• Pennsylvania TRI Statistics
• Where to Find TRI Information
• Online Toxics Resources
• What TRI Means (What Is and Isn't Reported)
• TRI Reporting Expansion: Info From 7 New Industries now Available
• Risk Management Plans: Learn more about Chemical Hazards in Your Community
• Coal & Oil Electric Utilities Are Major Polluters

Where to Find TRI Information There are now 3 main sources for Toxic Release Inventory data: the U.S. EPA, the Right to Know Network, and the Scorecard website. EPA's Toxic Release Inventory website 2001 TRI Data 2001 TRI Data Executive Summary (995kb PDF) 2001 TRI State Fact Sheets Query the TRI Database Here Right-To-Know Network website RTKnet Databases RTKnet TRI Query Scorecard website Scorecard TRI Interface [Scorecard's website covers ONLY 2001 data (RTKnet goes from 1987-2001). It also doesn't provide the details or flexibility that the RTKnet website does. However, the strengths of the Scorecard site are the maps it provides and the analysis of health effects of the chemicals released.]

Based on 2001 Toxic Release Inventory data, Pennsylvania ranks...

• #1 in air release of metals and metal compounds (2,698,236 lbs in 2001) [see the data], and #2 in total off-site releases of metals [see the data]
• #5 in total air emissions of all chemicals (OH, NC, TX, GA, PA) [see the data]
• #3 in direct discharges and estimated sewer discharges of toxic chemicals (TX, IN, PA) [see the data]
• #2 in shipping toxic chemicals off-site (to dump or treat them in other communities) (IN, PA) [see the data]
• #4 in releases of dioxin pollution into the air [see the data]
  (Note: the now-closed Harrisburg incinerator would have made PA #1 if incinerators were required to report to the TRI database.)
• In the manufacturing sector, Pennsylvania industries rank:
  • #2 in off-site releases (IN, PA)
  • #3 in surface water discharges (TX, IN, PA)
  • #12 in on-site releases
  • #13 in air releases
  • #5 in total releases (TX, IN, OH, LA, PA) [see the data]
• Among coal and oil-fired electric utility power plants, Pennsylvania ranks:
  • #1 in releases of mercury pollution. In 2001, these power plants reported releasing the 3rd highest amount of mercury pollution into the air (behind Texas and Ohio), the 2nd highest amount to waterways (behind Kentucky), the highest amount to land, and the most mercury overall. [see the data] Reliant Energy's Keystone Power Plant in Armstrong County releases more mercury than any other power plant in the nation (1,800 pounds of mercury in 2001).
  • #3 in air emissions. [see the data] In 2001, Pennsylvania's coal and oil-fired power plants reported releasing 59,026,821 pounds of toxic pollution into the air and 76,491,861 pounds of total toxic releases, ranking 3rd highest behind North Carolina and Ohio. These utilities reported more toxic chemicals being contained and transfered to other communities (11,668,996 pounds) than any other state.
  • #1 in dioxin air pollution. In 2001, Pennsylvania's coal and oil-fired power plants reported releasing 176.57 grams of dioxin pollution into the air, more than any other state. [see the data] The Cambria Cogen power plant in Cambria County releases more dioxin and dioxin-like compounds than any other fossil-fueled power plant in the nation.
• #3 in toxic air emissions from the coal mining industry (WV, KY, PA) [see the data]
• #4 in air emissions of HAPs (hazardous air pollutants) [see the data]
• #4 in total off-site releases of Persistent, Bioaccumulative, and Toxic Chemicals [see the data] and #4 in air emissions of these toxins [see the data]
• #4 in total off-site releases of OSHA-listed carcinogens [see the data]
• #5 in air emissions of OSHA-listed carcinogens [see the data]

• Right-To-Know Network
• Mapcruzin.com (Clary-Meuser Research Network)
• Toxic Chemicals and Environmental Health (includes pollution-mapping projects)

• They must be in one of 20 manufacturing sectors (SIC code in 20-39) or must be among 6 other sectors (metal mining; coal mining; coal or oil-fired electric utility power plants; commercial hazardous waste treatment, chemical wholesalers; petroleum bulk terminals; and solvent recovery services);
• They must have the equivalent of 10 full-time workers (40-50% of facilities in the above categories are exempt based on this criteria);
• They must either manufacture or process more than 25,000 lbs of the chemical or use more than 10,000 lbs during the year (unless the chemical is a persistent bioaccumulative chemical); AND
• The chemical must be on the TRI list of 582 specific toxic chemicals and 30 chemical groups (out of about 80,000+ chemicals in industrial use*).

Read more about the limitations of TRI from the Scorecard website.

