Friends of the Earth, UK
Lisa Nichols, North American Commission on Environmental Cooperation
Susan Hazen, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
John Butler, U.S.-Asia Environmental Partnership
Claudia Fenerol, OECD, Pollution Prevention and Control Division, France
Rob Visser, OECD, Pollution Prevention and Control Division, France
Natalie Roy, National Pollution Prevention Roundtable
Francois Lavallee, Environment Canada
Arturo Morales, Institute Nacional de Ecologia, Mexico
Dorothy Bowers, Merck & Co.
David Wheeler, World Bank
Fran Irwin, World Resources Institute
Session Abstract
Panelists will briefly describe achievements and challenges in building public reporting on sources of pollution
in countries and regions around the world. The session will cover the North American experience with views
from Canada, Mexico, the U.S. and the Commission on Environmental Cooperation; Pollutant Release and
Transfer (PRTR) network, pilot projects, and workshops; a firm's experience in building a common reporting
system across its facilities in different countries; an Non-Government Organization (NGO) view of right to
know in the United Kingdom and Europe; public disclosure projects in Asia and Latin America. Participants
will also address prospects and opportunities based on these experiences by considering questions such as the
following:
• What have countries learned from each other that they are using to improve their own
systems?
• How do right to know and public disclosure projects differ? How do they relate? In what
directions are these approaches likely to develop in the next 3 to 10 years?
• What have governments, international organizations, business, NGOs learned from past
projects that can help guide how future right to know and public disclosure efforts
internationally are framed and carried out?
• What are the opportunities, the forums, and the partners for expanding and improving right
to know and public disclosure practices around the world in the next few years? How can the
limited resources available be most effectively used?
Mary Taylor, Friends of the Earth, UK
Insisting on our Right to Know - Stories from Europe
Mary Taylor, Senior Research Officer
Friends of the Earth (England, Wales and Northern Ireland)
26-28 Underwood Street, London NI 7JQ.UK
151
-------
Course Three; How Can We Work Better Toeether?
email: maryt@foe.co.uk
Friends of the Earth is one of the foremost environmental groups in the UK, and we have local campaigning
groups in 240 communities as well as a central office in London. We are dependent on individual supporters
who provide over 95% of our income, and whose generosity supports approximately 100 staff in London and
the regions and considerable Information Technology resources. Worldwide, over 50 groups make up the
Friends of the Earth International network.
Working to properly implement the right-to-know about industrial emissions in the UK, Friends of the Earth
(FOE) has tackled the issue at several levels:
- locally, looking at information from specific industries and pointing out the lack of community
right to know;
- nationally, looking at implementation of existing legislation, publishing available data on the
Internet and pressing for new legislation;
- and internationally, contributing to negotiations for a broad "Public Participation" Convention.
The Chemical Release Inventory (England and Wales)
Industrial emission data from major plants in the UK is compiled into a "chemical release inventory" (CRI).
Although superficially similar to the US TRI there are significant differences that make our inventory both
better but in the main a lot worse! The devil is in the detail - missing elements and inconsistency in our data
limit its use, and compiling national statistics (let alone doing international comparisons) is a rather
meaningless exercise at the moment.
Crucially, the CRI has been built around the permitting system - which reflects operation of the plant, and does
not relate to the public's right to know. The information is based on the data reported for measuring compliance
with permits and there are no standard lists of substances or thresholds. For instance, one incinerator reported
releases of 41 substances in 1994, another reported releases of only four substances. Similarly, the mineral
industry (eg cement manufacture) reports carbon dioxide releases, but power generation plants were not
originally required to report carbon dioxide releases (this inconsistency was so glaring and, since the data was
collected anyway, the regulatory agency has rectified this!).
The regulators have been distinctly loathe to put the CRI data to work. The first national publication
aggregated data into about 400 pages of exceedingly boring lists by substance and administrative area and -
almost incredibly - failed to name a single company. The inconsistencies have made production of league tables
impossible and this was the perfect way to sabotage use of the data. We declared the inventory "fundamentally
flawed", and the press picked up that message. The Environment Agency is now proposing some improvements,
but of rather limited scope (eg only 27 priority substances to air are proposed).
Internet publication pulls in the visitors - http://www.foe.co.uk/cri
To stimulate interest in the issue and help expose the problems, we decided to publish the first batch of CRI
data on the Internet. FOE's Internet site has interactive maps which allow users to type in a postcode or click
on a map to access data for individual industrial sites. This has set a standard for access to information, and
shocked our regulatory Agency into Internet plans. In one year, the Environment Agency reported around 750
enquiries while our CRI web site had 50,000 visitors in the first 18 months.
152
-------
Course Three: How Can We Work Better Together?
Another interesting aspect of the Internet publication was that several companies contacted us to remedy errors
in the data! Clearly the Internet provided much easier access for the public and companies to use and check the
data.
Data comparisons
Given the differences in the TRI and the CRI, there are certainly opportunities for using comparisons to expose
both the "bad" aspects and the "good" aspects of the data. We have certainly used TRI data to point to
deficiencies in the UK reporting. But problems include:
- Identifying similar processes which could be compared (the UK does not use similar SIC codes to
US industry and the included sectors are different)
- Without input data, the relative scale of operation cannot be known, and so any comparative
efficiency of processes cannot be done
- Lists of substances are dissimilar
- Wastes to land are virtually undescribed by CRI (96% by weight of 2 million tonnes is described
as "Non-prescribed Solids Not Otherwise Specified").
On the other hand, applications and authorisations for CRI processes may provide additional information and
it may be of interest that the inventory has data for substances such as dioxins and other micropollutants, so
useful information may show up in the CRI.
"Community Right to Know" legislation
It became increasingly apparent that the low profile of the public registers and CRI in the UK was not helping
pollution control initiatives. Our work in Bristol brought us into contact with Avonmouth residents. Although
those who came along to a meeting had a history of contact with companies and the Environment Agency, they
were unaware of the existence of the Chemical Release Inventory or the public registers, where companies'
applications, authorisations and monitoring data are filed. Yet a recent FOE public opinion survey this year
found that 93 per cent of people are concerned about pollution from and the publication of league tables of
polluters is supported by 86 per cent of people.
Because of this, Friends of the Earth in the UK is proposing a new bill, the Community Right to Know Act.
Our proposed legislation would:
• Force all factories currently regulated by local authorities and the Environment Agency to
report on pollution to air, water and land
• Introduce a list of chemicals on which factories would have to report releases
• Crucially, give people the right to petition the Secretary of State to add further chemicals to
the list
• Force the Environment Agency to publish the information widely, enabling the production of
league tables of the worst polluters.
153
-------
Course Three; How Can We Work Better Together?
The UNECE "Public Participation" Convention -
The Convention on Access to Environmental Information and Public Participation in Environmental
Decision-making
At an international level, Agenda 21 is continuing to stimulate initiatives. In 1995 European Environment
Ministers were pressed by environmentalists and agreed to develop an international law on access to
information and public participation. This is due to be finalised for June 1998, for a meeting of Environment
Ministers in Aarhus, Denmark. The Convention will cover the area of the UN Economic Commission for
Europe, which is
- the whole of Europe
- the five Central Asian Republics of the Newly Independent States (NIS) (Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan,
Tajikistan, Turkmenistan and Uzbekistan)
- and the US, Canada and Israel (who are not participating).
In what may be an unprecedented move, "Environmental Citizens' Organisations", ECOs, are actually seated
around the table alongside Member States' delegations at the international negotiations in Geneva. Thanks to
early work by ECOs and the World Wide Fund for Nature in particular, the initial draft included a reference
to later discussions to develop a protocol for a pollutant release and transfer register, PRTR. Whilst mention
of a PRTR in a convention is ground-breaking, the original wording, with its rather softly softly approach,
probably anticipated some of the antipathy towards the idea.
As the negotiations have proceeded over the last 15 months or so, the PRTR clause has not had much
substantive discussion. However, it is clear that Russia and Germany in particular do not want a reference to
PRTRs in the convention. It is possible that other countries feel similarly, but do not have to make their
positions clear if two other countries are prepared to hold out.
A draft text of broad scope on "pollutant release and transfer registers" has been put forward by the ECO
coalition, which makes reference to emissions from both point and non-point sources, releases in products, and
use and consumption of water, energy and resources. Materials accounting would allow much more focus on
the efficiency of processes and consumption rates, information which we believe will be crucial as we grope
towards an operational definition of "sustainable development".
The ECOs are of the opinion that discussion of PRTRs at this level will begin the cultural shift towards greater
disclosure of industrial emission data and that this alone will be a worthwhile exercise. At a more practical
level, international support for "right to know" programmes in countries of the central and eastern Europe and
"newly independent states" (NIS) (the countries of the former USSR) would be of tremendous help.
Why support PRTRs internationally?
- Pollution often crosses national borders;
- International comparisons of emissions should be feasible and could drive increased pollution
control;
- Companies should not be able to shift operations to "safe havens" where less reporting is
required;
- The world's resources are under pressure - which should be of international concern;
- The citizen's Right to Know is as fundamental in Uzbekistan as in the UK or USA.
154
-------
Course Three: How Can We Work Better Together?
Susan Hazen, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
International TRI and their International Uses
In the past ten years, the United States have moved steadily and consistently toward a more comprehensive
collection and use of release and transfer data from chemicals. A fundamental backbone to the success of this
effort is the recognition by all parties of the importance of ensuring public access to the information. The
resultant success of both TRI and Right-to-Know (RTK) has spurred ever greater use of RTK in other laws
and regulations. Even when RTK might not be spelled out, the concept of informing the public is gaining
credence and acceptance. Both TRI and RTK literally have become cornerstones for environmental
management by government and industry. The public, for its part, has accepted TRI and RTK as a basic right
and tool for engaging in environmental democracy.
All of you know about this exciting process. What you might not know is that the same process is beginning
to occur around the world. In both number of countries developing TRI-like systems and the number of
international agreements and conventions calling for TRI information, there is a growing recognition about the
importance of collecting information on releases and transfers of chemicals. While much of the focus has been
on the gathering of release and transfer data, there also is emerging the understanding of how important RTK
is as well.
International Agreements;
Earth Summit
The international term for TRI-like systems is the Pollutant Release and Transfer Register (PRTR). This term
was coined following the 1992 Earth Summit in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil. It was at this Summit that the
international movement on PRTRs received its initial global impetus. The Earth Summit was the first
international agreement specifically to mention these systems. While there were a few countries with PRTRs
in operation or under development, the Earth Summit set in motion a concerted international movement on
PRTRs and RTK.
The final document from the Earth Summit is Agenda 21. Within Agenda 21 is Chapter 19, the focus of which
is the sound management of chemicals. Throughout Chapter 19, emissions inventories (PRTRs) are cited as
ways for governments and industry to improve the management of chemicals, specifically toxic chemicals.
Governments are encouraged to use PRTR systems as mechanisms of strengthening information exchange both
within the government and with other industry and the public. Emissions inventories also are highlighted as
potent tools for reducing risk.
The concept of RTK is firmly established in Agenda 21. Chapter 19, for instance, calls for RTK as a means
for strengthening national capabilities and capacities for the management of chemicals. The introduction to
Agenda 21 also contains specific language on RTK. Among 27 Principles that lay the foundation for Agenda
21, Principle 10 states that "Environmental issues are best handled with the participation of all concerned
citizens" and that "each individual shall have appropriate access to information concerning the environment
that is held by public authorities... and the opportunity to participate in decision-making processes". At the
time, this was a revolutionary concept for a global agreement among governments.
155
-------
Course Three: How Can We Work Better Together?
IFCS
The Intergovernmental Forum on Chemical Safety (IFCS) is the body responsible for follow-up on Chapter
19 issues. This group meets, either in full or in subgroups, every year to monitor progress on meeting the goals
outlined in Chapter 19. PRTRs have become one of the most promising and successful achievements to come
out of this chapter. Evidence of this is the recent IFCS meeting to commemorate the five year anniversary of
the Earth Summit. At this high profile event, held in Ottawa, Canada this year, PRTRs were highlighted and
given increased recognition for their potential role in improving the sound management of chemicals. Countries
again were encouraged to implement these systems. International organizations were asked to continue their
work on the international efforts on PRTRs.
Conference of Environment Ministers
The Conference of Environment Ministers also has taken steps that advance both RTK and PRTRs. This body,
which held its first meeting in 1991, at Dobris Castle in the former Czechoslovakia, has agreed to monitor the
status of the environment across Europe. Including the nations of the former Soviet Union, the Conference
comprises 48 nations. The first language on RTK by the Environment Ministers is at their third Conference
in 1995: "public participation is important at all levels of environment policy-making". Evidence of the growing
role for RTK, however, is that public participation is to be one of the primary agenda items at the fourth
Conference of Environment Ministers in 1998. In fact, a convention on public participation is in the planning
stages. PRTRs are expected to be one of the obligations for signatory countries at this convention.
Convention on Biological Diversity
While other international agreements do not specifically cite PRTRs, these systems nonetheless are the obvious
tool for meeting the goals laid out by the agreements. As an example, the convention on Biological Diversity
contains provisions that call upon countries to look at activities that can impact conservation and biodiversity.
Article 8 encourages nations to take steps for specific areas. Using these two Articles, the World Wide Fund
for Animals has initiated a small PRTR program for Lake Nakuru in Kenya. The goal is to achieve reductions
in releases and transfers from nearby facilities in an attempt to maintain the rich biodiversity around the lake.
The Regional Seas Conventions, are as the name implies, a series of conventions aimed at protecting regional
seas from pollution, including land based activities. The concern is that the discharges from farms, industries
and other sources are causing irreparable harm to local seas, and thus harming fishing in those areas. As a
means of achieving this goal, the United Nations Environment Program (UNEP) is encouraging nations to
establish PRTR systems. UNEP's goal is to use PRTR data to help identify the sources of pollutants. The
PRTR systems also can be used to monitor trends over time of releases and transfers from facilities discharging
into the rivers flowing into the regional sea.
Montreal Protocol
The Montreal Protocol, which preceded the Earth Summit, is an agreement focusing more on the consumption
of chemicals, in this case ozone-depleting chemicals (ODCs), rather than the emissions of those chemicals.
Even here, however, PRTR systems can fulfill an important role. The United States, like most of the countries
with PRTR systems, collects data on many of these ODCs. While CFCs are scheduled for a complete ban,
substitute chemicals such as HCFCs are allowed at reduced levels into the next century. Countries with
PRTRs, thus have an invaluable tool for following the national progress at reducing the emissions of CFCs,
156
-------
Course Three: How Can We Work Better Together?
HCFCs and other ODCs. By making this information publicly available, citizens also can track their nation's
progress at meeting the goals of this highly visible Protocol.
Persistent Organic Pollutants
Another international program that can use PRTR data to monitor progress is the work on Persistent Organic
Pollutants (POPs). The IFCS has initiated an ad hoc working group to conduct assessments of the twelve
targeted chemicals. Among these actions is the need to determine the releases of these chemicals. Many PRTRs,
including the US TRI, contain POP's chemicals. Using the PRTR data, nations can track the emissions over
time.
Basel Convention
A primary focus of the Basel Convention is generation and transboundary shipment of wastes. As with the
conventions and agreements that address air and water issues, PRTR systems are a useful tool for helping
countries comply and meet the objectives of the Basel Convention's goals on wastes. PRTR systems help
countries to identify the sources of chemicals sent off-site for disposal. The requirement on the US TRI that
facilities report the identity of the facilities receiving waste allows the US to track more easily these off-site
shipments. If a facility transfers wastes off-site to another country, the identity of this country must be given.
The Canadian and Mexican PRTRs have similar requirements.
Climate Change
The Climate Change Convention is another international agreement that encourages nations to set up
inventories of emissions that collect the data by source. The Climate Change Convention also contains a section
on RTK that calls on countries to provide the public with information on, and encourage public participation
in addressing, climate change. Countries with PRTRs have utilized these systems to track emissions of targeted
chemicals. The Netherlands, for instance, collects data on these chemicals from both industrial sources as well
as diffuse sources. While industrial facilities provide this information on government reports, the government
uses estimation methods for determining emissions from farms, cars and smaller facilities.
Convention on Long-Range Transboundary Air Pollution (LRTAP)
This convention focuses on the emissions of air pollutants in Europe, although the United States and Canada
are also participants. While neither the original LRTAP protocol or its amendments specifically advocate for
emissions inventories, they do request that countries reduce annual emissions of targeted air pollutants, both
from stationary and nonstationary sources. The Netherlands already uses its PRTR to track annual emissions
of at least two of these chemicals: sulfur dioxide and nitrogen dioxide. PRTRs thus have proved to be a useful
tool for enabling the Netherlands to track its progress at meeting the goals of the LRTAP Convention.
OECD/EU/NAFTA
The importance that PRTR systems can play in meeting international agreements is recognized by recent
actions by the OECD, NAFTA and the EU. These three international organizations all have issued
recommendations or resolutions calling for their member states to enact PRTRs. An important result is the
quickened pace of PRTR implementation by the twenty-nine most industrialized nations. This action also
157
-------
Course Three; How Can We Work Better Together?
stimulates interest in PRTR systems by non-member states around the globe. With the strong emphasis on
RTK, the concept of public participation is further highlighted for the industrializing nations.
The OECD has placed its PRTR program in its Chemicals Group with the goal of using PRTR systems to
improve the management of chemicals by the OECD nations. By integrating PRTR activities with other
chemicals programs, the OECD can help to coordinate action on a variety of issues, such as POPs and risk
assessments. In the case of NAFTA, in which the three member states already have PRTRs, a Council
Resolution by the Environment Ministers laid down a strategy for improving comparability between the three
PRTR systems. This effort has benefits for the government, industry and the public. The governments can learn
about differences in reporting patterns and learn how to improve environmental policy. Industry can benefit
through the use of more uniform reporting requirements between the three nations; and the public has access
to release and transfer data on a continental scale.
ISO 14000
For industry, both PRTRs and RTK can play an important role in the developing ISO 14000 series. While there
is no specific mention of PRTRs, there is discussion of the setting of objectives and targets in the primary
document, 14001. With many companies already citing PRTR data in annual environmental reports, the PRTR
is a ready-made tool for setting objectives and targets and then tracking the progress.
The ISO documents also are a recognition of the role that the public now plays in environmental decision-
making. While there is no language that indicates the information industry should provide to its stakeholders,
the documents nonetheless stipulated the need to keep stakeholders informed. A supporting document on
Environmental Performance Evaluation (EPE) actually provides facilities with guidance on how to obtain input
from stakeholders and the types of information in which they might be interested. The inclusion of this
language on public access to environmental information is a testament to the global changes in attitudes on
RTK.
Eco-Audit and Management System Regulation (EMAS)
Another environmental management system program is EMAS, developed by the European Union. Like ISO
14000, EMAS is intended to spur greater integration of environmental issues into industry's management
systems. Unlike ISO 14000, however, EMAS has stronger language relating to RTK and PRTRs. Companies,
for instance, must provide the public, via annual environmental statements, information on their significant
environmental issues. Included in these statements is a summary of pollutant emissions. As both EMAS and
ISO 14000 are reiterative processes, it can be expected that future versions of both these environmental
management systems will include even more explicit language on RTK and PRTR systems.
John Butler, U.S.-Asia Environmental Partnership
My focus, as you might gather from the name of our program, is on the role of public disclosure in Asia and
on what the international community can do to promote and support the expansion of disclosure programs in
the Asian region. US-AEP has embraced the promotion and support for disclosure programs as one of our
highest priorities. To understand why, I'd like to share with you a few statistics.
158
-------
Course Three: How Can We Work Better Toeether?
Over the last ten years, the per capita GDP of the Newly Industrialized Countries of E Asia and the rapidly
growing economies of SE Asia have grown by 6-9% or more per year - this compares to an annual growth of
2-3% in the US during this same period. This remarkable growth has been-largely led by a rapid growth in
these nation's industrial sectors. In many countries of E and SE Asia, the industrial sector accounts for over
one-third of the value added to their economies. For example, in Indonesia, manufacturing contributed 13%
to GDP in the 1970s 23% in 1980s, is expected by the World Bank to contribute 1/3 in the 1990s and nearly
45% in the next decade. Since 1970 Indonesia's industrial base has grown more than eight times in size!
Notably, also during this same period the release of toxic emissions — with the total release of toxic metals
projected to be almost fifty times greater in 2010 than in 1980.
And this growth continues. SE Asia's current economic woes notwithstanding, the reality is Asia's economics
will grow, and must grow, to meet those countries' aspirations. And that growth will be largely driven by
industry. The current projected annual growth rates in industrial sectors will mean a doubling of industrial
capacity in the region in less than a decade! Think of it — as we struggle in this country with improving the
environmental performance of a mature industry, Asians must deal with the enormous environmental problems
of its existing industries, with a huge new, yet-to-be-fully-developed industrial base. And, particularly in the
less developed economies of Asia, much of investment and growth will be in heavier industries, with consequent
growth in toxics.
Now let's compare this growth in industrial capacity of the public Asian institutions charged with conducting
environmental oversight and enforcement. In the face of enormous pollution problems and continuing growth,
many of these institutions and the laws under which they operate are new, e.g.:
- Thailand's National Environmental Quality and the new Ministry of Science, Technology, and
Environment date back to only 1992. According to the Asian Development Bank, when the country's
original environmental regulations, largely ineffective, were put into place in the 1980s the country had
fewer than 500 factories — there are more than 50,000 today!
- In Indonesia, the world's fourth most populous nation, the environmental agency BAPEDAL started
in only 1990. The Agency has accomplished much during its short life. David Wheeler will talk about
one innovative program using the power of public opinion called PROPER. Yet it is still very small
— less than 500 people. We recently sponsored a tour of BAPEDAL staff to the US to meet with
environmental agencies here — they remarked that the number of enforcement staff of the City of
Baltimore exceeds the number of enforcement staff they have for the entire country!
- Even in the more advanced economies of East Asia, the environmental agencies have historically
lagged behind industrial growth. For example, in 1990, S. Korea's current government has enacted a
series of laws on air, marine/inland water protection; solid and toxic waste date to the early 1990s.
Ministry of Environment enforcement has improved significantly, but still lagging. MOE is engaging
citizen participation by reporting thru faxes, Internet, and dedicated telephone lines.
So, environmental agencies are struggling with new programs, playing "catch-up" to the problems, while
pollution problems continue to get worse. When you put these two major scenarios together—rapid growth
in pollution; new institutions struggling to catch up, it is clear that Asian governments MUST do more than
rely on traditional command-and-control as the only tool in their arsenal to combat pollution.
159
-------
Course Three: How Can We Work Better Together?
However, on a more positive note, public awareness of environmental problems and greater activism of NGOs
and the Asian public in expressing their desire for action has taken hold. There has been a remarkable increase
in coverage of environmental matters by the Asian media, e.g.:
-In South Korea, for example, five years ago little was heard about the environment—now scarcely
a day goes by in the leading newspapers without some kind of coverage. A number of recent polls in
South Korea have identified clean air and water among the most important public issues on people's
minds today.
-One NGO that I talked to in Jakarata that clips news articles from all over Indonesia told me that they
find hundreds of environmental articles each week.
Environmental ministries in Asia are becoming increasingly aware of their need to tap into this pool of
increasingly potent public opinion. While disclosure programs are generally still in their infancy, there are
numerous examples of innovative experiments in public disclosure and public participation. While these
programs are not Pollutant Release and Transfer Registers (PRTR) per se, they represent substantial
commitments to share information on corporate environmental performance to their citizens, e.g.:
-Business Rating Programs: In 1995, Indonesia began a system of rating the environmental
performance of companies, using five-color rating scheme called PROPER (from black for worst
performers; up to gold for companies using state-of-the-art practices). I won't go into detail, since
David will be talking about PROPER, but I will say simply that Indonesia's environmental agency,
BAPEDAL, reported that during the program's first six months, the compliance rate of companies
rated under PROPER increased by 18%.
Observing the success of PROPER, the President Ramos of the Philippines announced a
similar program to be initiated this year, called EcoWatch. US-AEP has signed an agreement with
BAPEDAL to assist in expanding the PROPER program, picking up on the excellent support provided
by the World Bank (David Wheeler in particular) in getting this program off the ground.
-EcoLabeling: Taiwan's Green Mark program for products requires to be eligible for an ecolabel,
Taiwanese companies must as a minimum be in compliance with environmental regulations, and show
"remarkable progress" in reducing wastes.
-Environmental Impact Assessments: Almost every country in Asia has an EIA process, which
provides for some level of public input. Compared to the US, the reach of EIAs often extend to private
facilities and projects, and can be the most substantial vehicle for public disclosure and participation
in government decisions. For example, Sri Lanka's Central Environment Agency, which is not highly
transparent to the public, has one of the most open processes in the Asian region for including the
public in its EIA process- which includes environmental licensing for existing and new facilities.
So, there are many challenges to providing for effective public disclosure of environmental information to
Asians—and many promising developments as well. What can the international community do to help? A few
ideas:
-Provide technical assistance in helping environmental agencies strengthen their monitoring capacity.
Information inadequacies are enormous. Lack of monitoring and inspection staff within agencies,
160
-------
Course Three; How Can We Work Better Together?
limited environmental management technical capability within companies, and poor lab capacity are
critical obstacles. In this regard, agencies are going to have to accept the fact that they can't do
everything themselves. Greater reliance on industry-generated data, collected and reported under
rigorous government standards, is essential. To this end, US-AElP is providing a broad range of
training and technical assistance programs in Asia to support implementation of effective self-
monitoring. Getting basic data on "conventional" pollutants, such as BOD, is often a challenge—data
on toxics are almost nonexistent.
-Provide technical assistance to Asian environmental agencies in managing and making better use of
information that they have. Enforcement staff often have problems locating and analyzing data —
imagine the difficulty for the public in accessing the information! Improved use of computers and
management systems is essential.
-Encourage companies to operate with greater environmental transparency. The Asian private sector
is especially leery of providing information to the public about what they're doing. Yet a small but
growing number of environmental leaders, such as San Miguel in the Philippines, are beginning to
share information on environmental issues with their publics through public outreach programs and
publications of annual environmental reports. As governments begin to press for transparency, Asian
companies will find more and more in the future that they will need to be more open if they are to
remain competitive. In this regard, multinationals and foreign investors have a major role to play.
-NGOs here should share their experiences and success stories in using TRI and other public
information. Asia has a very active, vibrant environmental NGO community. However in many
countries NGOs have only recently become actively engaged in industrial pollution problems — by
sharing your experience in tackling the difficult technical issues — such as through direct exchanges,
participation in international conferences such as this one, and greater sharing of information over the
Internet — the international NGO community can play a major positive role.
David Wheeler, World Bank
Indonesia's Regulatory
Problem
BAPEDAL
Conventions
Options
Regulatory Standards?
Market-based
Instruments?
161
But...
Weak
Institutional
Capacity
-------
Course Three; How Can We Work Better Together
BAPEDAL's Idea:
Regulator
Dirty
Industry
Public
Clean
Industry
GOLD
GREEN
Grading Factories
in Indonesia
Public Praise
BLUE
Compliance
RED
BLACK
Public Pressure &
Legal Enforcement
-------
Course Three; How Can We Work Better Together
PROPER'S Impact
GOLD
GREEN
BLUE
RED
BLACK
0
5(3%) —
61 (33%) —
115 (61%) —
6(3%) — •
0
*- 4 —
•*- 72 —
•*- 108 —
•*- 3 —
0
»- 5
»• 87
*• 95
*• o
Public Performance Ratings
Co/om
-------
Course Three; How Can We Work Better Together?
Lisa Nichols, North American Commission on Environmental Cooperation
The CEC, mandated under the terms of the North American Agreement on Environmental Cooperation, was
established to help the NAFTA countries achieve the objectives set out in the Agreement. It helps coordinate
cooperative environmental initiatives and identifies ways in which the countries of North America can work
more efficiently to protect, conserve and improve the environment. The CEC also serves as an important forum
where the NAFTA partners can work to avoid trade and environmental disputes.
The CEC is composed of the Council of Ministers, the Secretariat and the Joint Public Advisory Committee.
The council is the governing body of the CEC, composed of the environment ministers (or the equivalent) of
each country. The Secretariat, which carries out the work program of the Council, is located in Montreal,
Canada, and is headed by an Executive Director. The staff is composed of approximately 30 professionals
drawn from the three countries. The staff provides technical and administrative support to the Council, as well
as to committees and groups established by the Council.
The Secretariat implements the annual work program of the CEC and maintains a specialized resource center
of the North American environment. The Secretariat is also responsible for the preparation of an Annual Report
and a State of the North American Environment Report.
The Joint Public Advisory Committee (JPAC) has fifteen members, five from each country, who advise the
Council on any matter within the scope of the Agreement, including the annual program and budget. They also
provide technical, scientific or other advice to the Council. The JPAC reflects the CEC's commitment to
participation by citizens throughout North America. The governments appoint JPAC members, who represent
a wide cross-section of knowledgeable, committed citizens who volunteer their time in the public interest.
The promotion of cooperative environmental activities between the NAFTA countries is fundamental to the
work of the CEC. The work program focuses on five general areas:
• Environmental Conservation
• Protection of Human Health and the Environment
• Environment, Trade and the Economy
• Enforcement Cooperation and Law
• Information and Public Outreach
One of the CEC projects, ongoing since 1995, is the North American Pollutant Release and Transfer Register
(PRTR) project. The CEC recognizes the importance of PRTRs for their potential to enhance the quality of
the North American environment. The CEC wishes to assist citizens in integrating the existing data from North
America. Helpful information can be found in PRTR reports from Canada and the US. But these systems have
important differences between them, so superficial comparisons can be very deceptive. The CEC PRTR reports
attempt to increase the value of the national inventories by presenting an analysis of the types and amounts of
releases and transfers of substances of concern across North America.
In November 1996, the CEC published a report entitled "Putting the Pieces Together," which provides an
overview of the status and compatibility of the Pollutant Release and Transfer Register programs in Canada,
the United States of America, and Mexico, so that appropriate and effective data comparisons can be made.
Another report under this project, entitled 'Taking Stock: Pollutant Release and Transfer Registers in 1994"
164
-------
Course Three; How Can We Work Better Together?
was published in July 1997. This report analyzes the 1994 publicly available PRTR data reported to Canada
and the United States, and profiles the pilot project in Mexico. This ground-breaking report will assist in
leading the way for other countries to share and compare their data. This report was the first time that subsets
of the full national databases were compared and analyzed. It provided a spotlight on the national PRTRs. It
highlighted some of the important differences between the NPRI and the TRI - differences that were of interest
to the national governments.
In development of both reports, the CEC used an extensive consultative review process. The draft reports were
sent to close to 100 persons for a review period of approximately four weeks. A public meeting was held
towards the end of the review period for the annual report, and a "Response to Comments" document was
prepared.
The CEC Secretariat intends to publish annually a report analyzing the publicly available data reported to the
North American governments, and this has been mandated by the Council. At the Fourth Annual Regular
Session of the CEC hi Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania (June 1997), the Ministers passed Resolution 97-04,
"Promoting Comparability of Pollutant Release and Transfer Registers (PRTRs)". This resolution commits
the three governments to work toward adopting more comparable PRTRs, to collaborate on the development
of an Internet site to present a matched subset of data from the three North American PRTRs, and to work with
the CEC in the preparation of the annual CEC North American PRTR report. The resolution specifically
encourages meaningful public participation. (A copy of the resolution is available through the CEC homepage.)
The CEC was recently a co-sponsor (along with INE, UNITAR, OECD and UNEP) of the PRTR Workshop
of the Americans held in Queretaro, Mexico at the end of July, 1997. Most of the countries of the Americas
participated in this workshop. As they are contemplating the issues that will be important to them as they are
further along in the PRTR process. NGO involvement will be key for them.
During the next year we are looking forward to preparing the next annual North American PRTR report,
supporting Mexico in the implementation of their PRTR system, examining specific PRTR issues according
to the priorities of the North American PRTR programs and working with the PRTR programs on
comparability issues.
How to Obtain the CEC Report: "Taking Stock: North American Pollutant Releases and Transfers 1994"
• From the CEC homepage (Free)
The CEC prepares all formal publications, documents and communiques in English, Spanish, and
French, and they are made free through our trilingual homepage at http://www. cec.org.
• Renouf Publications (For hard copies, cost is approximately $30)
Bookstore Order Department
71 ^ Sparks Street 613-745-2665
Ottawa, ON K1P5A5 613-745-7660 (fax)
613-238-8985 order.dept@renoufbooks.com
613-238-6041 (fax) http://www.renoufbooks.com
165
-------
Course Three; How Can We Work Better Together?
In Toronto
12 Adelaide St. W.
Toronto, ON M5H1L6
416-363-3171
416-363-5963 (fax)
Arturo Morales, Institute Nacional de Ecologia, Mexico
In Montreal
M. Armand Bolduc
514-624-5314 (tel/fax)
Slide 1
In early 1994, the United Nations Institute for Training and Research (UNTTAR), in cooperation with OECD
and several UN organizations and programs, initiated pilot projects in Mexico, Egypt, and the Czech Republic
to facilitate the establishment of national Pollutant Release and Transfer Registers (PRTRs). The scope of the
pilot projects is to obtain a better understanding of benefits derived from the introduction of PRTRs in
developing countries.
In mid 1994. The National Institute of Ecology (INE) was identified as the National Focal Point with the aim
to determine its responsibilities towards national agencies and parties of interest as well as International
organizations and to initiate the consultation process. Mexico established a multi-stakeholder group named the
National Coordinating Group (NCG) integrated by industry, government, academia and NGOs representatives.
DE EMISIONES Y TRANSFERENCIA DE CONTAM IN ANTES
R E T C
MEXICAN PRTR
National Implementation Strategy
166
-------
Course Three: How Can We Work Better Together?
Slide :
The National Implementation Strategy is based in the National Coordinating Group which was in charge of
the identification of the Mexican Registro de Emisiones Y Transferencia de Contaminantes (RETC) objectives,
define members functions and responsibilities as well as to design the technical, administrative and legal
infrastructure to formulate an executive proposal for RETC implementations.
In the course of its discussions the NCG developed the terms of reference that reflect the RETC's
principles and mission. In the course of works the NCG faced the challenge of conciliate members differing
viewpoints, although it succeeded in achieving consensus on the designed elements. Nevertheless, a number of
issues remain unresolved that require further analysis.
O DE EMISIONES Y TRANSFERENCIA DE CONTAMINANTES
RETC
National Implementation Strategy
National Coordinating Group
• Chemicals List
Reporting Form
Database Management
• Dissemination of Information
Legal Implementation
167
-------
Course Three: How Can We Work Better Together?
Slide 3
As modern politics suggests the collaboration of governments, industry and community allowed the adequate
management of Environmental issues. Since a PRTR is a tool which gives the possibility:
1) to industry to improve its environmental performance
2) to governments to compile national pollutants inventories and
3) to the public to be aware of possible risks in their communities;
All these sectors were called to form a National Coordinating Group (NCG), which could be responsible for
planning and decision making during the implementation of the National PRTR, nowadays this group consists
of 38 organizations (government, industry and NGOs), with the Institute Nacional de Ecologia (INE) being
the focal point.
National Coordinating Group
Participating Organizations
ACADEMIA AND NGO's
ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY CENTER,
ITESM
n FRONTERA NORTE A.C.
D UNAM, UAM
INDUSTRY
G CANACINTRA
a ANIQ
a CONCAMIN
•2 COPARMEX
FEDERAL AND STATE
GOVERNMENT
a MINISTRY OF THE ENVIRONMENT AND
NATURAL RESOURCES (INE, CNA,
PROFEPA)
c FEDERAL DISTRIC DEPARTMENT (DDF)
n MEXICAN PETROLEUM (PEMEX)
a NATIONAL CENTER FOR DISASTERS
PREVENTION
a MINISTRY OF COMMERCE AND INDUSTRY
D MINISTRY OF COMMUNICATIONS AND
TRANSPORTATION
a MINISTRY OF FOREING AFFAIRS
a MINISTRY OF HEALTH
168
-------
Course Three; How Can We Work Bitter Together?
Slide 4
The National Coordinating Group has agreed that the list of 161 single substances and 17 chemical categories
should serve as the initial list of substances and subsequent reviews must be performed at least every two years.
The list was derived from Mexican Official Standards, the 1993 TRI, the 1994 Canadian NPRI, the Swedish
Sunset Project for Chemicals and the priority chemicals lists of some OECD member countries.
Other criteria considered to define the RETC list were derived form considerations regarding the objectives of
the PRTR, the international experience in this subject, and OECD and UNTTAR guidelines. Using Ontario
Ministry of the Environment Scoring System for parameters of toxicity, bioaccumulation, and environmental
persistence, the first list was reduced to achieve a shorter list of a manageable size. The assessment information
of each substance was obtained form the Chemical Evaluation and Retrieval System (CESARS database). The
substances regulated in the Mexican standards for combustion emissions and those considered as relevant by
the Convention on Climate Change were also included in the list.
List of lists
(407 Chemicals)
Chemicals considered in
mexican environmental
standards
Criterion 3:
compliance with
Internacional
agreements
Combustion gases and
greenhouse gases
Chemicals List
Selection Criteria
Chemicals considered in other
countries:
NPRI, TRI, Swedish Sunset Project, OECD
r
Criterion 1:
Toxicity /(MOE=» 10)
Persistence / ( MOE > 0)
Bioaccumulation / ( MOE > 0
Criterion 2:
Toxicity / ( MOE > 6)
Persistence / ( MOE > 4)
Bioaccumulation / ( MOE > 4)
178 FINAL LIST
Chemicals and
categories
MOE: Ontario Ministry
of the Environment
169
-------
Course Three: How Can We Work Better Together?
Slide 5
It is intended that 1997 will be the first nation wide reporting year and the first report will be published in late
1998. We have developed software to report electronically, and it will be sent late this year to Industrial
sources. They will submit PRTR data starting in January 1998 until April 1998. through the compulsory
Environmental Performance Annual Report dictated by the Minister of the Environment, Natural Resources
and Fisheries in April 1997. This annual report has to be presented by industries actually holding an
Environmental license (approximately 8,000 nationwide industrial establishments). Through a multimedia
reporting scope, the Environmental Performance Report includes all environmental information previously
required regarding air emissions, wastewater discharges and hazardous waste management, together with a
special chapter dealing with the release and transfer of 178 substances and categories of environmental concern.
JKIMBERLY CLARK : A DE T V.
Hoiribre de k Empresa;
R.F.C. d* la Zmpw*&:
Giro Principal de li Eitipresa
Entidad Federative
Musdnjpio:
Humero de Ragjstio
JFABPJCACIOH DE PAPEL
JQUERETARO
Cedula de Operacion Anual
170
-------
Course Three: How Can We Work Better Together?
Slide 6
At the National Institute of Ecology we are developing the National Environmental System based on
Geographical Information Technology, you can see the facilities involved in the pilot study case in the State
of Queretaro in 1996. There were 80 industries geographically located as well as the river, roads, cities and
counties. It is possible to analyze spatially the relations between those layers.
Geographical Information Systems
El Marques
A/
| Manzanji de Qu
m
171
-------
Course Three: How Can We Work Better Together?
Slide '
The data dissemination depends on the relation between the PRTR information. Some countries have permitting
and compliance programs, others are based in information programs, the Mexican PRTR data will be used to
inform the public to provide background on environmental risk assessment and also as a permitting and
compliance program. In Mexico we are developing the infrastructure needed for data dissemination and usage.
Dissemination of Information
GOVERNMENT
• : The data dissemination depends on the relation between the PRTR
information to:
A permitting and compliance programs (UK, Netherlands)
A information programs (USA, Canada, Australia)
A information and permitting and compliance programs (Mexico)
a Capacity building for data dissemination and usage
- Provide background on environmental indicators, eco-labeling,
corporate reporting-performance assessment and environmental risk
assessment
REGISTRO DE EM1SIONES Y TRANSFERENCIA DE CONTAMINANTES
R E T C
172
-------
Course Three: How Can We Work Better Together?
Slide 8
How PRTR can be used in the Industry?
Mexican PRTR will provide additional information to assist industries in Ukuiagement decision-making that
complements their processes and environmental priorities such as:
« Internal incentives to improve environmental performance
• Financial decision-making
PRTRs have proven valuable, not only to track the environmental performance of industrial facilities and the
government programs and policies that apply to them, but also to stimulate voluntary initiatives by companies
to reduce their releases and transfers of toxic chemicals to the environment.
How PRTR can be used ?
INDUSTRY
Internal incentives to improve environmental
performance
A Financial decision-making
A Establishment of voluntary reduction goals
A Improve industry-community relationship
A Performance comparability between facilities
AConfidenciality issues
A Corporate reporting
EGISTRO DE EMISIONES Y TRANSFERENCIA DE CONTAMINANTES
R E T C
173
-------
Course Three: How Can We Work Better Together?
Slide 9
How PRTR can be used by Academia, NGOs, and Citizens
Mexican PRTR will provide a reliable and updated information database of releases and transfers of specific
pollutants to air. water and soil. There will be an information system for public access which will be useful to:
• Improve community awareness on potential risks and community responsibilities within
environmental programs and policies
• Promote training and technical assistance towards data understanding
How PRTR can be used ?
ACADEMIA, NGOs AND CITIZENS
Promotion of pollution prevention and control activities
Research in environmental health
Improve community awarness on potential risks and
community responsibilities within environmental programs
and policies
Promote training and technical assistance towards data
understanding
174
-------
Course Three: How Can We Work Better Together?
Slide 10
As I previously said 1997 will be the first nationwide reporting year and the first annual report will be
published at late 1998. On a semi-continental level, there is an effort coordinated by the Commission for
Environmental Cooperation (CEC) to integrate information from the North American PRTRs (TRI, NPRI and
RETC) and foster public access to them.
Based on significant benefits obtained through the RETC experience, Mexico recognizes the important role
undertaken by UNITAR, the CEC, OECD and other international organizations for the establishment of
PRTRs. In Ottawa. Canada, February 1997, during the Intergovernmental Forum on Chemical Safety (IFCS)
Mexico recommended that governments should consider developing and implementing PRTRs or similar
programs to promote pollution prevention and to bring citizens into the decision-making process towards
chemical safety.
On the international level, another benefit will be to have a robust tool to allow data comparison and increase
technical cooperation and communication related to chemical safety.
Mexico hosted a PRTR Workshop for Latin America last July in Queretaro, in cooperation with the EPA,
Environment Canada, UNITAR, the CEC, OECD and UNEP. The primary objective was to raise awareness
about the potential benefits of PRTRs and to share experiences and technologies of interest for other countries
of Latin America.
IONAL IMPLEMENTATION ACTIVITIES
a city building within IE, states and delegations
DEVELOPMENT AREAS
Releases Estimation Techniques
Non-Point Sources (Agriculture, Transport, Mining)
Systems Engineering
Geographical Information Systems
Regional and State Capacity Building
Guidance for PRTR reporting
INTERNATIONAL COOPERATION OPORTUNITIES
United Nations: (UNEP, UNITAR, UNIDO)
OECD
CEC
Environment Canada
US EPA, Netherlands, EPA Australia
175
-------
Course Three: How Can We Work Better Together?
Claudia Fenerol, OECD, Pollution Prevention and Control Division, France
Rob Vlsser, OECD, Pollution Prevention and Control Division, France
OECD
OCDE
Presentation on:
Pollutant Release and Transfer Registers
Rob Visser
Toxics Release Inventory and Hight-To-Know Conference
Washington, D.C.
OECD
(Organisation for Economic Co-
operation and Development)
International Organisation grouping
29 industrialised countries:
Austria
Belgium
Denmark
Finland
France
Germany
Greece
Ireland
Italy
Luxembourg
The Netherlands
Portugal
Spain
Sweden
United Kingdom
Canada
Mexico
United States
Australia
Japan
New Zealand
South Korea
Czech Republic
Hungary
Iceland
Norway
Poland
Switzerland
Turkey
OECO
176
-------
Co>ne Three: How Can We Work Better Together?
OECD ROLE
TO PRQMOTE ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT BALANCED WITH
ENVIRCiNMENTAL PROTECTION
. .
• To PROVIDE MEMBER COUNTRIES WITH POLICY ANALYSIS
AND GUIDANCE
• To DEEPEN THE UNDERSTANDING OF ISSUES AND PROPOSE
SOLUTIONS TO PROBLEMS
• To FURTHER POLICY HARMONIZATION, OECD DEVELOPS,
ON OCCASION, COUNCIL ACTS (RECOMMENDATIONS AND
DECISIONS)
OECD PRTR Programme:
• Follow-up actions to UNCED Agenda 21, Chapter 19
• Provides guidance on developing and implementing
national PRTRs
• Provides a forum for governments to share information
, '-''&.\
- • I..' iai--*
• Helps co-ordinate national and international PRTR
activities
177
-------
Count Thrt«: How Can We Work B«tUf Together?
OECD PRTR Council Recommendation
• OECD countries take steps to put a PRTR in place
r '
• System based on guiding principles and Guidance
Manual
• Survey Member country progress on implementing
this Council Recommendation by 1998
OECD PRTR Work Programme for 1997-98
• Regional Workshops
/
/
• Study on the environmental effectiveness of
a PRTR, costs to report and relationship to
ISO 14 000, EMAS and Responsible Care
• Provide outreach and assistance to national
governments and international bodies
• International PRTR Conference - Japan 1998
178
-------
Count Thret: How Cap Wt Work Better Together?
What is the value of OECD's activities on PRTR?
• Provide the possiblitly to compare methods and data
internationally
/
• Facilitate a "level playing field" for industry with
similar requirements from OECD countries
• Help OECD countries play a global leadership role and
assist developing countries
• Promote more effective and focused environmental
management of pollutants of concern throughout
OECD
INTERNET
Information on Programmes
Documents
News
Databases
(Not Test Guidelines)
179
-------
Course Three: How Can We Work Better Together?
RESPONSE TO RECOMMENDATIONS IN
UNCED - AGENDA 21, CHAPTER 19
International Organisations
Inter-Organization Programme for the
Sound Management of Chemicals (IOMC)
Purpose!
L
OECD
Co-ordination of the policies
and activities pursued by the
Participating Organisations,
jointly and separately
Governments
Intergovernmental Forum on
Chemical Safety (IFCS)
Purpose!
L
- Provide policy guidance
- develop strategies in a co-ordinated
and integrated manner
- tbhier understanding of issues
> promote the required policy support
OECD
INTER-ORGANIZATION PROGRAMME FOR THE
SOUND MANAGEMENT OF CHEMICALS (IOMC)
OECD
INTER-ORGANIZATION CO-ORDINATING
COMMITTEE (IOCC) FOR THE IOMC
WHO j
180
-------
Course Three: How Can We Work Better Together?
OECD
INTERNATIONAL PRTR CONFERENCE
PRTRs: National Priorities, Global Responsibility
September 9th-llth, 1998
Tokyo, Japan
Conference Objectives:
to discuss the role of a PRTR as a tool for
environmental policy and sustainable development
to identify and examine key implementation issues
and barriers to success
to identify options and solutions to issues and
barriers raised
181
-------
Course Three: How Can We Work Better Together?
Session Topics:
• PRTR design and development
• Reporting PRTR Data
• Issues of PRTR Reporters
• PRTRs as an environmental management tool
• National PRTR pilot project updates and NGO pilot
projects
• Regional PRTRs
Session Topics:
• New uses of PRTRs
/
• Outreach, training and education
• Progress of industrialising nations in developing PRTRs
• Assistance to industrialising nations
• Future PRTRs - what will a PRTR look like in 10,15 or
25 years?
182
-------
Course Three: How Can We Work Better Together?
Francois Lavallee, Environment Canada
1*1
Erwirennwnt Envlremwnwnt
Canada Canada
CANADIAN PERSPECTIVE ON
INTERNATIONAL IMPLEMENTATION OF
RIGHT TO KNOW
by: Francois Lavallee
Environment Canada
Sept 10,1997
Washington, DC
POWER OF INFORMATION
Realization of the power of information
by government, industry and public
takes time.
Can only be achieved by a working
PRTR.
PRTRs change perceptions & lead to
action.
183
-------
Course Three; How Can We Work Better Together?
Effect of public info on industry
Increased self reporting
Environmental performance becomes an issue with
shareholders and management
Change measure of environmental performance from
compliance to continuous improvement
Effect of public info on the public
Heightens awareness of environmental issues
A tool for action by opinion leaders
at the local, regional, national level
by influencing industry, government and the
wider public
184
-------
Course Three: How Can We Work Better Together?
Effect of public info on government
The use of information (PRTRs) to meet policy goals
Broader uses are possible:
concentration on largest releases
move to reducing risk
celebrate successes as well as point to problems
make greater use of peer pressure within industry
Advantages of Internationally
Comparable Information
Environmental issues span borders
Can provide new types of information and
perspectives on issues.
Industrial Releases within the Great Lakes
Basin: An Evaluation of NPRI and TRI data.
Taking Stock - North American Pollutant
Releases and Transfers
185
-------
Course Three; How Can We Work Better Together?
Industrial Releases within the Great Lakes
Basin: An Evaluation of NPRI and TRI data.
Key Findings: Releases to the Great Lakes Basin
amount to 173,092 tonnes. US accounts for 71 % of
the Total.
Outcome: A nice trip by Environment Canada to
Washington to testify before a Congressional
Committee.
Greater environmental awareness and new
perspective on an old issue
Conclusions
PRTRs with comparable information will lead to
benefits for domestic programs
Heightens awareness beyond what can be done by
a strictly domestic approach
Provide new ways to use domestic information to
effect change
186
-------
Course Three: How Can We Work Better Together?
Session D - How Should Government Agencies Work Together?
Session Leader
Andy Opperman, New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection
Speakers
Well Hansen, Washington Department of Ecology
Steve Tomlyanovich, Minnesota Emergency Response Commission
William Panos, Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection
Dwight Peavey, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Andy Opperman, New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection
Session Abstract
The session will examine governmental efforts to cooperate in ensuring data quality and access. In particular,
this session will emphasize USEPA and state "departments of the environment" activities, reviewing past
efforts as well as focusing on future plans at the federal and state levels. Successful data management practices
and integration activities will be highlighted. Panelists will also share experiences that did not work so well
and thoughts on how to improve data quality and access so that we can focus on "Building For The Future. "
In order to improve the use of RTK information and work better together in the process, it is incumbent upon
government agencies to increase outreach activities and identify opportunities to utilize the data. Therefore,
the session will also provide an opportunity for the audience to hear about data integration and management
activities within other agencies of the federal government as well as unique applications at the local government
level.
Idell Hansen, Washington State Department of Ecology
Outline of Presentation: Lessons from the State of Washington
The 3 Cs of RTK Success
Cooperaft'on-sharing resources to improve data quality & avoid duplication of effort
Consideration -keeping all participants in the loop
Coordination- sharing success so we don't reinvent the wheel
Community Right-to-know in Washington State
State law predates Emergency Planning and Community Right to Know Act
Hazardous substance information office
Four Levels of Government - Multi-level Reporting
Environmental protection agency (EPA)
State Emergency Response Commission (SERC) (ecology/other agencies)
Local Emergency Planning Committee (LEPC) (county emergency management)
Fire department
187
-------
Coarse Three: How Can We Work Better Toeether?
Problems
*Responsibility unclear in legislation
"Lack of funding leads to "we can't do it."
*Business wanted to comply but didn't have the information
* Public, agencies, media wanted data and to know what it means
What the Washington State Department of Ecology was doing
Ecology program funded by worker & community right-to-know act
Mandate: make data available
Activity:
Mailing Tier Two forms & data entry of Tier Two and Form R
Handling public information requests
Problem: Duplication of effort.
*Local agencies use both EIS & cameo software emergency response
* State developed its own EPCRA data system
*Many LEPC's could not afford data entry
Cooperation-avoids duplication of effort
Grant from EPA converts state data to EIS & Cameo
Distribution to all users both in Cameo & EIS
Problem: Lack of communication
* Demand for TRI data lead to state data entry
* State got forms EPA didn't
*EPA got forms state didn't
'"Discrepancies result in two sets of data.
Consideration - Keeping Everyone in the Loop
EPA provides states with lists of reporters
State compares lists
States & EPA exchange copies of form Rs
EPA sends the states printouts of top reporting facilities
Consideration - Improves Data Quality
More consistent data
"Missing" reports are found
Builds state-EPA partnership
Coordination - sharing innovations
Toxic Release Inventory Information Display System (TRDDS)
State develops "fair display" for TRI
TRIIDS proves popular in Washington
EPA provides funding to expand system making it available to other states
Changes to form R & state diskettes results in need for more changes
Grant extension pending
188
-------
Course Three; How Can We Work Better Together?
What Happens When We Work Together?
The public's right-to-know is strengthened, data quality increased, limited resources maximized
EPCRA has proven successful well beyond its level of funding '
Steve Tomlyanovich, Minnesota Emergency Response Commission
Minnesota State Agency's Use of the Toxic Release Inventory
Introduction
The office of the Minnesota Emergency Response Commission (ERC), as part of the Minnesota Department
of Public Safety, is responsible for implementation of the Emergency Planning and Community Right-to-Know
Act (EPCRA) on the state level. The Emergency Response Commission itself is a twenty-two member
organization which includes representatives of fire, law enforcement, medical services, business and industry,
labor, community groups, elected officials, and four state agencies.
Part of the responsibility of the ERC includes collecting, reviewing, and making publicly available information
submitted under Section 313 of the Act. My presentation will provide a brief overview of activities conducted
in Minnesota over the past several years related to Minnesota's Toxic Release Inventory (TRI), including the
state's work on the Minnesota Toxic Pollution Prevention Act, TRI expansion, annual TRI report, Governor's
Awards, Minnesota-50 Project, and pollution prevention fees.
Minnesota Toxic Pollution Prevention Act
The 1990 Minnesota Legislature passed the Minnesota Toxic Pollution Prevention Act. The legislation includes
the following major features:
• establishes state policy encouraging the prevention of toxic pollution
• provides technical assistance to help companies prevent toxic pollution by expanding the
responsibilities and staff of the Minnesota Technical Assistance Program (MnTAP).
• provides matching grants to help companies study or demonstrate the feasibility of applying
specific technologies and methods to prevent pollution.
• requires each facility reporting toxic chemical releases to develop a Toxic Pollution Prevention
Plan establishing goals for reducing or eliminating toxic pollutant releases. In addition, these
facilities must submit annual Pollution Prevention Progress Reports to the ERC.
Minnesota TRI Expansion
The 1993 Minnesota Legislature amended the Minnesota Emergency Planning and Community Right-to-Know
Act to expand the TRI reporting requirements to the non-manufacturing sector. Facilities included in the
following SIC codes, which meet the employee and chemical usage criteria, as well as the exemptions
available under the federal Act, must report chemicals releases and transfers to the ERC.
189
-------
Course Three: How Can We Work Better Together?
SIC Code Industry Sector
10 Metal Mining
40 Rail Transport
45 Air Transport
49 Utilities
5161/5169 Chemical and Allied Products
5162 Basic Shapes
806 Hospitals
807 Medical and Dental Laboratories
822 Colleges and Universities
7384 Photo Finishing
7389 Solvent Recovery Facilities only
8734 Testing Laboratories
9223 Correctional Institutions
Because Section 313 of the Act was written primarily for the manufacturing sector, the ERC had to make
certain interpretations of the Federal Act as it applied to the Minnesota expansion. For example, the ERC did
not receive any submissions from SIC Codes 807 and 8734 because of the exemption of these types of facilities
under the Federal Act.
The state legislation does have some differences when compared to the Federal Act as follows:
• the State Act does not apply to substances associated with, or incidental to, the combustion
of fossil fuels for the generation of electricity or the production of steam
• a person may petition the Commission to exempt all facilities included in one of the 14 SIC
Codes listed above, or a sub-class within one of the listed classifications, from the reporting
requirements
• a facility meeting all of the reporting requirements under the Minnesota expansion, but
reporting no releases or transfers, may submit a written certification to the Commission
exempting itself from the reporting requirements
Annual TRI Report
The ERC has entered TRI data into its database and published an annual report since the 1988 reporting year.
The most recent annual report, covering releases and transfers for the 1995 reporting year, included information
presented for the first time - Pollution Prevention Progress Reports and Minnesota's Indexing System.
The Indexing System, developed by staff at the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency, provides a method for
comparing the potential environmental impacts of toxic substances emitted into the air. The system does not
predict actual concentrations or toxicity, but rather allows a comparison of substances according to their
potential to cause a hazard in the environment. The system also indicates where in the environment a substance
is most likely to cause harmful effects.
190
-------
Course Three; How Can We Work Better Together?
The Indexing Systems Values (numerical weighted emissions), were applied to statewide air emissions from
the 1995 TRI data. For example, mercury, ranked first (out of 69 TRI chemicals) in the statewide ranking, had
an Index Value (log units) of 19.80 based on the 36 pounds of total reported'statewide air emissions. Styrene,
ranked 30th, had an Index Value of 9.63 based on the 1,243,913 pounds of total reported statewide air
emissions. Total Chromium (Chromium and Compounds), ranked 69*, had an Index Value of 0.00 based on
the 11,004 pounds of total reported statewide air emissions.
Governor's Awards
The Minnesota Toxic Pollution Prevention Act directed the Minnesota Office of Environmental Assistance
(OEA-formerly the Minnesota Office of Waste Management) to develop a program for Governor's Awards
for Excellence in Pollution Prevention. Since 1991, several TRI reporters have been given awards for using
innovative and creative strategies in preventing, reducing, and reusing wastes. Awards are presented as part
of the state's annual pollution prevention conference.
Minnesota-50 Project
The Minnesota-50 Project was a voluntary effort sponsored by the OEA and the Minnesota Chamber of
Commerce that challenges industry to achieve a 50-percent statewide reduction in releases and transfers of 17
priority chemicals by 1995. The baseline for measurement of this goal is 1988. This project was Minnesota's
version on implementation of EPA's 33/50 Program.
Industry was very successful hi reducing releases and transfers of the 17 targeted chemicals. Releases and
transfers of the 17 priority chemicals were reduced by 52 percent between 1988 and 1992. These figures
represent reductions made by all reporting Minnesota companies, not just companies participating in the
Minnesota-50 Project. The 50-percent goal was achieved three years ahead of schedule.
Pollution Prevention Fees
The Minnesota Toxic Pollution Prevention Act requires TRI facilities to pay pollution prevention fees on an
annual basis. These fees, which are collected by the ERC, are used to support Minnesota's pollution prevention
assistance activities. In addition, part of the fees collected are used to assist in the implementation of the
Hazardous Materials Incident Response Act of 1992. This Act establishes a system of up to five regional
response teams and up to ten supporting chemical assessment teams to deal with hazardous materials
emergencies.
Future Directions
The ERC will continue to work with other state agencies to provide additional "right-to-know" information.
Three specific issues have been discussed among the state agencies. All of the proposals received substantial
industry opposition.
1) EPA has set national air quality standards for six principal pollutants (referred to as "criteria"
pollutants): carbon monoxide, lead, nitrogen dioxide, ozone, paniculate matter, and sulfur dioxide.
Certain permitted sources are required to submit annual Emission Inventories to the Minnesota
191
-------
Course Three: How Can We Work Better Together?
Pollution Control Agency. Emission Inventories quantify the amount of criteria pollutants a facility
releases into the environment each year. Emissions data on the "top 20" sources for each pollutant
were proposed for inclusion in the annual TRI report.
2) Expand the TRI to include facility-level chemical "use" data, which is essentially EPA's project
currently known as TRI-Phase 3.
3)Reduce the annual usage thresholds for TRI chemicals of concern such as Mercury. Current
threshold's, set at 25,000 pounds and 10,000 pounds, are often much too high for an individual facility
to meet for certain chemicals. By lowering the thresholds, facilities would be required to report annual
emissions and transfers of chemicals such as Mercury.
Summary
The Toxic Release Inventory, Toxic Pollution Act, and other related activities have been effective tools in
providing information to the public, and a means for industry to take a closer look at its chemical processes.
Although there is not sufficient time to present an analysis of chemical reductions since the inception of the Act,
we have had several facilities which have successfully reduced their emissions of TRI chemicals. For example,
the 3M facility in Hutchinson, Minnesota reported total air emissions of over 16 million pounds for 18 TRI
chemicals for the 1988 reporting year. For the 1995 reporting year, they reported total air emissions of over
2 million pounds for 17 TRI chemicals.
William Panos, Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection
.. •
Advanced
Communications
•.if
National TRI Conference
September 9-11, 1997
192
-------
Course Three; How Can We Work Better Toyther?
ass
^* • - • ••.-^'..' ••"•!i'?-li^4R
Goals -•';•• ••«r*i
Jtl
.;.'-.? ^ttf-' '--CkJ -j tfi!ifcu-*^uuflftaatf.:*Vm-i,^'3tfa^^
• Overview of MADEP
11 History of Advanced Thinking
11 Overview of Toxics Programs
M Description of Conditions
* Virtual Communication
* Description of Progress
ii'.-
Organization: Structure
Executive Office of Environmental Affairs
• Department of Environmental Protection
• Department of Natural Resources
• Metropolitan District Commission
• Various Other Offices (MEPA, OTA, CZM, etc.)
Department of Environmental Protection
• Boston HQ + 4 Regional Offices
• Boston HQ - Policy, Regs, Support, Special Projects
• Regional Offices - Permitting, Enforcement
193
-------
Count Three; How Can We Work Better Together?
Organization: Programs
..•:-. ••-.: ;/jr'.!j-:-;5*
u Bureau of Waste Prevention
• Planning and Evaluation - Policy, Training,
Strategic Planning, Environmental Evaluation, Agency
Coordination, Legislation
• Business Compliance - Regulations, Regional
Support, Enforcement
• Consumer and Transportation - Education,
Vehicle Programs, Recycling
B Bureau of Waste Site Cleanup
B Bureau of Resource Protection
Advanced
u Wall Experiment Station
H Privatization of Waste Site Cleanup
* Environmental Strike Force
* Multimedia Inspections
- Toxics Use Reduction Program
• Reorganization Towards Customer
Service
* Environmental Results Program
194
-------
Course Three: How Can We Work Better Together?
Toxics Programs
• Air Toxics
tt Federal TRI Support
• Right to Know
• Toxics Use Reduction
Program
• MADEP-lmplementation
• OTA-Assistance
• TURI-Education
• EOEA-Policy
Conditions
...-.-.•.•'.•.->
= ? ; >• ^iiifprhriation Overload
- '•. •/•'.'C.-'j.' -•:>'.1' •-i."'V "•.';'«•' •?''"•'• '•;•'/ .'" '"" - '"' '"- " ' ''
Resource Constraints
Reactive Implementation
Consensus Process
195
-------
Course Three; How Can We Work Better Together?
Virtual Communication
'" i '>'f 'ii- i-MV'\^;'n'^''^i-~-''ii-T-i-'^r'iir
- Shrinking Time To
Real-Time
* Accurate Information
" Prediction
Communication
B Idea Integration
• Constant Feedback
* Continuous
Improvement
Progress Detail: External
*<.%%
v,' :j -\i
•\-"" \.1&
!?
. . ..• :i>'.
fit ••"•"• ~ •>''•''' r\ ' ' i'r '• v"'k ^i r''": ''' i ' '••"'•'•''•'-' r*-"'"1 '•'•'•'•'*'*'»i-'><-r'-'i"'-''*'>-')-'»J.->..-.:'/'...". .^.v-
u Planners Breakfast Meetings, Participation in
Programs, Disciplinary Policies
* Boards Hands-On, Working Boards,
Continuous Value Added, Part of Staff
• Communities
Industry/Enviros/Agencies/Municipal
* Program Sharing
Information, Grants, and Staff
B Regional Approaches
Regional Toxics Reporting
196
-------
Coarse Three: How Can We Work Better Together?
Progress Detail: Systems
0 Internet"
Intranet
• Software
Hardware
• Mainframes
»'* •• ••«•»' •'rV>*'r'•''»••••>:' iJV'-i:••.•.'• :i vih:*i^»'.iuii^<.«KHJi->Ji!f'ij&
Web Pages and Links, Toxics
Information Placed on Web
Project Chat Groups, Project Work
Boxes, Shared Databases, Info. 2000
Advanced System Translation,
Upgrading to Same Type, Languages
I to I Ratio, Ethernet/Pipelines,
Transferability, Ease of Use
One, Links to Discreet,
Expandability, Need Appropriate
I.-
Progress
T
• . ..
Commuhitil
197
-------
Course Three; How Can We Work Better Together?
=•• -'iSl
Progress Detail: Internal
* Teams: Semi-Self Directed, Teams Training]
Membership Breadth and Depth
" Rules: Listening, Chain of Command,
External Communications, Change in
Expectation
• Goals: All Meetings, Goals Stated, Goals
Tied
* Targeting TRI for Inspections, TRI for
Enforcement
• Intra-Bureau TRI Used in Other Initiatives
r
"
Summary
fr.*i^9£^..^-x«i**v*..•••.-.;•;:,- ••..-• .-ir.i^'.•.«.••-<»•*:•.• i-.'--- .k"'U;sK-^j*^.t':;ia4i^fe^!C^•^5ciJtoi^l^^v•QU»ksai•^«'•J•!l
Communications Is At The
Core Of Issues And
Solutions
We Must Focus On
Communications
Infrastructure And Not
On Single Issues
If That Is All We Did,
Fundamental Change
Would Occur In All
Projects
a Speed, Completeness And
Consistency Would
Improve
• We Would Improve The
Inertia Of The Consensus
Process
« As Public Servants We Are
Obligated To Use All
Resources Effectively
ffl Move Towards Virtual
Communication
198
-------
Course Three: How Can We Work Better Together?
To Contact MADE ft'
• General Number 617-292-5500
" Ken Pelletier - TRI Team Leader 6! 7-292-5552
" Cynthia Chaves - P2/TUR Branch Chief 617-292-5848
• William T. Panos
One Winter Street Boston, MA 02108
617-574-6820 (Phone)
617-292-5778 (Fax)
WPanos@state.ma.us
199
-------
Appendix A
Exhibitor Abstracts
-------
Alliance to End Childhood Lead Poisoning
Washington, D.C.
Barbara Monfort
202-543-1147
Disclosure of Lead-Based Paint Hazards in Housing - A Consumer's Right to Know
This exhibit focuses on the federal law now requiring sellers and landlords to provide information
to potential buyers and renters concerning lead-based paint hazards on the premises and hand out
an EPA pamphlet which outlines the health dangers of lead-based paint and dust and the rights of
consumers under the law. The law serves to increase public awareness of lead hazards and enables
more informed decision making in real estate transactions. It also gives buyers the right to
conduct a risk assessment or lead inspection on the property at their own expense. Because the
law does not require the control of any lead hazards identified, the Alliance to End Childhood
Lead Poisoning is working to use disclosure as a tool to achieve more effective and widespread
lead hazard control in the housing environment.
Alton Park/Pine Woods Improvement Corporation
Chattanooga, TN
Debra L. Matthews
423-266-2751
APP-Corp. Right to Know Exhibit
Photographic in nature, the exhibit traces a local community's effort to clean up Chattanooga
Creek, a local Superfund site. The exhibit chronicles months of community meetings held with
local, state, and federal officials.
Arizona Department of Environmental Quality
Phoenix, AZ
Jeff Scott
602-207-4205
Are Arizona Facilities Reducing Reported Releases of TRI Chemicals?
This exhibit will investigate the following:
1) Whether Arizona facilities are reducing reported chemicals released into the
environment,
2) Are pollution prevention goals (addressing reductions in TRI chemical
management) correlated with chemical quantities reported on the Form R.
Since there are many internal and external factors at a facility that influence how data is reported
from year to year, the data used in this study will include TRI chemicals that have been reported
by Arizona facilities under the TRI program every year from 1991-1995. Since these chemicals
consist of a large portion of the total data reported, it is hoped that these consistently reported
chemicals will indicate whether or not reductions in releases are occurring after adjusting for
annual chemical list changes and facility activity/production.
A-l
-------
Asian Pacific Environmental Network
Oakland, CA
Audrey Chiang
510-834-8920
Environmental Problems: Who Bears the Burden?
The exhibit focuses on APENs use of GIS and various environmental databases, including TRI, to
map toxic sites in the Laotian community of West Contra Coast County in California.
Documenting the placement of toxic chemical and hazardous waste facilities within the
community, the maps are used as education tools with local residents, environmental groups, and
industry officials. In addition, the maps serve as assessment tools — to help point out which
communities are most marginalized, and which would most benefit from community organizing
efforts.
This display shows the maps that have been developed to describe the West Contra Coast County
environment and discusses future mapping efforts including the mapping of different
environmental, health and socio-economic indicators with respect to Asian-Pacific communities
throughout the San Francisco Bay Area. This information will feed into our continual needs
assessment process of API communities in order to determine where our next community
organizing project should take place.
Chemical Manufacturers Association
Arlington, VA
Leslie Winik
703-741-5224
David MentaU
703-741-5238
The Safety of Deep Wells
Using photos and video, the exhibit concentrates on use Class I Deepwell Injection Facilities.
Responsible Care; Pollution Prevention. Environmental Management and Right to Know
in the Chemical Industry
Ohio/Cincinnati Women's Health Project
Cincinnati, OH
Linda Briscoe
513-641-3081
Training Youth on How to Access and Use TRI
Citizens for a Better Environment - Illinois
Chicago, IL
Patrick Hamblin
312-939-1530
A-2
-------
Using TRI to Reduce Pollution in Chicago's Communities of Color
This exhibit will feature several of the tools that CBE has developed to help local community
based organizations - particularly in communities of color - analyze local sources of industrial
pollution and decide where to focus their collaborative "good neighbor dialogue" efforts. These
include (1) A comprehensive 255 page Guide to Southeast Chicago's Major Polluting Industries,
which includes detailed profiles of the 54 companies who fall under the reporting requirements of
the Emergency Planning and Community Right: and (2) A set of Chicago zip code maps which
illustrate where TRI chemicals have been released, where transferred, and (combining those
numbers) who suffers the greatest "total toxics burden."
CBE's exhibit will also include information on how our organization uses TRI and other data
available within the Right to Know Network in identifying companies who have not complied
with the reporting requirements of EPCRA. Citizen suits against such companies are an important
element in CBE's pollution prevention program because of the potential for including
Supplemental Environmental Projects in settlement agreements.
Citizens for a Better Environment - Minnesota
Minneapolis, MN
Lisa Doerr
Pollution Prevention Training for Industrial Employees
Posters and brochures on a training program for industrial employees on how to become P2
advocates.
Citizens for Public Accountability
Portland, OR
Randy Tucker
503-231-4181
New Local Materials Accounting Law; The Eugene Experience
This exhibit will display the nature and process of the nation's first local materials accounting law
passed in Eugene, Oregon in November 1996. The law was passed as a charter amendment via a
citizen initiative process and has survived a court challenged and a challenge in the 1997 Oregon
legislature.
Using literature and graphics used in the law's development, the exhibit provides information on
key features on the law, such as: (1) Balance input-output materials accounting of all federally-
listed hazardous substances (approximately 1,300 chemicals) with input/output accounting units
2.2 pounds/year); (2) Oversight and enforcement by the Citizen Toxics Board including a balance
of reporting industry representatives and citizens right-to-know advocates; (3) Electronic
deposition of all information in the local Public Library rather than in a government agency, and
(4) Funding of the reporting program, Toxics Board, and auditing by the reporting industries.
A-3
-------
Communities for a Better Environment
Los Angeles, CA
Shipra Bansal
213-426-5114
Mapping Toxic Hotspots in Southeast Los Angeles
Dataware
Arlington, VA
Stephanie Bryans
703-883-8215
Demonstrating TRI through CD-ROM
Deep South Center for Environmental Justice
New Orleans, LA
Robert Swayzer, III
504-486-9529
TRI as an Environmental Justice Tool
Don't Waste Arizona, Inc.
Phoenix, AZ
Steven Brittle
602-266-6110
Organizing Communities Using EPCRA Information and Citizen Suit Enforcement
DWA exhibited a 28.5 minute EPCRA awareness and compliance video that DWA has completed
with a local cable television company. The EPCRA awareness and compliance video is the first
such video to examine EPCRA's benefits to all stakeholders; previous EPCRA videos
neglect/forget the community portion of community right-to-know. Copies of the video is
available to interested parties for broadcast or showing in their regions/cities.
Environmental Background Information Center
State College, PA
Brian Lipsett
814-867-7341
Environmental Background Information Center flEBIQ
This exhibit focuses on the work of EBIC. Providing corporate background research to grassroots
community organizations at no charge, EBIC utilizes TRI data, FINDS, PCS, ERNS, BRS, etc.
to identify facility locations, aliases, site activity, compliance and accident records. In addition,
A-4
-------
EBIC also utilizes other online corporate and news media databases and in-house records to assist
community organizations in fighting for environmental justice and law and order.
Environmental Defense Fund
Oakland, CA
.Ken Leiserson
510-658-8080
Environmental Defense Fund Chemical Scorecard
The prototype for a database-backed web site which will allow users to view/gather information
about the chemical substances released to their local environment. Beyond simple release data, the
web site will sort environmental releases by health end-point (cancer, developmental toxic, etc.)
and rank them by combining exposure potential and toxicity. Other environmental health
information will also be offered.
Environmental Justice Technology Center
Hampton, VA
Babafemi Adesanya
757-728-3836
TRI and Right-to-Know's Use in an Environmental Justice Community Center
Jesus People Against Pollution (JPAP)
Columbia, MS
Charlotte Keyes
601-736-0686
JPAP Enviro-Justice Documentary
Jesus People Against Pollution displayed their "Coming to the Light" video and newsletter
information on the history of Columbia, MS Reichild Chemical Co/Newsom Brothers Superfund
Site. Also information on Vice President Al Gore's commitment in December 1993, at the
National Council of Churches plan to visit our community, which never happened.
Jobs For Youth
Boston, MA
Glynn Williams
Incorporating Right-to-Know and TRI into and Environmental Curriculum
The exhibit highlighted TRI's use within the Environmental Technology program at Jobs For
Youth, a career center focused on providing disadvantaged youth with job skills and training.
Using right-to-know information available through the internet, Jobs For Youth has incorporated
TRI and other right-to-know information into its curriculum, showing students training to be
environmental technicians how such data can be used in their professions.
A-5
-------
Louisiana Labor/Neighbor Project
Baton Rouge, LA
Tara Parrish
504-769-7939
TRI and Right-to-Know's Use in Louisiana's River Parrish Corridor
This exhibit demonstrated the use of TRI and the Right-to-Know in south Louisiana's river
parrish corridor. The display included the use of maps, informational booklets, world wide web
information, and a telephone line to Louisiana's governor, Mike Foster.
Groups such as Louisiana Environmental Action Network, St. James Citizens for the
Environment, Concerned Citizens of Iberville Parrish, and Southern University's Professor Joel
Lindsay have used TRI information to illustrate environmental injustices in south Louisiana as
well as to educate people living in these communities about impacts of toxic release in river
communities.
Using materials which have been compiled by these and other local groups, the exhibit showed
how TRI and Right-to-Know have benefitted many communities in south Louisiana. Finally, in
light of the upcoming decision of the Environmental Protection Agency regarding the location of
Shintech, a chemical facility in St. James Parrish, a telephone line was available to place comments
via a toll free comment line.
Maine People's Alliance
Portland, ME
Steven Taylor
207-761-4400
Poisons in Our Neighborhoods: Toxic Pollution in Maine
MassPIRG
Boston, MA
Paul Burns
617-292-4800
How to Use RTK Data Effectively
MassPIRG and our colleagues at NJPIRG and other PIRGs across the country have been leaders
on RTK issues for many years. Using case studies from Massachusetts communities, this exhibit
examined ways in which all TRI data can be used to encourage more reponsible corporate
behaviour and discussed the benefits of chemical use data to communities.
The exhibit included excerpts from numerous reports and fact sheets showing how Right-to-
Know data is being used, including last year's "Generations at Risk: How Environmental Toxins
May Affect Reproductive Health in Massachusetts" co-authored by Greater Boston Physicians for
A-6
-------
Social Responsibility. Within this report and others are many useful illustrations, charts and maps
that demonstrate how to effectively utilize RTK data.
The display also included educational materials for distribution on new areas for expanding the
RTK concept, including MassPIRGs current effort to provide consumers with more information
about the chemicals contained in commonly used products and its campaign to promote less toxic
solutions to pest problems by reducing the use of chemical pesticides and requiring disclosure
about when and where the chemicals are applied.
Mid-South Peace Justice Center
Memphis, TN
Rita Harris
901-452-6997
Shelby County's Dirty Dozen and the Community's Right-to-Know
This exhibit highlighted TRI's use in the community publication, Shelby's Dirty Dozen: Your
Right to Know About Toxic Pollution. Serving as an educational tool, the publication uses TRI to
list the top twelve emitters annually in Shelby County. In addition, it provides information on local
air and water qualily board meetings, industry contact information, local TRI facilities, and local
permit information.
The exhibit featured excerpts from the publication and showed how TRI is used in its
development. In addition, it presented information on local education and pollution efforts using
right-to-know information.
Mothers Organized to Stop Environmental Sins
Winona, TX
Phyllis Glazer
903-877-4801
Environmental Effects - Fruit of the Orchard
This exhibit contained dramatic black and white images of children who may have been exposed
to a variety of chemicals emanating from a commercial hazardous waste injection well facility in
East Texas.
With data on the facility not available through TRI and a lack of effective air monitors, the
surrounding community had little or no information on the chemicals being transported into their
communities and stored on site.
That lack of right-to-know information and the degree to which each child's or adult's affliction
might have been caused by this facility are the impetus for this exhibit and the daily work of
M.O.S.E.S.
A-7
-------
M.O.S.E.S. believes that it is of paramount importance for government, industry, and the public
to be aware of the anecdotal history of communities that have had documented released into the
environment causing, according to the Texas Attorney General's litigation pleadings, "imminent
and substantial endangerment to the public health safety, welfare and the environment."
If you want to learn about the anguish and the hopelessness of people living in communities that
may have been exposed to hazardous chemicals, one must first look into the eyes of the children.
Then, you must ponder the thought that this was your child, and take just a moment of your time
to feel the fear. M.O.S.E.S. believes these children must be seen if there is to be change in our
attitudes and policies affecting this nation's most precious resources, our children. By
M.O.S.E.S.'s exhibit, we were able to bring our village's children to your village. It does take "a
village to raise a child!"
Montana Coalition for Health, Environment and Economic Rights
Missoula, MT
Tony Tweedale
405-542-1709
TRI as a Compliance and P2 Tool - A Case Study
This exhibit documented one group's use of TRI in reducing toxic releases from a local pulp mill.
Beginning with its use in the development of a citizen's suit, the display outlined TRI's use in
identifying hazards and reduction opportunities during the life of the consent decree and as a
source of release information during the permit renewal process. Additionally, TRI's use in public
outreach and education campaigns were also presented.
National Library of Medicine
Bethesda, MD
Lucie Chen
301-496-5684
TRI Files on NIM's TOXNET System
The National Library of Medicine provided online demos of how to search the TRI files on
NLM's TOXNET system, and to provide demos of NLM's World Wide Web, and free
MEDLDSfE search through NLM's Web interfaces: PUBMET and INTERNET Grateful Med.
NLM's TOXNET (Toxicology Data Network) system is a computerized system of files on
toxicology, hazardous chemicals, and biomedical areas. Some of the files on TOXNET are:
HSDB (Hazardous Substance Data Bank), RTEC (Registry of Toxic Effects of Chemical
Substances), CCRJS (Chemical Carcinogenensis Research Information System), IRIS (Integrated
Risk Information System), GENE-TOX, EMIC/DART, and TRIFACTS (Toxic Chemical Release
Inventory Facts).
A-8
-------
Native Ecology Initiative
Brookline Village, MA
Lillian Wilmore
Indigenous Peonies Have a Right-to-Know Too!
Intended to raise consciousness and concerns about the rights of native nations and indigenous
peoples in the US to know more about local chemical exposures and heighten emergency
preparedness, the exhibit focused on native nations' responsibilities under SARA.
New Jersey Public Interest Research Group
Trenton, NJ
Alpa Pandya
609-394-8156
Communities Use of Materials Accounting Data; A Work in Progress
New Jersey Right-to-Know Coalition
Moorestown, NJ
Rick Engler
609-866-0920
Using Hazardous Substance Fact Sheets to Improve TRI and Right-to-Know
Focused on the hazardous substance fact sheets produced in New Jersey, the exhibit used news
clips, photos and articles to show how these sheets have been used to improve the public's right
to know.
Northwest Coalition for Alternatives to Pesticides
Eugene, OR
Holly Knight
541-344-9948
Hidden Toxic "Inerts" in Pesticide Products
The exhibit featured research conducted regarding inert ingredients in pesticide products. More
specifically, it detailed completed studies assessing what is known about the toxicity of inert
ingredients. For instance, many inert ingredients are or have been registered for use as active
ingredients and have been assessed as hazardous under legislation such as SARA Title HI
(including the TRI/section 313 list), or by agencies such as the International Agency for Research
on Cancer.
Most importantly, the exhibit discussed the limited way hi which citizens can exercise their right
to know about inert ingredients to which they have been exposed and examine limitations in such
methods. Currently, FOIA requests, Material Safety Data Sheets, direct requests to
manufacturers, and reverse engineering are the only available avenues because the vast majority of
A-9
-------
inert ingredients are not disclosed on product labels. The exhibit addressed NCAP's efforts to
discover the identities of inert ingredients using these strategies, including the success of FOIA
requests for information on carcinogenic and endocrine-disrupting inert ingredients.
Limitations highlighted through the exhibit included: the high costs associated with reverse
engineering products, missing information for several key ingredients on MSDSs, manufacturers
unwillingness to disclose information, and time delays surrounding FOIA requests.
The current system for regulating inert ingredients often puts profits before the public's right to
know. The exhibit highlighted that the public's right to know must be acknowledged by full
disclosure of all ingredients on pesticide product labels
TRI CD and Magnetic Tape Demonstration
Ohio Environmental Council (OEC)
Columbus, OH
Aimee Cowans
614-487-7506
What You Need to Know!
This exhibit featured the work of four grassroots organizations that have used TRI data to find
out about toxic chemical releases in their communities. Using a display board, the exhibit showed
pictures of local industries and details efforts by local groups to reduce toxic emissions from these
facilities. In addition, the display focused on a book recently published by OEC titled,
Environmental Justice... A Work in Progress and provided guidance on how other groups can
begin using right-to-know information in their own communities.
Oregon State Fire Marshal's Office
Salem, OR
Diane Henry
503-378-3473
Oregon Community Right to Know
A tri-fold display board and handouts were used to show how Oregon is collecting, validating and
disseminating information regarding the Hazardous Substance Information System. Oregon's
main focus is on Environmental Protection Agency Sections 302, 311 and 318.
Scientific and Technical Services
Condominio El Centre I, PR
Sarah Peisch
Community Right-to-Know Education Efforts in Puerto Rico
A-10
-------
SEEK (Sustainable Economic & Environmental Knowledge)
Santa Cruz, CA
Clary-Meuser & Associates
Marie Clary, Klint Meuser, Aran Meuser
408-458-4245
Santa Cruz Toxics Release Inventory - www.mapcruzin.com
The exhibit demonstrated the Santa Cruz Toxics Release Inventory on the WWW
(http://www.mapcruzin.com/scruztri), showcased the tools and resources used to create the
site, discussed current work on the mapping component of the Environmental Defense Fund's
(EOF) WWW Scorecard project, and outlined future plans.
Created last summer, the Santa Cruz Toxics Release Inventory, based on Michael Meuser's
environmental justice research using TRI data, provides the local community with easy access to
the releases and transfers of local Toxics Release Inventory (TRI) reporters, and off-site and
publicly owned treatment works (POTW) facilities. Using RTK NET, the project was
accomplished by linking facilities on maps of our county with various data, tables and documents.
In addition to the current year's releases and transfers, the project includes all releases and
transfers from 1987, the first year of TRI reporting. Such provides a way of comparing facilities,
examining increasing and decreasing release and transfer trends, and searching for potential
"gaps" in the record (facilities that have not reported at all or who did not report for one or more
years). Finally, documents about TRI and our Right-to-Know, written by various activists, GAO,
the Whitehouse, and EPA are also included.
Future plans, outlined through the exhibit, included writing a manual that will teach folks how to
put their own community's TRI and related topics information on the WWW, and becoming GIS
(geographical information system) enabled WWW host for community groups.
State of Minnesota, Department of Public Safety
St Paul, MN
John Chikkala
612-282-6555
Integrating Toxic Release Inventory Data with Other Data
Emergency Response Commission staff have been proposing to include Emission Inventory data
collected from those facilities required to obtain an air permit under the Clean Air Act in the
annual Toxic Release Inventory report.
A-ll
-------
Unison Institute
Washington, DC
Iris Figueroa
202-797-7200
Tracking Toxics in Your Community; Accessing Right-to-Know Data Through RTK NET
This exhibit highlighted RTK NET (Right-to-Know Network: www.rtk.net), an online service
providing direct and free access to 18 environmental databases as well as online conferences and
newsletters. Through the exhibit, individuals were able to browse through available services and
conduct searches of the data. Through RTK NET, communities can monitor a variety of chemical
threats in their communities:
*Superfund Site Clean-up Efforts *Civil Suits Against Non-Compliant Facilities
*Military Base Chemical Release Data ""Health Affects of Exposure to Chemicals
Toxic Chemical Releases * Shipment of Hazardous Waste
*Release of Chemicals in Waterways ""Chemical Spills and Accidents
United States Environmental Protection Agency
Chemical Emergency Preparedness and Prevention Office
Washington, DC
Julie VanderBosch
202-260-7952
U.S. EPA's Chemical Emergency Preparedness and Prevention Office
EPA's activities in building programs to respond to, prepare for, and prevent chemical accidents
comes together in the Chemical Emergency Preparedness and Prevention Office (CEPPO). It is
our continuing mission to prevent and prepare for chemical emergencies and to inform the public
about chemical hazards in their community. Using a variety of both regulatory and voluntary
approaches, CEPPO works with numerous Federal, State, local and tribal governments; industry
groups; environmental groups; labor organizations; and community groups to help them better
understand the risks posed by chemicals in their communities, to effectively manage and reduce
those risks, and to deal with emergencies.
United States Environmental Protection Agency
Office of Information Resources Management
Enterprise Information Management Division
Washington, DC
Patrick Garvey
William Muldrow
202-260-3103
202-260-3628
A-12
-------
Envirofacts Warehouse on the Internet
The exhibit gave a demonstration of the Envirofacts Warehouse Web Site and showed the
functionality and specific query options and results from the Envirofacts Warehouse databases.
The EPA created the Envirofacts Warehouse to provide the public with direct access to the vast
amounts of information and data in its national systems. The Envirofacts Warehouse helps EPA
fulfill its responsibility to make information available to the public as required by the 1996
Superfund Reauthorization Act and other federal legislation. Envirofacts is available from the
internet, allowing the EPA to disseminate information quickly and easily.
Envirofacts Warehouse contains:
*A relational database of the national database on Superfund sites, hazardous
waste handlers, dischargers to water, toxic releases, and air releases,
'"The relational database also contains the facility index system, the Envirofacts
Master Chemical Integrator, locational reference tables, and other spatial data,
'"Demographic Data,
* Awarded grants information is in the relational database.
Applications to query the database and create maps are available from the Envirofacts home page.
United States Environmental Protection Agency
Washington, DC
Lisa Flemming
202-263-1545
TRI Demonstrated on CD-ROM
United States Environmental Protection Agency
Denver, CO
Claudia Mitchell
303-312-6047
TRIs Use in Local Pollution Prevention Efforts
Vermont Public Interest Research Group
Montpelier, VT
Sarah O'Brien
802-223-5221
A-13
-------
Using TRI to Monitor Mercury and Dioxin Releases
This exhibit centered on VPIRGs current toxic campaign focused on mercury and dioxin releases.
Two particular current efforts included in the exhibit focused on paper mill with open sludge pits
in a residential neighborhood, and a fiberglass manufacturer expected to release significant
amounts of styrene and benzene in a rural community. Both campaigns are led by citizen groups.
The better the research information VPIRG can provide them, the more effective these groups can
be in protecting their communities.
WashCOSH
Seattle, WA
Anna Bachman
206-767-7426
Do Employee-Based Source Reduction Strategies Actually Invoive Workers: A Study of
Paint Manufacturers in Washington State
Employee involvement is usually recommended as an important element of pollutin prevention
programs. TRI Form R asks manufacturers to report if they use employee-based strategies as a
source reduction method. But EPA does not define what "employee-based" means. So what does
a positive report of this on a TRI report mean?
This exhibit centered on a WashCOSH study of Washington State paint manufacturers reporting
employee-based source reduction strategies on their TRI form R from 1991-1994. Information on
this form from the employer representative completing the TRI was compared with information
gathered from local union representatives at each facility.
The results of this project showed that workers and their unions were generally not actively
involved in source reduction activities; partly because of a lack of a definition of employee
involvement by the EPA. There are good definitions and models of employee involvement in fields
of labor relations and occupational safety and health. We propose a definition that can help
improve the utility of this TRI data.
Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources
Madison, WI
Jennifer Feyerherm
608-264-6005
Community Voice and the Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources
The Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources has been actively working to involve community
members in its activities at all levels through a process of community assessment, education and
outreach. The Toxics Release Inventory provides a powerful tool for both the WDNR and
community members in this collaboration. Our exhibit will showcase the applications that WDNR
has used to begin the process of including community voices at all levels.
A-14
-------
Identifying Unheard Voices; Environmental Justice in Wisconsin
WDNR has completed an Environmental Justice Project to identify locations of potential
Environmental Justice concerns in Wisconsin and to provide an initial analysis of locations in
Wisconsin that would merit further investigation. An outline of the process that was generated,
the findings and an evaluation of the project was displayed.
Developing New Voices; Rieht-to-Know Curriculus
WDNR has developed an interactive curriculum focused on the Toxics Release Inventory and
other issues surrounding toxic releases. This mini-unit is a "problem-centered,""real world,"
experiential curriculum designed to supplement studies in environmental science and social
studies. Topics that could incorporate this material are: pollution and environmental health issues,
governmental regulation, balancing interests of industry and environmentalism, citizen action, and
ecology. Utilizing the Toxics Release Inventory (TRI) as a focal point, these larger issues can be
addressed and debated with the benefit of having "real world" data obtained from industrial
facilities.
Empowering Voices; Wood County Asthma Study and Partnership Development and the
Rock River Basin Community Based Environmental Protection
WDNR partially funded an asthma study in Wood County, the county with the highest TRI
environmental emissions in the state. Using both TRI data and data from other WDNR programs,
the study illustrated a preliminary correlation between childhood asthma and industrial sulfur
dioxide emissions. The results of the study combined with concerns about environmental health
and community education lead the Wisconsin Rapids Area League of Women Voters to initiate a
Partnership with the WDNR. Maps from the asthma study as well as a description of the
partnership process was displayed.
Earlier this year, WDNR initiated the Rock River 2000 Demonstration Project, a community-
based environmental protection endeavor. The project seeks to increase compliance by bringing
together all the motivational forces that can lead to successful adoption of voluntary compliance
through the use of information, education, community organization, regulatory inspection and
compliance enforcement. A summary of the process was on display.
Wesley House
St Louis, MO
Michael Nelson
Developing an Environmental Justice and Brownfield Resource Center
A-15
-------
West County Toxics Coalition
Richmond, CA
Henry Clark
510-232-3427
Richmond at Risk
West County Toxics Coalition exhibit consisted of articles, news clippings, charts, and tables from
Richmond at Risk Study done by Community for a Better Environment in conjunction with West
County Toxics Coalition using TRI information.
A-16
-------
Exhibitors
l^M|^M
Adeunya
Bachmann
Bansal
Briscoe
BriOto
Brown. II
Brown*
Bruns
Bums
Chen
Chiang
Chriss
Clark
Clary
Cowans
Doerr
Engtor
F lemming
f •
Rgueroa-
Rosario
Ford
GMen
FkM
BaMeml
Anna
Shfera
Unda
Stephen
Lewis
Jennfer
Deborah
Paul
Lude
Audrey
Sharon
Henry
Mary
AJmee
Lisa
Rfcfc
Usa
Jennler
Ms
Joseph
Matt
Og/Coavany
EnvirormMntalJustloe
Technology Center
WASHCOSH
Communities for a
Better EnvtronmeiN
Ohio/Cincinnati
WPOHtftn o rtflMul
rfOJACt
Dont Waste Arizona,
Inc.
LEAN/Southam
University and ASM
Cotege
U.S. Environmental
National Environmental
Law Center
Massachusetts PHG
National Ubrary of
Medicine
Asian Pacific
Southern University and
A&MCceege
West County Toxics
CotaMon
Clary-Meuser
The Ohto Environmental
Cound
Citizens tor a Belter
EiwlfonfMfit
HI Right to Know
CoaJWon
U.S. Environmental
Piutoclion Agency
Wisconsin DNR
Unison
U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency
U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency
AddHaa
27 Queens Way
i102
0770 E Marginal
WaySnBUg.D
eoswotymio
Blvd. Sue* 860
4860Wkmeste
Ave.
6205 South 120)
StlMl
750-Hardhg
Boulevard
Apartment f2M
410MSLSW.
(me 6014)
2420
IA^^»tAM«Aa«^ D|4
nVdefnevse no.
29 Tempto Place
eeOOHockvBe
Phe
1221 Preservation
Park Way. 2nd
Floor
4427 Norwich
Drive
435 Carbon SL
IIBKoshland
Way
l207Grandview
Ave..Su»»201
3265Hennepln
Ave. So. 1160
452 E Third St
401MSL.S.W..
(7407)
P.O. BOX 7921.
101 S. Weber SL
1742 Connecticut
Ave.
401MSL.SW.
(7407)
401 M Street. SW
Cfty
1 1 «im nim..
rtwnpfon
Q^^Maek
cwtmo
Los Angeles
CtncimwU
rn., ,——t,.
rnoBnH
Baton Rouge
Washington
Davis
Boston
Bethesda
Oakland
Baton Rouge
Richmond
Santa Clara
Columbus
Mkmeapols
MoorMtown
W&sNnflton
Madison
Washington
Washington
Washington
State
VA
WA
CA
OH
AZ
LA
DC
CA
MA
MO
CA
LA
CA
CA
OH
MN
NJ
DC
W1
DC
DC
DC
z*
23669
98502
91005
45232
85040
70807
20460
95616
02111
20894
94612
70811
18255
43212
55408
08057
20460
63707-78
20009
20460
20460
Area
767
206
213
513
602
504
916
617
301
510
504
510
408
614
612
609
202
608
202
202
202
PnOfW
728-3836
767-7426
486-5114
641-3081
2684110
774-8423
756-7845
292-4800
496-5684
834-8920
771-3990
232-3427
458-4245
487-7506
824-8637
8664920
260-1545
284-6005
797-7200
2604945
260-1801
Fax .
728-9058
762-6433
486-5139
641-0508
2684915
771-3992
753-1537
2924057
480-3537
834-8926
771-3992
232-4111
^458-4245
487-7510
8244506
235-3889
401-2347
267-5231
2344584
260-4655
260-2219
EmaH
cjc@erols.com
washscosh9lgc.apc.org
cbela@igc.apc.org
dwa2@primenet.com
lewisb@engr.coe.subr.edu
dbruns@mother.com
pbums@igc.apc.org
apen@igc.apc.org
mclary@mapcruzin.com
lheoec@iwaynel.net
cbemn@lgc.org
llemming.lisa@epamail.epa.gov
leyerj@dnr.state.wi.us
lord.joe@epamaiLepa.gov
Exhibit TOe
TRI and RTK Use at an Environmental Justice Technology Center
Do Employee-Based Source Reduction Strategies Actually Involve Workers
Mapping Toxic Hotspots In Southeast Los Angeles
Training Youth on How to Access and Use TRI
Organizing Communities Using EPCRA Information and Citizen Suit
Enforcement
Toxic Effects Of Mercury On Poeoiia reticulata
Chemical Emergency Prepardness and Prevention
Using Right to Know
How to Use RTK Data Effectively
THI Files on NLWs Toxnet System
Environmental Problems: Who Bears the Burden?
Richmond At Risk
Mapping Communities Through Local TRI Data
What you need lo Know!
Pollution Prevention Training lor Industrial Employees
Developing Hazardous Substance Fact Sheets
TRI Demonstrated on CD-ROM
Community Voices and the Wisconsin DNR
Tracking Toxics in the Community: Accessing RTK Data Through RTK NET
B-l
-------
Exhibitors
LaMNao*
Glazer
Gray
tambfin
Harris
tenry
Holmes
Kalstadl
Keys
Knight
.adenson
Lawson
.eiserson
Uptan
Matthews
McDonald
Mental!
Mauser
Woyor
MHchell
Monfort
Phil" '
Nswe lOrgACompany
— - i •*- r- -
i
PhyHs
HHlei
Patrick
Rita
Diane
Sham
Myra
•harictte
Holy
Sranda
Ken
Brian
Debra
Georgia/me
David
CBnt
Scon
Claudia
BartMia
Mothers Organized to
Stop Environmental
Sins (MOSES)
National Environmental
Law Center
Citizens (or a Better
Environment
Mid-South Peace and
Justice Center
State Fire Marshal
Office
Mothers Organized to
Stop Environmental
Sins (MOSES)
U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency
Jesus People Against
PoBubon
Northwest Cocdftion for
Atema*esto
>j.»tT«l jj»i •
'BSuCKHn
National Ubraiy of
il«i(ilnl«i.»
HWUCHie
Dataware Technologies,
he.
Environmental Defense
:und
EBC - Environmental
Background Information
56f*tef
Alton Parks/ Piney
Woods IfnpfovBfnsnl
Corp.
US. Environmental
Protection Apjoncy
Chemical
Manufacturers
AMORJBtlOn
Clary -Meuser and
Associates
Dont Waste Arizona,
Inc.
U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency
AHancetoEnd
Childhood Lead
Poisonta
Addreae
5116FMFW.,
6E
28 Temple Place
407 S Nearborn,
•1775
PO Box 11428
4780 Portland Rd.,
NE
16115 FMRd.. 18
401MSLSW.
(7408)
PO Box 765
PO Box 1393
BSOORockvMe
Pke, Building
38A. Room BIN30
222 Third Street.
Suite 3300
204 Cakter, Suite
305
PO Box 2485
401 M Street. SW
(7407)
1300 Wison Blvd
IIBKoshland
Way
6205 South 12th
Street
999 18th St. Suite
500
227
Massachusetts
Ave.,Su»e200
Cay
Winona
Boston
Chicago
Aotnphfs
Salem
Winona
Washington
Columbia
lUgene
Bethesda
Oakland
State College
Chattanooga
Washington
Arlington
Santa Cruz
Phoenix
Denver
Washington
State
TX
MA
L
TN
OR
TX
DC
MS
OR
MD
VA
CA
PA
TN
DC
VA
CA
AZ
CO
DC
z*>
75792
2111
60605
38111-04
97305-17
75792
20480
39429
97440
20894
18801
37408
20460
22209
95064
85040
80202
20002
Area
903
617
312
901
503
903
202
601
541
301
703
510
814
423
202
703
408
602
303
202
Phone
877-4801
22-0880
939-1530
452-6997
378-3473
877-4801
260-0658
736-0686
344-9948
435-3268
883-8215
658-8080
867-7341
266-2751
260-4182
741-5238
458-4245
268-6110
312-6047
543-1147
:ax
877-2634
939-2536
452-7029
373-1825
877-2634
401-8142
736-7811
344-6923
402-4080
6584630
867-7090
265-3347
401-2347
741-6238
458-4245
268-0915
312-6558
543-4466
Email
-
fcbe@igc.cxg
kaisladt.myra@epamaiLepa.gov
ladensm@gwsmpl.nlm.nih.gov
ebic@envirolink.org
david mentall@mail.cmahq.com
mclary@mapcnJ/in.com
dwaz@primenet.com
Exhibit Till*
Environmental EHects - Fruit of the Orchard
Usfog TRI to Reduce Pollution in Chicago's Communities of Color
Sheby County's Dirty Dozen and the Community's Right-to-Know
Developing Non-313 Information
Environmental Effects - Fruit ol the Orchard
Providing Greater Access to RTK Dala to Environmental.! ustice Groips
Hidden Toxic 'Inerts* in Pesticide Products
TRI Files on NIM's TOXNET System
Sheby County's Dirty Dozen and the Community's Right-to-Know
EOF Chemical Scorecard
The Environmental Background Information
APP - COHP: A Right-to-Know ExhbH
The Safety of Deep Wells
Ma^ng^ommunHies_Through LocaJ TRI Data
Organizing Communities Using EPCRA Information and Citizen Suit
Enforcement
TRI Use in Local Pollution Prevention Efforts
Disclosure of Lead-Based Paint in Housing
B-2
-------
Exhibitors
LertNe-M
MuMrow
[.i— I— — _
Nelson
OBrlan
P«n*»
Partkh
Parrish
Pefech
Pino
Scon
Slekigraber
Swayer
Taylor
Terrell
Terry
Tucker
Tweedale
Vender Boi
Williams
WHmore
Wind J
Aral
MM*
Wlffiam
Michael
Sarah
Alpa
Shri
Tarn
Sarah
John
Jeff
Sandra
Robert
SlBV0
John
Ed
Randy
Anthony
Julie
Gjynn
Lillian
Jay Jacob
Leslie
OgCoMpeny
Eniefprfse Information
Management Division,
US EPA
Wesley House
Association
Vermont PIRQ
NJPIRGCMzen Lobby
U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency
Louisiana
Laoor/Neiohbor Project
Sctentnc md TschniBfli
Service*
Louisiana State
Ur**rs»y. hstiutefor
Environmental Studies
Arizona Department of
Environmental OuaHy
Deep South Center for
Environmental Justice
Maine's People AHance
Concerned Citterns of
America, Inc.
U.S. Environmental
Oregon Students PIRQ
Montana CoaWton tor
Health. Environmental
and Economic Rights
Chemical Emergency
EPA
Jobs for Youth
Native Ecology Initiative
American
Environmental Institute
Chemical
Manufacturers
Association
Addreea
401MSL.SW,
MC-3408
4607 Lee Ave.
Si Main Street
11 NOfln WHOW
st
401 M. Street,
S.W.
Centre (.Office
1404
Room 42,
Atkinson Hall
3033 N. Central
Ave.
50 Wttlnut 96
7326 Palmetto SI,
46B
92 Slate SI.
701 Hilboinl Way
401 M Street SW.
(6104)
1 536 3E 1131
224 E. Pine *2
40IMSL.S.W..
(6014)
125 Tramont SI.
P.O. Box 470829
BUS. Ivy St.
1300 Wilson
Boulevard
Cftr
SI. Louis
Mompetier
Trernon
Washington
HatoRey
Baton Rouge
Phoenix
Somervile
New Orleans
Portland
Brandon
Wsshfnpjton
Portland
Missoula
Washington
Boston
Brookline Villa)
Arlington
Arlington
Stale
DC
MO
VT
NJ
DC
PR
LA
AZ
MA
LA
ME
FL
DC
OR
MT
DC
MA
MA
VA
VA
ap
20460
631 15
05602
08608
20460
918
70803-
5705
85012
02143
70125
04101
33510
20460
97214
59802
20460
02198-
0815
02I47-0(
22204-2<
22209
Aree
202
314
802
609
202
504
787
504
602
617
504
207
813
202
503
406
202
6)7
617
703
703
Phone
260-3103
385-1000
223-5221
394-8155
260-9389
769-7939
759-8787
388-1075
207-4205
666-4725
486-9529
761-4400
685-7917
260-7842
231-4181
542-1709
260-7952
338-0815
232-5742
920-5193
741-6224
Fn
401-8390
383-8886
989-9013
767-1404
388-4286
207-4236
488-3081
661-7567
260-0927
231-4007
7260867
260-1686
338-0242
277-1656
521-6157
7414224
Email
muldrow.bHepani ail.epa.gov
speisch@carbe.net
jpine@unixl.sncc.lsu.edu
rswayert@aol.com
terry.ed@epamaB.epa.gov
mob@darkwing.uoregon.edu
vandersusch.julie@epamaiLepa.gc'
lieml@ix.nelcom.com
naecology@aol.com
jwj@epaibm.ripnc.epa.gov
leslie winik@mail.cmahq.com
Exhibit TRle
Envirofacts Warehouse on the Internet
Using TRI to Monitor Mercury and Dtoxin Releases
Communities' Use of Materials Accounting
TRI and RTKs Use in Louisiana's River Parish Corridor
Community RTK Education Efforts In Puerto Rican Schools
Louisiana Data Integration Project
Are Arizona Facilities Reducing Reported Releases of TRI Chemicals?
Author: "Living Downstream*
TRI as an Environmental Justice Tool
Poisons n Our Neighborhoods: Toxic Rotation In Maine
Battling Phosphate-Industry Related Pollution
A New Local Materials Accounting Law in Eugene, Oregon
TRI as a Compliance and P2 Tool: A Case Study
Wbtking in Partnership to Prevent Chemical Emergencies
Using TRI and Right-tc-Know in Environmental Technology Curriculum
Brownlield Resource Center Promoting Use oi TRI and RTK among Native
Americans
Responsible Care: Pollution Prevention, Environmental Management and
RTK_.
B-3
-------
Speakers
Last Name
An sari
Bird
Bizzozero
Bouwes
Bove
Boyd
Brittle
Bushong
Cohen
Cohen-
Rosenthal
Comai
Conrad
Day
DeWutf
First Name
Mohammad
Richard
Rich
Nicolaas
Frank
Susan
Stephen
Gina
Nevin
Ed
Andy
Jamie
Mark
Cindy
Affiliation
Oshman Group
Bowdoin Street Health
Center
Massachusetts Office of
Technical Assistance
U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency
Agency for Toxics
Substance & Disease
Regulation
CONCERN
Dont Waste Arizona, Inc.
U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency
INFORM, Inc.
Work and Environment
Initiative
UAW Health & Safety
Department
Chemical Manufacturers
Association
U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency
U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency
Address
P.O. Box 1124
Beth Israel Hospital, 22
Elmhurst Rd.
100 Cambridge Street,
Suite 21 09
401 M Street, SW
1600 Clifton Road. MS
E-31
6205 South 12th Street
Permits Improvement
Team - Mail Code
2414, 401 M St., SW
120 Wall Street, 16th
Floor
Center for the
Environment, 105 Rice
Hall
8000 East Jefferson
Ave.
401 M Street. SW
(3407)
City
Chester
Arlington
Boston
Washington
Atlanta
Washington
Phoenix
Washington
New York
Ithaca
Detroit
Washington
Washington
Washington
State
VA
MA
MA
DC
GA
DC
AZ
DC
NY
NY
Ml
DC
DC
DC
Zip
23831
2174
2202
20460
30333
85040
20460
10005
14853
48214
20009
20460
20009
Area
804
617
617
404
602
202
212
607
703
202
614
Phone
748-7004
646-5770
727-3260
639-6203
268-6110
260-3797
361-2400
255-8160
741-5166
260-8672
644-3681
Fax
748-7571
646-5770
639-6219
268-0915
260-4286
361-2412
255-8207
741-6092
260-3923
E-mail
maan3ari@worldneLatt.net
ricKbird@cybercom.net
bouwes.nick@epamail.epa.gov
fjbo@cdc.gov
dwaz@primenet.com
cohen@informinc.org
ec23@comell.edu
acomi@ic.net
james_conrad@mail.cmahq.com
Day.Mark@epamail.epa.gov
B-4
-------
Speakers
Last Name
Diaz
Doa
Doerr
Elder
Fees
Fenerol
Funke
Garvey
Gonzalez
Gregory
Greenberg
Haldeman
Hall
Hanna
Hansen
First Name
Antonio
Maria
Lisa
Montressa
David
Claudia
Odelia
Patrick
Elizabeth
Michael
Stuart
Kristen
Loren
Stephen
Idell
Affiliation
Ecojustice Network,
Institute for Global
Communications
U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency
Citizens for a Better
Environment
Oklahoma Dept. of
Environmental Quality
Delaware DNREC, DepL
of Natural Resources &
Environmental Control
Organization for
Economic Cooperation
and Development
Information Access
Branch, OPPT/EPA
U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency
Pasadena, TX LEPC
Arizona Toxics
Information
Environmental Health
Watch
Investor Responsibility
Research Center
US EPA/ Office of
Pollution Prevention &
Toxics
Department of Toxic
Substances Control
Washington State Dept.
of Ecology
Address
P.O. Box 29904
401 M Street, SW
3255 Hennepin Ave.
So. #150
1000 N.E. 10th Street
156 S. State Street
2 rue Andre-Pascal,
Cedex16
401 M Street, SW
(7407)
401 M Street. SW
(3408)
P.O. Box 672
P.O. Box 1896
41 15 Bridge Ave. #104
1350 Connecticut Ave
NW #700
401 M St., SW, (7408)^
400 P Street, P.O. Box
806
PO Box 45700
City.
San Francisco
Washington
Minneapolis
Oklahoma City
Dover
Paris, France
Washington
Washington
Pasadena
Brisbee
Cleveland
Washington
Washington
Sacramento
Olympia
State
CA
DC
MN
OK
DE
DC
DC
TX
AZ
OH
DC
DC
CA
WA
Zip
94129-
0904
20016
55408
73117-
1212
19901
75775
20460
20460
77501-
0672
85603
44113
20036
20460
95812-
0806
98504
Area
415
202
612
800
302
331
202
713
520
216
202
202
916
360
Phone
561-6100
260-9592
824-8637
869-1400
739-4791
45241763
260-3103
475-5588
432-5374
961-4646
833-0700
260-3931
324-9924
407-6727
Fax
561-6101
401-8142
824-0506
271-1317
739-3106
45241675
401-8390
477-9364
961-7179
833-3555
401-8142
324-1788
407-6715
E-mail
adiaz@igc.org
doa.maria@epamail.epa.gov
cbemn@igc.org
monty.elder@oklaosf.state.ok.us
dlees@dnrec.state.de.us
Claudia.fenerol@oecd.org
funke.odelia@epamail.epa.gov
garvay.pst@epamail .cpa.gov
egonza3841@aol.com
aztoxic@primenet.com
sgreenberg@ehw.org
hall.loren@epamail.epa.gov
shanna@hw1 .cahwnet.gov
ihan461@ecy.wa.gov
B-5
-------
Speakers
Last Name
-larriman
Hart
Hassur
Heanue
Hill, Jr.
Hirtz
Hope
Irwin
Johnson
Kalish
Koines
Kraft
Lassiter
Lavallee
Layne
Leiserson
.
First Name
Elizabeth
Maureen
Steven
Anne
Paul
James
Waiter
Frances
Doug
Bob
Art
Daniel
Donald
Francois
Warren
Ken
Affiliation
MA Toxics Use Reduction
nstitute
U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency
American Library
Association
National Institute for
Chemical Studies
U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency
D.E.P. Massachusetts
World Resources
Institute
Consortium for
Sustainable Agriculture
Research and Education
Dow Chemical Co.
U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency
U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency,
Region II
Environment Canada
U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency
Environmental Defense
Fund
Address
1742 Connecticut
Avenue, NW
P.O. Box 361
401 M Street, SW
J7406)
1301 Pennsylvania
Ave, NW, #403
2300 MacCorkle
Avenue, S.E.
1 Winter Street
1709 New York
Avenue, NW
P.O. Box 150, Bldg.
3502-E
401 M Street, SW
2890 Woodbridge
Avenue
7127 Via Lomas
10th Floor, Place
Vincent Massey, 351
St. Joseph Blvd.
1445 Ross Avenue
City
Washington
^orth Andover
Washington
Washington
Charleston
Washington
Boston
Washington
Plaquemine
Washington
Edison
San Jose
Hull, Quebec,
Canada
Dallas
Oakland
State
DC
MA
DC
DC
WV
DC
MA
DC
LA
DE
NJ
CA
TX
CA
Zip
20009
1845
20460
20004
25304
2108
20006
70765
20460
8837
95139
K1aOH3
75202
Area
508
508
202
304
617
202
504
202
408
819
214
510
Phone
934-3387
975-1988
628-8410
346-6264
292-5982
662-2528
353-1618
260-4030
225-9481
997-8545
665-8013
658-8080
Fax
934-3285
975-2241
628-8419
346-6349
292-5778
628-0878
353-8001
260-0275
226-7822
953-9542
665-6762
658-0630
E-mail
mhart@tiac.net
Hassur.steven@epamail.epa.gov
aah@alawash.org
phillnics@aol.com
walter.hope@state.ma.us
fran@wri.org
rkalish@dow.com
lassiter@ix.netcom.com
layne.warren@epamail.epa.gov
B-6
-------
Speakers
Last Name
Lewis
Lindell
Lockemer
Lopez
Macko
Manthe
McClelland
McGrath
McMurrer
Miller
Molinaro
Morales
Mover
Natan
First Name
Sanford
Michael
Robert
Nora
Carole
Laura
Jamie
Lynne
Daphne
Mamie
Peter
Arturo
Elizabeth
Thomas
Affiliation
The Good Neighbor
Project for Sustainable
Development
Hazard Reduction &
Recovery Center Texas
A&M University
Rhone-Poulenc Ag
Company
U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency,
Region II
U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency
Oneida Environmental
Resources
Libraries for the Future
Hoechst Celanese
Corporation
Texas Natural Resource
Conservation
Commission
U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency
Union Carbide
Corporation
Institute Nacional de
Ecotogia
Texas Instruments
Environmental
Information Center
Address
P.O. Box 79225
Langford Architecture
Building
P.O. Box 2831
2890 Woodbridge
Avenue
PO Box 365
121 West 27th Street,
Suite 11 02
Office of Pollution
Prevention and
Recycling, MC-1 12,
P.O. Box 13087
401 M Street, SW
(2223A)
801 Pennsylvania Ave,
NW, Suite 230
Revolucion 1425 N-9,
Col. San Angel
8330 LBJ Freeway, MS
8363
1200 18th Street, NW,
5th Floor
City
Waverly
College Station
Charleston
Edison
Washington
Oneida
New York
Austin
Washington
Washington
Mexico city,
Mexico
Dallas
Washington
State
MA
TX
WV
NJ
DC
Wl
NY
Ch
TX
DC
DC
TX
DC
Zip
2179
77843^
3137
25330
8837
20037
54155
78711-
3087
20460
20004
1040
75243
20036
Area
617
409
304
202
414
212
512
202
202
525
972
202
Phone
489-3686
845-7813
767-6849
497-5812
352-2330
239-5920
564-7011
393-3211
6243570
997-5380
887-8828
Fax
489-2482
845-5121
768-1340
490-2450
352-2342
239-3165
564-0050
347-1684
6243584
997-2626
887-8880
E-mail
sanlewis@igc.org
mlindell@archone.tamu.edu
macko.carol@epamail.epa.gov
dmcmurre@tnrcc.state.tx.us
Miller.mamie@epamail.epa.gov
molinapa@ucarb.com
almorale@chajul.ine.gob.mx
lizmoyer@ti.com
Tnatan@acpa.com
B-7
-------
Speakers
Last Name
O'Brien
Olmscheid
Opperman
Orr
Panos
Pine
Pelletier
Porras
Ragain
Reilly
Reiss
Saperstein
Saukaitis
Schubert
Senthil
Rrat Name
Mary
David
«
Andrew
Kimberlie
William
John
Kenneth
Carlos
Lisa
William
Joan
Mark
Ingrid
Sandy
Velu
Affiliation
Citizens for Public
Accountability
Citizens for a Better
Environment (CBE)
**JJ Department of
Environmental Protection
U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency
Massachusetts
Department of the
Environmental Protection
LSU - Institute for
Environmental Studies
Waste Programs Planner
CBE/LACaus
U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency,
Region III
Bay Area Breast Cancer
Study, The Breast
Cancer Fund
ARCO
Neuberger & Berman
Children's Health
Environmental Coalition
U.S. EPA
Address
P.O. Box 12056
3255 Hennepin Avenue
South, Ste. 150
P.O. Box 405, 120 S.
Stockton SI
401 M Street, SW
(7407)
1 Winter Street
Room 42, Atkinson Hall
One Winter Street, 9th
Floor
605 W Olympic
Boulevard, #850
213 Edgewater Street
841 Chestnut Building
773 Duncan Street
444 S Flower St
605 Third Ave. 39th Fl.
P.O. Box 846
401 M. Street, SW,
Mail Code 7408
City
Engene
Minneapolis
Trenton
Washington
Boston
Baton Rouge
Boston
Los Angeles
Arlington
Philadelphia
San Francisco
Los Angeles
New York
Malibu
Washington
State
OR
MN
NJ
DC
MA
LA
MA
CA
VA
PA
CA
CA
NY
CA
DC
Zip
97440
55408
08625-
0405
20460
2108
70803-
5705
2108
90015
22204
19107-
4431
94131
90071
10158
90265
20002
Area
541
612
609
202
617
504
617
703
215
415
213
310
Phone
485-6886
824-8637
633-1154
260-6238
574-6820
388-1075
292-5552
486-0009
566-2072
647-2687
486-8079
573-9608
Fax
485-7429
824-0506
633-7031
260-1657
292-5770
388-4286
292-5778
486-0559
566-2101
647-6129
486-6402
573-9688
E-mail
mob@darkwing.uoregon.edu
cbedjo@igc.apc.org
aopperman@dep.state.nj. us
william.panos@state.ma.us
jpine@unix1 .sncc.lsu.edu
Kennetn.pelletier@state.ma.us
cbela@lgc.org
Ragain@aol.com
reilly.wlliarn@epamail.epa.gov
reissjm@aol.com
sri@nb.com
sandy@chocnet.org
senthil.velu@epamail.epa.gov
B-8
-------
Speakers
Last Name
Seymore
Shanahan
Shank
Shaw
Smith
Steingraber
Subra
Swartz
Taylor
Tebbutt
Templet
Tingle
Tomlyanovich
Townsend
Tran
Van Horn
First Name
Harriet
Karen
Michael
Denice
Paula
Sandra
Wilma
Daniel
Mary
Charlie
Paul
Rex
Steven
Bilinda
LJem
Tamera
Affiliation
Amoco Corporation
U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency
WV Environmental
Protection
U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency
Indiana Department of
Environmental
Management
Subra, Inc.
National Religious
Partnership for the
Environment
Friends of the Earth. UK
Western Environmental
Law Center
LSU Institute for
Environmental Studies
AFL-CIO
Minnesota Emergency
Response Commission
Boeing Company
Jobs for Youth
Colorado Department of
Public Health &
Environment
Address
130 East Randolph
Drive, Mail Code
P0618J3
401 M Street.SW
#10 McJunkin Rd
401 M Street
100 North Senate
Avenue, P.O. Box 6015
56 Walnut #6
P.O. Box 9813, 3008
South West Dr.
903 Davis Ave.
26-28 Underwood
Street
121 6 Lincoln St.
42 Atkinson Hall
81 51 6th St, NW
B5 State Capitol, 75
Constitution Avenue
1700 N.Moore Street
125 Tremont St., 2nd
Floor
4300 Cherry Creek
Drive South, OE-B2-
PPU
City
Chicago
Washington
Nitro
Washington
Indianapolis
Somerville
New Iberia
Takoma Park
London, UK
Eugene
Baton Rouge
Washington
St. Paul
Arlington
Boston
Denver
State
IL
DC
WV
DC
IN
MA
LA
MD
OR
LA
DC
MN
VA
MA
CO
Zip
60601
20460
25143
20460
46206
2143
70562-
9813
20912-
6438
N1 7JQ
97401
70803
20006
55155
22209
2108
80222
Area
312
202
317
617
318
301
171
541
2U2
612
703
617
303
Phone
8564546
260-2711
^3-6663
666-4725
367-2216
891-3250
566 1687
485-2471
637-5003
282-5396
558-9662
338-0815
6923017
Fax
6160529
260-7906
233-5627
367-2217
588-9368
566 1689
485-2457
508-6978
296-0459
558-9690
338-0242
7824969
E-mail
hlseymore@amoco.com
psmit@opn.dem.state.in.us
subracom@aol.com
nrpel@aol.com
maryt@foe.co.uk
westemlaw@igc.org
ptemp)et@univ1 .smcc.lsu.edu
71363.2651@cornpuserve.com
steve.tomlyariovich@state.rnn.us
bilindak.townsend@boeing.com
liemt@ix.netcom.com
tamera.van@state.co.us
B-9
-------
Speakers
Last Name
Weltman
WhHworth
Winik
Wormell
Wright
Youna
First Name
Eric
Molly
Leslie
Dick
Beverly
Peter
Affiliation
Toxics Action Center
Chemical Manufacturers
Association
U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency
DSCEJ, Xavier University
Rural Coalition
Address
29 Temple Place
1300 Wilson Boulevard
7325 Palmetto Dr.,
P.O. Box 458
11 0 Maryland Ave, NE
City
Boston
Washington
Arlington
New Orleans
Washington
State
MA
DC
VA
LA
DC
Zip
2111
22209
70125
20002
Area
617
703
504
202
Phone
292-4821
741-5224
483-7340
544-9611
Fax
292-8097
741-6224
488-3081
544-9613
E-mail
toxisaction@igc.apc.org
lesliejwnik@rnail.crnahq.corn
peteryrc@aol.com
B-10
-------
General Participants
Sector: Academte
Last Name
Ampezzan
Barechdorf
Barud
Brown, IN
Brumfield
Cartwright
Chriss
CichocW
Cohen
Cohen-
Rosenthal
Dauksha
Ford
Franck
Griffin
Hankins
Healy
Hoaner
Fim Nairn
Robert
Jason
Veronica
Lewis
MoUe •
Martina
Sharon
Laura
Jonathan
Ed
Jennifer
Robert
Kevin
Jennifer
Grover
Mike
Laura
Bob
Org/Company
Dickinson College
Dickinson College
University of Texas at El Paso
LEAN/Soutnem University and A&M
College
Dickinson College
Thurgood Marshall School of Law
Southern University and A&M College
Dickinson College
Dickinson College
Work and Environment Initiative
Dickinson College Student
Southern University and A&M College
Dickinson CollegeDlckinson
George Washington University
Thuroood Marshall School of Law
The Alliance For Aquatic Resource
Monitoring
Dickinson College
Florida International University
Address
P.O. Box 4888
500 W. University
750- Harding
Boulevard Apartment
*211
Dickinson College
HUB 146
Texas Southern
University. 31 00
Clebume Ave.
4427 Norwich Drive
Dickinson College/
HUB 225, P.O. Box
4888
Dickinson
College/HUB 355
Center for the
Environment, 105
Rice Hall
Dickinson
College/HUB 312 PO
Box 4888, 432 Arch
St.
Post Office Box 9272,
Rm. 11 5 Harris Hall
70 S. West Street
Apt.7
203 Monroe Hall
Texas Southern
University, 31 00
Clebume Ave.
Dickinson
College/HUB 857,
P.O.Box 4888
Dickinson
College/HUB 713,
P.O. Box 4888
BA307
CHy
Carlisle
Carlisle
El Paso
Baton Rouge
Carlisle
Houston
Baton Rouge
Carlisle
Carlisle
Ithaca
Carlisle
Baton Rouge
Carlisle
Washington
Houston
Carlisle
Carlisle
Miami
Slate
PA
PA
TX
LA
PA
TX
LA
PA
PA
NY
PA
LA
PA
DC
TX
PA
PA
FT I
ap
17013
17013
79968
70807
17013
77004
70811
17013-
0928
17013
14853
17013
70813
17013
20052
77004
17013
17013
33199
Country
Area
717
717
915
504
713
504
717
717
607
717
504
202
713
717
305
Phone
240-3410
243-2808
747-5893
774-8423
313-7372
771-3990
245-0201
240-3770
255-8160
2585632
771-3890
994-2536
313-7372
240-3887
595-6988
Fax
747-5145
771-3992
313-1087
771-3992
255-8207
771-3361
313-1087
595-4507
Email
ampezzan@dickinson.edu
Barschdo@dickinson.edu
Vcorella@utep.edu
lewisb@engr.coe.subr.edu
cichocki@dickinson.edu
cohenj@dickinson.edu
ec23@comell.edu
dauksha@dickinson.edu
robert . ford@em .doe .g ov
jgriffin@gwis2.circ.gwu.edu
healy@dickinson.edu
hersher@dickmson .edu
rhogner@fiu.edu
B-ll
-------
General Participants
Sector: Academla
.a*t Name
Johnson
Johnson
Jones
Kostyo
Leyh
Jndsey
Long
Lord
Lynn
Mactoy
Maiwah
McCaMB
Olivier
Piantedosi
Pino
Pragoff
Prev
Iret Name
(enya
Chad
Shamira •
Kenneth
Morgan
Joel
Nicole
Carissa
Frances
Christine
Sanjay
Martee
Julie
Lisa
William
David
Peter
Org/Company
Southern University at New Orleans
Environmental Justice Resource Center @
CAU
LEAN/Southem University and A&M
College, Dept. of Chemistry
Carnegie Mellon University
Dickinson College
CEES/Southem University
Dickinson College
Dickinson College
UNC-CH Environmental Resource Program
Dickinson College
George Mason University
Dickinson College
Dickinson College
Dickinson College
Dickinson College
Dickinson College
Address
2714-NorthTontl
Street
Clark Atlanta
Jniversity, 223 James
>. Brawley Dr.
7217 North Hampton
Drive
245 Melwood Avenue,
Apt. 702
Dickinson
Coflege/HUB 1039
P.O. Box 4888
CEES/Southem
University, P.O. Box
,9764
College and Louther
Streets
fO Box 4888
Rosenan Hall CB
7400, University of
North Carolina
Dickinson College PO
Box 4888, HUB 2234
MS 3C6, The Institute
of Public Policy
Dickinson College
HUB 1159
Dickinson
College/HUB 1412,
PO Box 4888
255 South West St.
Dickinson
College/HUB#
1492;P.O. Box 4888
Dickinson College/
HUB 1600
Dickinson College
Jlty
New Orleans
Atlanta
Baton Rouge
Pittsburgh
Carlisle
Baton Rouge
Carlisle
Carlisle
Chapel Hill
Carlisle
Fairfax
Carlisle
Carlisle
Carlisle
Carlisle
Carlisle
Carlisle
State
LA
GA
LA
PA
PA
LA
PA
PA
NC
PA
VA
PA
PA
PA
PA
PA
PA
Zip
70117
30314
70811
15213
17552
70813
17013
17013
27599-
7400
17013
22030
17013
17013-
0928
170U
17013
17013
17013
Country
\rea
504
404
504
412
717
504
919
717
717
717
717
717
'hone
948-6749
880-8363
774-8423
683-3568
240-3371
771-4724
966-3335
240-3018
243-6970
2451853
240-3825
243-7153
:ax
880-6909
771-3992
268-5161
771-4722
966-0981
Email
ejrc@cau.edu
Drickhound@hotmail.com
_eyh@d ickinson.edu
Iindsey1@compuserve.com
ongn@dickinson.edu
(ran lynn@unc.edu
Mackey@dickinson.edu
Smarwah@osf1 .gmu.edu
mccahill@dickinson.edu
olivier@dickinson.edu
piarrtedo@dickinson .edu
pino@alpha.dickinson.edu
pragoff@dicki nson .edu
Prey@dickinson.edu
B-12
-------
General Participants
Sector: Academta
Last Nam*
Reiner
Serrano
Smith
Templet
Torres
VUello
Wahl
Whftehead
Williams
Yoachlm
Zvara
First Name
Martha
Fernando
S. Demison
Paul •
Angel
Vanessa
Zachary
Caroline
LaMoyne
Ann
Terra
On/Company
nonaa mtemauonai university
Saint LouJs University
Attorney
LSU hsttute tor Environmental Studies
Environmental Justice Resource Center @
CAU
Dickinson College
Xevier University of Louisiana
Environmental Programs
Dickinson College
Dickinson College
Address
Marketing and
Business
Environment
Department
3663 Undell Blvd.
1650 Sleepy Hollow
Rd.
42 Atkinson Hall
Clark Atlanta
University. 223 James
P. BrawteyDr.
6 Hartford Avenue
HUB 1955
Dickinson College
HUB 1982
7325 Palmetto St..
Box 45-B
Dickinson
Coflege/HUB Box
2103, PO Box 4888
Dickinson
CoHege/HUB2017
CKy
Miami
a Louis
Christiansbur
Baton Rouge
Atlanta
Greenwich
Carlisle
Carlisle
New Orleans
Carlisle
Carlisle
State
FL
MO
DC
LA
GA
CT
PA
PA
LA
PA
PA
Zip
33199
63108
24073
70803
30314
06830
17013
17013
70125
17013
17013
Country
Area
305
404
203
717
717
504
717
Phono
/
348-3898
880-8363
531-1307
2431781
240-3230
483-7506
240-3890
Fax
880-6909
488-7977
Email
reinerm@fiu.edu .aervax
ptemptet@unrv1 .smcc.lsu.edu
esrc@cau.edu
vitieno@dickinson.edu
wahl@dickin8on.edu
whltehec@dicklnson.edu
lwilllam@xavlerjaila.edu
yoachim@olckinson.edu
Zvara@dickinson.edu.
B-13
-------
General Participants
Sector: Advocate
>Mt NMM
Amowitt
Barber
BeH
Benitez
Brisooe
Bruns
CatKn
Coble
Daniels
Edwards
Epstein
Florin!
Gilbert
Gllmore
Green
Kharod
LaPlante
Irstftame
flyron
Jeffrey
Nina
Luis •
Linda
Deborah
Mark
Kim
Gtynts
Cteon
Lois
Karen
Reo
J.
Gregory
Sanjay
Alison
>rg/Company
Clean Water Action
Integratlve Strategies Forum
Northwest Environmental Advocates
West Harlem Environmental ACTion(WE
ACT)
Ohio/Cincinnati Women's Health Project
National Environmental Law Center
WashCOSH
Chesapeake Bay Foundation
EBC
West Harlem Environmental ACTIon(WE
ACT)
Environmental Defense Fund
Environmental Defense Fund
Great Lakes United
Quantum Environmental Analysis
New Mexico Conservation Voters Alliance
Community/University Consortium for
Regional Environmental Justice
USPIRG
Address
>07 Pennsylvania
Avenue. Suite 21 2
161 2 K Street NW
Suite 600
1 33 S.W. Second
Ave.. #302
271 West 125th
Street
4860 Winneste Ave.
2420Westemesse
Rd.
6770 E.Marginal Way,
South
111 Annapolis Street
204 E. Calder Way,
Suite 305
271 West 125th
Street
1875 Connecticut
Ave.. NW. Suite 1016
1875 Connecticut
Ave. NW. Suite 1016
BSC. Cassety Hall,
1300 Elmwood Ave.
P.O. Box 2000
619GalisteoSt.
360 Martin Luther
King Blvd. Hill Hall 7th
ROOT
218DSI..NW
CHy
'ittsburgh
Washington
Portland
New York
Cincinnati
Davis
Seattle
Annapolis
State College
New York
Washington
Washington
Buffalo
Witeonville
Santa Fe
Newark
Washington
State
PA
DC
OR
NY
OH
CA
WA
MD
PA
NY
DC
DC
NY
OR
NM
NJ
DC
Zip
15224
20006
97204-
3526
10027
45232
95616
98108
21401
16801
10027
20009
20009
14222
97070
87501
07102
200K
Country
\ree
412
503
212
513
916
206
410
814
212
202
202
716
503
505
973
202
9hone
765-3053
295-0490
961-1136
641-3081
756-7845
767-7426
268-8833
867-7341
961-9715
387-3500
387-3500
886-0142
682-7080
984-8443
353-5093
546-9707
-ax
765-1737
295-6634
961-1015
641-0508
753-1537
762-6433
280-3513
961-1015
234-6049
234-6049
886-0303
984-5020
353-5907
546-2461
Email
jbarber@igc.apc.org
nbelll@advocates-nwea.org
WHEACT@IGC.APC.ORG
dbruns@mother.com
washcost@igc.apc.org
daniets@pop.psu.edu
WHEACT@IGC.APC.ORG
lne@edf.org
karen florini@edf.org
mgilmore@emc2.org
ggreen842 1 @Aol .com
kharod@rd.rutgers.edu
B-14
-------
General Participants
Sector: Advocate
Last Nam*
Latowsky
Lennett
Matthews
McGowan
Millar
Natan
OfmacheM
Petech
Raoaln
Rdd
Roman
Shavetoon
Sherman
Thomas
Vatentl
Walker
Wettman
FhatName
Gretchen
David
La'Del
Oelrdre
«
Fred
Thomas
DavW
Sarah
Lisa
Peter
AHda
Robert
Leslie
Jeff
Maria
Bruce
Eric
Org/Company
JSI Center for Environmental Health
Studies
Piney Woods Improvement Corporation
Environmental Justice Project /Mississippi
Nuclear Waste Citizens Coalition
Environmental Information Center
Citizens for a Better Environment (CBE)
Scientific and Technical Services
Clean Water Actton
Concerned CMzens of Sunland Park
Cook InM Keeper
Unison Institute
OMB Watch
STOP
Toxics Action Center
Address
44 Famsworth St.
P.O. Box 71
P.O. Box 2485
921 North Congress
St.. 1033Greymont
Ave.
110 Maryland Avenue.
NE,Ste.307
1200 18th Street, NW,
5th ROOT
32S5Hennepin
Avenue South, Suite
150
Condomino El Centra
1, Office 1404
213EdgewaterStreet
4455 Conetteut
Avenue. Suite A300,
NW
P.O. Box 1123, 119
Raima St.
P.O. Box 3269
1742 Connecticut
Ave.. NW
1742 Connecticut
Ave., NW
103 East Main St.
651 Notre Dame St.
West. Ste. 130
29 Temple Place
£Sy
Boston
Utchfleld
Chattanooga
Jackson
Washington
Washington
Minneapolis
Halo Rey
Arlington
Washington
Sunland Park
Homer
Washington
Washington
Gloucester
Montreal, Out
Boston
Staje
MA
ME
TN
MS
DC
DC
MN
PR
VA
DC
MM
AK
DC
DC
MA
NA
MA
Zip
02210-
1211
4350
37409
39202
20002
20036
55408
918
22204
20009
88063
99603
20009
20009
01930
H3C1H9
02111
Country
Canada
Area
617
207
423
601
202
202
612
787
703
202
505
202
202
508
514
617
Phone
482-9485
582-3826
266-2751
352-7894
547-5796
887-8828
824-8637
759-8787
486-0009
895-0420
874-3985
797-7200
234-8494
281-8168
393-9559
292-4821
Fax
482-0617
582-1231
265-3347
355-1506
887-8880
824-0506
767-1404
486-0559
895-0438
234-8584
281-8168
393-9588
292-8097
Email
glatowsky@jsi.com
dlennett@mint.net
fmillar@loc.org
Tnatan@acpa.com
cbedjo@igc.apc.org
speisch@caribe.net
Ragain@aol.com
keeper@xyz.net
shermanl@rtk.net
thomasje@rtk.net
mvalentl@igc.org
toxisaction@igc.apc.org
B-15
-------
General Participants
Sector: Government
ItttName
Anderson
Angle
Babatunde
Bethel!
iizzozero
Blake-
Col eman
Bouwes
Bromberg
frown
Burdin
Bushong
Butler
Cupp
Carr
Cheatham
Chikkala
Codlna
IratNwm
Beth
Kelly
Ade
Cynthia
•
Rich
Wendy
Nicolaas
Kevin
Unda
Tare
Gina
Beverly
Patricia
Marvin
Anthony
John
Theima
Org/Company
U.S. EPA
Enterprise Rancheria
Minnesota Office of Environmental
Assistance
US EPA/OPPE
Massachusetts Office of Technical
Assistance
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
U.S. Small Business Administration
LA Dept. of Environmental Quality
Waste Management Federal Services of
Hanford. Inc.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
U.S. Department of Housing and Urban
Development
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Nevada State Emergency Response
Commission
EPA-OPPTSOPPT-IMD
Minnesota Emergency Response
Commission
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Address
401 M Street. SW
2950 Feather River
Blvd.
520 Lafayette Road
North (2nd Floor)
401 M St. SW. *2126
100 Cambridge
Street. Suite 2109
401 M Street. SW.
(4102)
401 M Street, SW
4093rdSt.SW,Ste.
7800
Office of the
Secretary. P.O. Box
82263
P.O.BoxTOO.MSIN
H6-20
Permits Improvement
Team -Mall Code
OPIT2414.401M
Street. SW
451 7th Street. S.W..
1445 ROSS AVENUE
SUITE 1200
555 Wright Way
401 M St.. SW (7407)
B-5 State Capital
Building
77 West Jackson
Blvd, D-8J
Jity
Washington
Oroville
St. Paul
Washington
Boston
Washington
Washington
Washington
3aton Rouge
Rlchland
Washington
Washington,
DALLAS
Carson City
Washington
St. Paul
Chicago
State
3C
CA
MN
DC
MA
DC
DC
DC
LA
WA
DC
DC
TX
NV
DC
MN
L
Zip
20460
95965
55155
20460
02202
20460
2046C
20416
70884-
2263
99352
20460
20410
75202
89711
0925
20460
55155
60604
Country
Area
916
612
202
617
202
202
504
202
202
702
202
612
312
"hone
532-9214
215-0222
260-2580
727-3260
260-5680
205-6964
765-0720
260-3797
708-2740
687-6973
260-1553
296-0468
353-4783
:ax
260-0178
532-1768
215-0246
401-6637
260-7923
205
765-0742
260-4286
708-4445
687-8798
260-9555
296-0459
353-4788
Email
ade.bebatunde9moea.state.mn.us
betheH.dndy@epamall.epa.gov
blake-ooleman.wendy.epamail.epa.gov
bouwes.nick@epamail.epa.gov
kbromb6@aol .com
Undab@deq.state.la.us
Beverly J. Butter@HUD.Gov
serciufo@govmail .state. nv.us
tony.cheatham@epamail.epa.gov
john.chikkala@state.mn.us
codina.The!ma@epamaH
B-16
-------
General Participants
Sector: Government
LtttName
Colt
Cook
Cooper
Dalmkla-Smlth
Davis
Doa
Donaghue
Doultsinos
Eck
Bder
cIRs
Flelssner
Flamming
Funke
First Msnw
Christina
Bradey
«
Bruce
Beulah
Harry
Maria
Bob
Maria
Michael
Montressa
Leonid
David
MarvLou
Usa
Odella
Org/Company
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
OK Dept. of Environmental Quality
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
DPNR
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Pollution Prevention Assistance Division
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
U.S. Army Environmental Center
Oklahoma Dept. of Environmental Quality
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Delaware DNREC
Dept. of Public Health (State of Conn.)
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Information Access Branch. OPPT/EPA
Address
Office of Waste and
Chemicals
Management, 1200
Sixth Ave. (WCM-128)
1 000 NE 10th Street
999 18th St.. Suite
500
Foster Plaza »396-1
Anna Retreat,
Department of
Planning and Natural
Resources
1 00 N Senate Avenue.
P.O. Box 601 5
401 M Street. SW
7 Martin Luther King
Jr. Drive. Suite 450
501 M Street. S.W.,
Mail Code 7408
ATTN: SFIM-AEC-
EQP
1000 N.E. 10th Street
401 M St. SW, #2164.
Room 3201 B
Department of Natural
Resources &
Environmental
Control. 156 S. State
Street
410 Capital Avenue.
P.O. Box 340308.
MS*11EOH,1
OPPT/IMD/1AB (MC:
7407). 401 M St.,
S.W.
401 M Street. SW,
Mail Code 7407
CHy
Seattle
Oklahoma Cil
Denver
St. Thomas
Indianapolis
Washington
Atlanta
Washington,
APG
Oklahoma Cit
Washington
Dover
Hartford
Washington
Washington
State
WA
OK
CO
VI
IN
DC
GA
DC
MO
OK
DC
DE
CT
DC
DC
Zip
98010
73117-
1212
80202-
2466
802
46206-
6015
20016
30334
20460
21010-
5401
73117-
1212
20460
19901
06134
20460
20460
Country
Area
206
405
303
340
317
202
404
410
800
202
302
860
202
Phone
553-4016
271-4983
312-6028
774-3320
232-8172
260-9592
651-5120
671-1227
869-1400
260-6123
739-4791
509-7739
260-1545
Fax
553-8509
271-1317
312-6044
775-5706
233-5627
401-8142
651-5130
-1675
271-1317
260-4968
739-3106
509-7785
401-2347
Email
colt.christina@epamall.epa.gov
3rad.cook@okhosl.state.ok. us
doa.maria@epamail.epa.gov
mkeck@aec.apgea.army.mil
monty.ekter@oklaosf.state.ok.us
ellis.lee@epamail.epa.gov
dlees@dnrec.state.de. us
mlf4@cdc.gov
flemming.lisa@epamail.epa.gov
funke.odelia@epamail.epa.gov
B-17
-------
General Participants
Sector: Government
iMt rwIM
Garvay
Ghosh
Goidel
Gonzalez
•lanna
Harris
Harris
Hassur
Hayes
Hicks-Tlberia
Hill
-lolman
Hope
Hoyt
Hutcherson
James
Katstadt
Keams
First Nam*
Patrick
Sitansu
Eun-Sook
Elizabeth
t
Stephen
Steve
Cathy
Steven
Tony
Jennifer
Robert
Andrea
Walter
Santa
Susan
Deanna
Myre
Denise
Drg/Com parry
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
New York Department of Environmental
Conservation
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Pasadena. TX LEPC
Jepartment of Toxic Substances Control
Lawrence Uvermore National Laboratory
SARA Title Ill/Dept. of Environmental
Quality
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Pollution Prevention National Association of
Counties
Environmental Protection Division/State of
Georgia
Southern University
CMRM/EIMD.USEPA
D.E.P. Massachusetts
U.S. EPA /Office of International Activities
EPA-Region 10
Dept. of Planning and Natural Resources
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Press Office. U.S. EPA
Address
401 M Street, SW,
Mail Code 3408
50 Wolf Rd., Rm 298
401 M Street, SW
P.O. Box 672
400 P Street, P.O.
Box 806
7000 East Avenue
629 E. Main St.
401 M Street. SW,
7406. Rm E-349A
440 First St.. NW
7 Martin Luther King
Jr. Dr., Suite 139
263 Third Street
401 M St.. SW (3408)
1 Winter Street
401 M Street, SW,
2670R
1200 Sixth Ave.
Department of
Planning and Natural
Resources, 6003
Anna's Hope
THIB/GAO/OPPT/GP
A, Mail Stop 7408.
401 M St. SW
401MSt.,SW
City
Washington
Albany
Washington
Pasadena
Sacramento
jvermore
Richmond
Washington
Washington
Atlanta
Jaton Rouge
Washington
Joston
Washington
Seattle
Christian sted
Washington
Washington
Sta^e
DC
NY
5C
TX
CA
CA
VA
DC
DC
GA
JV
DC
VIA
DC
WA
VI
DC
DC
Zip
20460
12233-
8010
20460
77501-
0672
95812-
0806
94550
23219
20460
20001
30334
70802
20460
2108
20460
98101
00820-
4433
20460
20461
Country
Area
202
518
713
916
510
804
202
404
202
617
202
206
340
202
202
Phone
260-3103
457-2553
475-5588
324-9924
422-2256
698-4489
942-4247
656-6905
260-3104
292-5982
564-6448
553-2852
773-1082
260-0658
260-4376
rax
401-8390
457-2570
260-0178
477-9364
324-1788
424-2119
698-4346
737-0480
657-7893
404-8390
292-5778
565-2409
553-8509
773-1716
401-8142
401-8668
Email
garvey.pst@epamail.cpa.gov
sghosh@gw.dec.state.ny.us
egonza3841 @aol.com
shanna@hw1 .cahwnet.gov
fiarris12@llnl.gov
clharris@deq.state.va.us
Hassur.steven@epamail.epa.gov
thayes@naco.org
holman.andrea@epamail.epa.gov
walter.hope@state.ma.us
hoyt.sarita@epamail.epa.gov
riutcherson.susan@epamail.epa.gov
karstadt.myra@epamaH.epa.gov
keams.denise@epamail.epa.gov
B-18
-------
General Participants
Soetor: Govofnmsntl
LMt Nairn
Kent
Ktevs
Kraft
Kratzer
Kruazynski
Kurka
Ladenson
Langtey
Lanzetta
Larson
Little
Lopez
Lynch
Martinez
Mason
MoCautey
McDonald
First Name
Christopher
Mardl
Daniel
Edward
(Man •
Becky
Melissa
Bert
Frank
Gerville
Louise
Nora
Julie
Angel
Keith
Steven
Georgian ne
Dra/Gompanv
U.S. Environmental Protection Auencv
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
USEPA Region II
U.S. General Accounting Office
Hammon Department of Environmenlal
1NRCC
National Library of Medldne
Environmental Protection Division/State of
Georgia
FAA
Department of Planning and Natural
Resources
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
US EPA Region II
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Environmental Health Department^ Air
Quality Services
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Pollution Data Branch Environment Canada
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Address
401 M Street, SW
77 West Jackson
2890 Woodbridge
Avenue
441 G Street. NW,
Room2W06
5925 Calumet Ave.
Pollution Prevention
MC112,POBox
13087
Building 38A, Room
BIN30. 8600 Rockville
Pike
7 Martin Luther King
Dr., Suite 139
BOO Independence
Avenue, SW
Div. of Environmental
Protection, Water Cut
Homes- 1118
401 M Street. SW
2890 Woodbridge
Avenue
401 M Street, SW
11850 Sunset
Gordon's SW
401 "M- Street. S.W.
351 St. Joseph Blvd.,
Room 1029
401 M Street, SW,
ooppt-imd (7407]
City
Washington
Chicago
Edison
Washington
Hammond
Austin
Bethesda
Atlanta
Washington
Christlansted,
Washington
Edison
Washington
Albuquerque
Washington
Hull. Quebec
Washington
State
DC
L
NJ
DC
IN
TX
MD
GA
DC
VI
DC
NJ
DC
NM
DC
NA
DC
Zip
20460
60604
8837
20548
46320
78617
20894
30334
20591
00820-
5065
20460
08837
20460
87121
20460
K1AOH3
20460
Country
Canada
Area
312
202
219
301
404
340
505
819
202
'hone
353-5490
512-6553
863-6306
435-3268
656-6905
773-0565
865-1961
994-3127
260-4182
Fax
260-0178
886-2737
512-9925
853-6343
402-4080
657-7893
692-9794
260-0178
260-0178
865-1977
953-9542
401-2347
Email
-------
General Participants
Sector: Government
Last Nam*
Merenda
Miller
Mitchell
Nickel
Nwaji
Oustey
Powers
Panos
PeBetier
Pereira
Phillips
Phillips
Powers
PulasM
REID
Ralney
First Name
:rances
Vicki
Claudia
Gene
•
Dixon
Jennifer
Jane
William
Kenneth
Jerry
Virginia
Jim
Joseph
Jo88pn
FRED
Eve
Org/Company
Massachusetts Office of Technical
Assistance
iureau of Hazardous Materials
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Missouri Dept. of Natural Resources
Illinois EPA
Ilinois State Geological Survey
U.S. Department of Energy
Massachusetts Department of the
Environmental Protection Agency
Waste Programs Planner
ATSDR (Agency for Toxic Substances and
Disease Registry
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Environmental Protection Agency-Boston
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Connecticut State
US EPA. REGION 8
Florida Division of Emergency Management
Address
100 Cambridge
Street, Suite 21 09
P.O. Box 83720
999 18th St.. Suite
500
3. 0. Box 176
Division of Air
Pollution Control. P.O.
Box 19506
JISEPeabodyDrive
Office of Environment,
Safety and Health.
1000 Independence
Ave.SW
1 Winter Street
One Winter Street,
9th ROOT
1600 Clifton Road (E-
56)
401 M St. SW, MC
5303W
JFK Federal Building
401 M Street, SW
State Emergency
Response
Commission, 79 Elm
Street, 4th Floor
99918THST.STE
500. MC 8P2-TX
2555 Shumard Oak
Boulevard
......
:ny
Boston
Boise
Denver
Jefferson Cit>
Springfield
Champaign
Washington
Boston
Boston
Altanta
Washington
Boston
Washington
Hartford
DENVER
Tallahassee
State
MA
D
CO
MO
H.
L
DC
MA
MA
GA
DC
MA
DC
CT
CO
FL
Zip
2202
83720-
3401
80202
65102
62794-
9506
61820
20585
02108
02108
30333
20460
02203
2046C
06106-
5127
80202
32399-
2149
Country
Area
617
202
303
573
217
217
202
617
617
404
617
860
904
Phone
727-3260
334-3263
312-6047
526-6627
785-1710
244-2190
586-7301
574-6820
292-5552
639-0683
565-3240
424-3373
413-9914
Fax
727-3827
334-3267
312-6558
526-5808
244-0029
586-0955
292-5770
292-5778
639-4699
565-4939
260-0178
424-4059
488-1739
Email
frances.merenda@state.ma.us
gnickeK2> mail. state. mo. us
ousley@geoserv.isgs.uiuc.edu
jane.powers@eh.doe.gov
william.panos@state.ma.us
Kenneth. pellet ier@state. ma. us
jjxp5@cdc.gov
phillips.ginny@epamail.epa.gov
reid.fred@epamail.epa.gov
B-20
-------
General Participants
Sector: Government
LaatName
Rellty
Roberts
Scavla
Shane han
Shoaff
Sims
Smith. Jr.
Taylor
Undocwood
Van Horn
Wen
Wllkes
Wind
First rUtiw
William
Connie
Blen
Karen
John
•
Patricia
Raymond
MA||
N0N
George
Tamera
Chen
Nathan
Jav Jacob
Org/Company
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
Region HI
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Montgomery County Department of
Environmental Protection
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Environmental Protection Issues
Utah DEO
Naval Submarine Base
Colorado Department of Public Health &
Environment
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
American Environmental Institute
Address
841 Chestnut Building
61 Forsyth Street
101 Monroe St.
401 M Street,SW
401 M Street, SW
401MSt.,SW
(224SA)
441 Q Street, NW,
Mail Code Room 2474
168 North 1950 West
140 Sylvester Road.
Code 11
4300 Cherry Creek
Drive South, OE-B2-
PPU
401 M Street, SW
401 M Street SW
(2164)
61 IS. Ivy St.
City
Philadelphia
Atlanta
Rockvllle
Washington
Washington
Washington
Washington
Salt Lake City
San Diego
Denver
Washington
Washington
Arlington
State
PA
QA
MD
DC
DC
DC
DC
UT
CA
CO
DC
DC
VA
Zip
19107-
4431
30303
20850
20460
20460
20460
20548
84116
92106-
3521
80222
20460
20460
22204-
2429
Country
Area
215
404
301
202
202
202
801
619
303
202
703
Phone
566-2072
562-9613
217-8024
260-2711
564-4048
512-6551
536-4102
553-7191
6923017
260-4910
920-5193
Fax
566-2101
217-2386
260-7906
260-0178
564-0023
512-9925
553-0325
7824969
260-0178
260-4903
521-6157
Email
reilry.william@epanriail.epa.gov
sims.patricia@epamail.epa.gov
ntayk>r@deq.state.ut.us
tamera.van@state.oo.us
jwi@epaibm.ripnc.epa.gov
B-21
-------
General Participants
Sector: Industry
ast Nam*
Ames
Bergquist
Campbell
Christain
Glowers
Cortese
Cox
Didler
DilNngham
Ekart
Evans
Faifbrothor
Fritzache
Qerek
Guest
Harrington
Heifer
Hill
Isaacs
Jones
Iral Nairn
Cynthia
Gloria
David
«
Jancy
Mike
Joann
Terry
Kayo
Carolyn
Nancy
Cindy
Carol
Carl
James
Derek
Edward
Lara
Patricia
David
Colin
>rg/Company
Eastman Kodak Company
American Forest & Paper Association
Sartomer Company, Inc.
The Dow Chemical Company
Hess QIC
Sartomer Company, Inc.
Dow Chemical
American Petroleum Institute
Chemical Manufacturers Association
Eastman Chemical Company
American Forest & Paper Association
Exxon Co. USA
Chevron
Eastman Kodak Company
Eastman Kodak Company
Westvaco
deary. Gottlieb, Steen & Hamilton
Georgia-Pacific Corporation
Electronics Industries Association
Scientific Design Company. Inc.
UMress
Neighborhood
nformation Center,
200 West Ridge Road
1111 19th Street, NW
ilO S. Bolmar St.
2301 N. Brazosport
Blvd.. Bldg. OC-708
1 Hess Place. WB-6
J1 OS. Bolmar St.
2030 Dow Center
1220 L Street, NW
1300 Wilson
Boulevard
P.O. Box 431
1111 19th St., NW
PO Box 2180
6001 Bellinger
Canyon Road
KPHSE Organization,
Kodak Park Building
320
Corporate Health
Safety & Environment,
IIOORidgeway
Avenue
Laurel Technical
Center. 11 101 Johns
Hopkins Road
1752NSt.NW
1875 Eye St.. NW,
Suite 775
2500 Wilson Blvd.
49 Industrial Ave.
City
Rochester
Washington
Vest Chestei
Freeport
Wood bridge
/Vest Chestei
midland
Washington
Arlington
Kingsport
Washington
Houston
San Ramon
Rochester
Rochester
Laurel
Washington
Washington
Arlington
Little Ferry
State
NY
DC
3A
TX
VA
PA
VII
DC
VA
TN
DC
TX
CA
NY
NY
MD
DC
DC
VA
NJ
Zip
14652-
3413
20036
19382
77566
07095
19382
48674
20005
22203
37662-
5280
20036
77252-
2180
94583-
0947
14652-
6263
14652-
6256
21076
20036
20006
22201
764;
Country
Area
716
202
610
409
908
610
517
202
703
423
202
713
510
716
716
301
202
202
70S
201
'hone
722-1770
463-2700
344-2137
238-1267
750-7069
344-2133
636-4287
682-8320
741-5933
229-4120
463-2582
656-9441
842-5658
588-0347
722-3949
497-1284
728-2871
659-3600
907-7576
296-4629
-ax
722-3786
592-8632
238-0004
750-6105
692-8632
536-6451
682-8031
741-6933
229-4864
463-2052
656-6594
842-3194
722-3695
722-0239
497-1289
429-0946 __,
223-1398
907-7501
807-0149
Email
cmames@kodak.oom
nchristain@dow.com
mclowers@ahc.e-mail.com
tscox@dow.com
didier@api.org
carolyn dillingham@mail.cmahq.com
nekart@eastman.com
cindy evans@afandpa.org
Carol.a.fairbrother@exxon.sprint.com
cfri@chevron.com
jgerek@kodak.com
emarri@westvaco.com
philL@gapac.com
disaacs@eia.org
B-22
-------
General Participants
Sector: Industry
Last Nairn
Kuehl
Kutzke
Lattimer
Lee
Leipoid
Martin
Mathews
McDonald
McGaughan
McLeod
McMamara
Medovtah
Mirenda
Noyes
Pershing
Qulnn
Rhymer
Roehl
Saukaltis
Saylor
Schoedel
Scholten
Smith
First Name
Debra
Bizabeth
Richard
Sai •
Wayne
Jonnie
Joe
Doug
Kevin
Walter
Patrick
Thomas
Angela
Donald
Pamela
Roy
Ruth
Roger
kwrid
Tim
Anthony
Ray
Kathym
Org/Company
3M
U.S. Generating Company
Eli Lilly and Company
FMC Corporation
CMMC
Texaco. Inc.
Boise Cascade
Union Carbide Corporation
DuPont / P&EM
American Petroleum Institute
ICI Americas. Inc.
Air Products and Chemicals, Inc.
Consolidated Edison of New York. Inc.
ASARCO Incorporated
Allegheny Power
Albright & Wilson Americas
Bi Lilly and Company
Dow Coming Corporation
Neuberger & Barman
International Paper Co.
Aluminum Company of America (Alcoa)
Union Camp
Chemical Manufacturers Association
Address
P.O. Box 33331,
Building 41-01-05,
879 East 7th Street
7500 Old Georgetown
Rd.
Lilly Corporate Center
1735 Market St.
P.O. Box 4444
P.O. Box 509
307 West Industrial
Rd.
390ldRldgebury
Road. K-3
DuPont -P&EM,
Experimental Station -
E334/3
1 220 L Street NW
1300 Connecticut
Ave. Suite 901
7201 Hamilton Blvd.
4 Irving Place, NYC
Room 300
180 Maiden Lane
800 Cabin Hill Drive
2151 King Street Ext.
Tippecanoe
Laboratories, P.O.
Box 685
P.O. Box 994
605 Third Ave. 39th
R.
6400 Poplar Avenue
425 Sixth Avenue.
Alcoa Building
PO Box 2310
1300 Wilson Blvd.
City
StPaul
Bethesda
Indianapolis
Philadelphia
Ctaypool
Beacon
Jackson
Danbury
Wilmington
Washington
Washington
Allentown
New York
New York
Greensburg
Charleston
Lafayette
Midland
New York
Memphis
Pittsburgh
Savannah
Arlington
State
MN
MD
IN
PA
AZ
NY
AL
CT
DE
DC
DC
PA
NY
NY
PA
SC
IN
Ml
NY
TN
PA
GA
VA
Zip
55133-
3331
20815
46285
19103
85532
12508
36545
06817
19880-
0334
20008
20036
19529-
1501
10003
10038
15601
29405
47902
48688-
0994
10158
39197
15219
31402
22209
;
Country
Area
612
301
317
215
520
914
334
203
302
202
202
212
803
765
517
901
412
912
703
Phone
778-6559
718-6949
276-1204
299-6338
473-7149
838-7238
246-8285
794-2844
695-2630
682-8493
862-8318
460-2522
740-5236
477-4112
496-4201
763-6821
553-3785
965-6093
741-5169
Fax
778-7203
913-5850
276-1800
299-6067
473-7449
838-7115
246-8295
794-5275
695-8196
682-8031
862-8303
460-4553
510-1835
740-5395
477-4180
496-4175
763-6939
553-4077
965-6119
741-6092
Email
djkuehl@mmm.com
bkutzke@usgen.com
R.Lattimer@LiIly.com
sai lee@fmc.com
martijo@texaco.com
rr.;donadm@u carb.com
K.MCGAUGHAN-1 @usa.dupont.com
phmcnamara ici wash@knight-hub.com
medovit@apci.com
rhymerre@lilly.com
USDCCD43@IBMMAIL.COM
sri@nb.com
tim.saylor@ipaper.com
anthony.schoedel@alcoa.com
Ray_Scholten@ucamp.com
kathym__smith@mail .cmahq .com
B-23
-------
General Participants
Sector: Industry
Last Name
Snider
Sprink
Turek
Vail
Veprek
Worley
First Nam*
Susan
Melnoll
James
James
Craig •
Gary
Org/Company
American Forest and Paper Association
Bayer Corporation
Pharmacia and Upjohn Co.
American Petroleum Institute
PSE4G
Lockheed Martin Energy Systems
Address
1111 19th St., Suite
800
100 Bayer Road,
Building 4
7000 Portage Rd,
6606-41-016
1220 L Street. N.W.
80 Park Plaza T17H
P.O. Box 2003. K-303-
8.MS-7314
2lty
Washington
Pittsburgh
Kalamazoo
Washington
Newark
Oak Ridge
State
DC
PA
Ml
DC
NJ
TN
Zip
20036
15205
49001
20005
7101
37831-
7314
Country
Area
202
412
616
202
423
-- - - ---
Phone
463-2423
777-5732
833-6490
682
241-2591
Fax
463-2423
778-4430
6517
962
576-7662
Email
susan snider@afandpa.org
melnolf.sprink.
iames.m.turek@amjxiu.com
vallj@apl.org
worleyoo@oml.gov
B-24
-------
General Participants
Sector: Private
LnlNwiM
Artaza- Regan
Ashworth
Baggetta
Barrett
Bush
Clachar
Clark
Cunningham
Elfin
Engter
Foreman
Fenerol
Fero
Rahgold
Franke
Franke
Gray
Fkvt Nwiw
Paz
Jerry
Angela
Charie
Barbara •
Sarah
Ketey
R.
Dana
Rick
Christopher
Claudia
Juflette
Gunther
Bemd
David
Hlllel
Org/Company
United Methodist Board of Church & Society
Hazardous Waste News
Waste Management Guide. BNA
Occupational Health Foundation
AIPP
Libraries for the Future
Newspaper Association of America
Metropolitan Washington Environmental
Professionals (MWEP)
Waste Management Guide, BNA
Mew Jersey Work Environment Council
The BrooMngs Institution
Organization for Economic Cooperation
and Development
AIPP
1 in 9: The Long Island Breast Cancer
Action Coalition
Institute for Energy and Environmental
Research
Green Watch
National Environmental Law Center
Address
100 Maryland Avenue.
NE
951 Pershlng Dr.
1231 25th St.. NW
11 26 16th Street NW,
Suite 41 3
161 6 P Street NW.
Suite 100
121 W. 27th St. Suite
1102
1921 Gallows Rd.
Suite 600
808 Janneys Lane
1231 25th St., NW
452 East Third St.
1775 Massachusetts
Ave., NW
Z rue Andre-Pascal,
Cedexie
1616 P Street, NW,
Suite 100
2201 Hempstead
Tpke., Room 246,
Nassau County
Medical Center
6935 Laurel Ave.
12500 Fair Lakes
Circle, Suite 155
26 Temple Place
City
Washington
Silver Spring
Washington
Washington [
Washington
New York
Vienna
Alexandria
Washington
Moorestown
Washington
Paris
Washington
East Meadow
Takoma Park
Fairfax
Boston
State
DC
MD
DC
DC
DC
NY
VA
VA
DC
NJ
DC
NA
DC
NY
MD
VA
MA
Zip
20002
20037
20036
20036
10001
22182
22302
20037
08057
20036
75775
20036-
1434
11554
20912
22033
02111
Country
France
Area
202
301
L 202
202
202
212
703
202
331
202
516
301
703
617
Phone
488-5649
587-6300
452-4130
887-1980
797-6569
352-2330
902-1833
452-7581
45241763
797-6564
357-9622
270-5500
802-3712
422-0880
Fax
488-5639
587-1081
452-5331
887-0191
797-6559
352-2342
902-1857
452-5331
45241675
797-6559
357-9658
270-3029
802-2163
Email
bpienuir@bpinews.com
1 03325.3530@compuserve.com
cd001001@mindspring.com
sarahf@lff.org
clark@naa.org
cunningr@erols.com
delfin@bna.com
cforeman@brook.edu
Claudia.fenerol@oecd.org
cd001001@mindspring.com
bernd@ieer.org
editor@newmediarepori.com
B-25
-------
General Participants
Sector: Private
.astName
Hall
Hill. Jr., Ph.D.
Hinckley
Holmes
Irwin
Kenworthy
Langer
Lavallee
Lawrence
Mairena
Ma lone
Park
Pease
Phibbs
Porras
Reiss
Reynolds
Schaefer
Siracusa
IrstNanw
Andrea
Paul
Chris
Sherre
*
Frances
Patricia
Gilah
:rancois
Virginia
Mario
Kathy
Jacob
William
Pat
Carlos
Joan
Hairy
Rhoda
Rene
irg/Company
Thompson Publishing Group
National Institute for Chemical Studies
The INDUS Group Inc.
Mothers Organized to Stop Environmental
Sins (MOSES)
World Resources Institute
Environmental Information Center
EPA's Pollution Prevention News
Environment Canada
Northeast States for Coordinated Air Use
Management
Chemical Specialties Manufacturers
Association, Inc
ManGuard Systems, Inc.
unu/institute of advanced studies
Environmental Defense Fund
Environmental Health Letter
CBE/LACaus
Bay Area Breast Cancer Study. The Breast
Cancer Fund
1 1n 9: The Long Island Breast Cancer
Action Coaltion
Puna Outdoor Circle
Lddress
725 K St.. NW
2300 MacCorkle
Avenue, S.E.
01 Underwood Dr.
Suite 420
15115 FM Rd., 16 E
1709 New York
Avenue. NW
1200 8th St.. NW
3035 Porter St., NW
10th Floor, Place
Vincent Massey. 351
St. Joseph Blvd.
129 Portland Street,
Suite 501
1913 Eye Street, NW
P.O. Box 560
1616 16th St. NW
Apt: 306
5655 College Ave.
951 Pershing St.
605 W Olympic
Boulevard. * 850
773 Duncan Street
1940 Bfttmere Street.
NW
2201 Hempstead
Tpte., Room 246.
Nassau County
Medical Center
P.O. Box 1085
City
Washington
Charleston
Malvem
Winona
Washington
Washington
Washington
Hull, Quebec
Boston
Washington
-lartland
Washington I
Oakland
Silver Spring
Los Angeles
San Franctso
Washington
East Meadow
Pahoa
State
)C
wv
PA
TX
DC
)C
JC
NA
MA
DC
Ml
DC
CA
MD
CA
CA
DC
NY
HI
Zip
20006
25304
19355
75792
20006
20036
2000f
K1aOH3
02114
20006
483K
20009
94618
20910-
4464
90015
94131
20009
11554
9677)
Country
Canada
Area
202
304
610
903
202
202
202
819
617
810
301
415
202
516
'hone
739-9532
346-6264
889-7800
877-4801
662-2528
J87-8800
364-3006
997-8545
367-8540
750^2618
587-6300
647-2687
347-2147
357-9622
965-6626
:ax
739-9578
346-6349
889-7888
877-2634
628-0878
J87-8877
365-3806
953-9542
742-9162
750-7571
587-1081
647-6129
357-9658
Email
sara@thompson .com
phillnics@aol.oom
chinckley@indusgroup.com
ran@wri.org
pkenworthy@acpa.com
angner@erols.com
glawrence@nescaum .org
manguard@earthlink.net
billp@eds.org
bpihlth@bpinews.com
cbela@lgc.org
reissjm@aol.com
B-26
-------
General Participants
Sector: Private
LaatNanw
Smith
Susman
Taylor
Timms
Twachtnun
Usdin
Vetek
Vizzi
First N«m
Ted
Megan
Mary
Ed
•
Gregory
olflVv
Ondrej
Tara
Org/Company
Silicon Valley Toxics Coalition
Progressive Policy Institute
Friends of the Earth. UK
The Dallas Morning News
Pesticide Toxic Chemical News
Endocrine/Estrogen Letter
Environmental Partnership (or Central
Europe
Association of International Automobile
Manufacturers
Address
760 N 1st St.
51 SCSI. NE
26-28 Underwood
Street
P.O. 655237,
Communications
Center
1725 K. Street. NW.
Suite S06
2008 Q Street, N.W.
#100
EPCE Office in
Prague, Kratka 26
1001 N. 19th Street,
Suite 1200
CHy
San Jose
Washington
London
Dallas
Washington
Washington
Prague
Arlington
State
CA
DC
NA
TX
DC
DC
NA
VA
Zip
95112
20002
N17JQ
75265
20006
20009
10000
22209
Country
UK
Czech
Republic
Area
408
202
171
202
202
420
703
Phone
287-6707
546-4482
5661687
887-6320
6672855
27816727
525-7788
Fax
287-6771
544-5014
5661689
6672922
27816727
525-8817
Email
tsmith@igc.qrg
msusman@dlcppi.org
maryt@foe.co.uk
gtwachtman@crcpress.com
global-1@access.digex.net
tvizzi@aiam.orfl
B-27
-------
General Participants
Sector: Private
Last Name
Alchison
Berman-Canlin
loemer
Coddington
Cumminos-Sax
Javis
Emerson
Estreicher
Evans
Ferrell
Frazier
Ghetie
Huntzinger
Kapanl
Knteh
Langner
Lockemer
MacMHIan
Iret Name
ohn
Heather
Henry
•
Wpp
lames
.oma
Dwight
Herbert
Holly
^orthorea
Myra
Veronica
Sandra
Hoy
Mary
Gilah
Robert
Douglas
Org/Company
1am Branch Group
Rural Action
lowan & Blewitt Communication Services.
nc.
Covington & Burling
ndustrial Economics. Inc.
Reich & Blnstock. LL.P.
Analytical Services. Inc.
Covington & Burling
IPC
Resident Council
Booz-Alten and Hamilton
G.O.S.H. Ina
The Ohio Environmental Council
Computer Based Systems, Inc. (CBSI)
Campaign for a Healthy Environment
Stretton Associates, Inc.
Rhone- Pootenc Ag Company
tddress
lam Branch
Organization, P.O.
Box 721
13 Cable Lane
90 Second Street
201 Pennsylvania
Avenue, N.W., Suite
809A
2067 Massachusetts
Avenue
4265 San Felipe, Ste.
1000
71 35 Minstrel Way,
Suite 303
1201 Pennsylvania
Avenue. N.W.. Suite
807B
1400 Eye St., N.W..
Suite 540
Barry Farms
Community Center,
1326 Stevens Road
1303 A Governor
Court
2200 N Central Rd,
Suite 5G
1207GrandviewAve.
, Suite 201
2750 Prosperity
Avenue, Suite 300
Tennessee
Environmental
Council. 1700 Hayes
Street. Suite 101
3035 Porter Street,
NW
P.O. Box 2831
734 15th St. NW,
Suite 400
:Hy
Thorsby
Athens
Mineola
Washington
Cambridge
Houston
Columbia
Washington
Washington
Washington
Abindgon
Fort Lee
Columbus
Fairfax
Nashville
Washington
Charleston
Washington
State
AL
OH
NY
DC
MA
TX
MD
DC
DC
DC
MD
NJ
OH
VA
TN
DC
WV
DC
Zip
35171
45701
11501
20044
01908
77027
21045
20044
20005
20020
21009
07024
43212
22031
37203
20008
25331
20005
Country
troa
614
516
202
202
202
202
410
201
614
703
3N
202
'hone
646-4185
594-3338
741-8877
662-5513
662-5576
638-6219
654-3854
676-3675
592-6419
487-7506
849-8080
767-6849
737-4177
•ax
593-3228
741-3131
778-5513
778-5576
638-0145
889-2340
612-0437
585-8637
487-7510
849-1763
768-1340
737-4178
Email
iboerner@pb.net
kcoddington@cov.com
sax@indecon.com
hestreicher@cov.com
HollyEvans@ipc.org
Fraziermyr@bah.com
vera1@idt.net
theoec@iwaynet.net
Roy Kapani@hqlink.cbsi.com
christl@nol.com
B-28
-------
General Participants
Sector: Private
LMtNMw
Macto
Martin
McClelland
Meuaer
Nevffie
Parameswaran
RettaHata
Sharp
Staich
Taylor
Thigpen
Town send
Zins
Brenner
Chase
DeFazio
Foreman
Rand
Veroara
Pint Nwiw
Carole
Sharon
Jamie
Clint
«
Anthony
Krishna
Jay
Mark
Laura
Hope
Juanita
Bilinda
Richard
Lisa
Jane
Suhashini
Christopher
Matt
Walter
Onj/Compejty
Bureau of National Affairs, Inc.
Hampshire Research Associates, Inc.
Libraries for the Future
Clary - Meuser and Associates
Labat-Anderaon Incorporated
Asarco Inc.
Rowan & Btewitt Communication Services.
Inc.
Panasonic
Barksdale Ballard
Clean Water and Envir. Proj. for Shiloh
SAC
Boeing Company
Computer Based Systems, Inc. (CBSI)
Oregon Clearinghouse for Pollution
Reduction
United States Trust Company of Boston
The World Bank
The Broo kings Institution
Clean Air Council
The World Bank • International Bank for
Reconstruction & Development
Address
1231 25th St. NW,
Room 379 South
1600 Cameron Street,
Suite 100
121 West 27th Street,
Suite 1102
118 Koshland Way
8000 West Park
Drive, Suite 400
180 Maiden Lane
90 Second Street
1 620 L Street NW,
Suite 11 50
8027 Leesburg Pike,
Suite 200
1590 Jack Clement
Rd.
11251 Rodger Bacon
Dr.
1700 N.Moore Street
2750 Prosperity
Avenue, Suite 300
3816NSGIisan
40 Court St.
1818HSI.. NW
1775 Massachusetts
Ave.
135S l9lhSt, Suite
300
1818HSI..NW
City
Washington
Alexandria
New York
Santa Cruz
McLean
New York
Mineola
Washington
Vienna
Stem
Reston
Arlington
Fairfax
Portland
Boston
Washington
Washington
Philadelphia
Washington
Slate
DC
VA
NY
CA
VA
NY
NY
DC
VA
NC
VA
VA
VA
OR
MA
DC
DC
PA
DC
Zip
20037
22314
95064
22102
10038
11501
20036
22203
27581
20190
22209
22031
97232
02108
20433
20036
19103
20433
Country
Area
202
703
212
408
703
212
516
202
703
703
703
617
202
202
215
202
Phone
452-4030
683-6695
352-2330
458-4245
506-1400
510-2121
741-8877
223-2575
827-8771
558-9662
849-8080
726-7276
458-5195
797-6087
567-4004
458-2705
Fax
452-4150
684-7704
352-2342
458-4245
506-4646
510-1951
741-3131
223-2614
827-0783
558-9690
849-1763
695-4775
522-1664
797-6144
567-5791
522-1664
Email
cmacko@bna.com
smartin@hampshire.org
mclary@mapcruzin .com
Kparameswaran@asarco.com
jrettaliata@rbservices.com
sharpm@panasonic.com
htaylor@suna.biochem.duke.edu
bilinda.k.townsend@boeing.com
Richard Zins@hqlink.cbsi.com
lbrenner@orcpr.org
sdefazio@worldbank.org
cforeman@brook.edu
mrand@cleanair.org
wvergara@worldbank.org
B-29
------- |