The following is excerpted from writings of Michael Meuser, an environmental sociologist in California who does a lot of work with computer mapping of TRI facilities:

There are a few things to think about when considering incremental increases or decreases in TRI releases between years.

1. We do not start from zero again each year. Our air, land, water - our own bodies and all other living things do not become magically toxic free - somehow renewed on January 1 of each year. To some degree there is a cumulative effect that spans years. Toxic chemicals accumulate in the air, land, water, our bodies and the bodies of living things year after year. The Cumulative Exposure Project (CEP) is a beginning at accounting for the way that these toxic chemicals accumulate. One can quibble over a little more or a little less, but looked at in these terms, any TRI release, whether it's a little lower or a little higher than the previous year, is an INCREASE to some yet fully known degree.

2. TRI releases account for only a small amount of toxic chemicals. The list of TRI chemicals includes 600-some chemicals. The TRI is self-reported and there are rules that allow many facilities to avoid reporting. The list of High Production Volume (HPV) chemicals includes over 2,000 chemicals. There are over 80,000 chemical in production. TRI accounts for little of this.

3. TRI so far only accounts for chemicals released or in waste, NOT all chemicals used in production. Several years ago President Clinton directed EPA Administrator Browner to develop a plan for accounting for the chemicals used in production - a cradle-to-grave accounting. But the last mention of this by EPA was in 1996. The Pre-Publication Version (9/25/1996) of 40 CFR Part 372 says, "EPA intends to expand its Community Right-to-Know initiatives to increase the information available to the public on chemical use." But the final version (July, 1998) makes no reference to "chemical use" whatsoever. Chemical use reporting is a dead issue.

"Worst Case Scenarios" have the promise of providing us a more complete accounting of the toxic chemicals in our communities and for the beginnings of a nationwide toxic accounting, but Congress and the Whitehouse are attempting to cripple full disclosure of this data, mandated by the Clean Air Act, saying that to fully disclose the information would increase the likelihood of terrorism. Apparently they have determined that since the 66,000 facilities in the U.S. that must report their worst case scenarios to EPA increasingly are targets for terrorism - timebombs in our neighborhoods - it is in our best interest to know less, not more, about the effects of such a terrorist attack on one of these facilities - a potentially Bhopal-like catastrophe.

Michael R. Meuser
http://www.mapcruzin.com/

Additional info on the 1998 TRI data and chemical hazards can be found in the following article on the mapcruzin.com website: 1998 TRI Releases TRIPLE! -- Children at Risk to Neurotoxins

Lois Gibbs      Center for Health, Environment and Justice (703) 237-2249
Felice Stadler  Clean Air Network                          (202) 289-2403
Lois Epstein    Environmental Defense                      (202) 387-3500
Alan Septoff    Mineral Policy Center                      (202) 887-1872
Becky Stanfield US P.I.R.G.                                (202) 546-9707
Lisa Mosca      Working Group on Community Right-to-Know   (202) 544-2714
Paul Orum       Working Group on Community Right-to-Know   (202) 544-9586

Today the Environmental Protection Agency is releasing new national data on toxic pollution from the Community Right to Know Act's Toxics Release Inventory (TRI). For the first time, the inventory covers the immense toxic pollution released from mines and utilities, and the quantities dumped into hazardous waste landfills.

"Disclosing these emissions is an important citizens' victory that will help people organize to clean-up and prevent toxic pollution," said Paul Orum, director of the Working Group for Community Right-to-Know.

For its first ten years, the inventory covered only manufacturing industries. The data released today by EPA covers seven additional industries: metal mines, toxic waste disposal, utilities that burn oil or coal, chemical wholesalers, coal processors, petroleum bulk storage terminals, and solvent recyclers.

These new industries report large amounts of toxic pollution, making gaps in regulatory coverage more apparent. Here's what public interest leaders are saying:

"The new TRI data show that hardrock mining creates huge amounts of toxic pollution. Congress should end the mining industry's current exemption from toxic waste laws, and reject attempts to legally allow more dumping of toxic mine waste," said Alan Septoff of the Mineral Policy Center.

"Electric utilities are major toxic polluters. EPA should close the special loopholes that exempt utilities' toxic air releases and coal combustion waste from strict regulation under federal law," urged the Clean Air Network's Felice Stadler.

"The immense amount of toxics dumped into landfills shows the need for pollution prevention at the source," said Lois Epstein of Environmental Defense.

"For grassroots environmental groups across the country, expanding the Toxic Release Inventory to include more industries is a start, but to protect our communities we need to reduce the use of toxic chemicals," said Lois Gibbs of the Center for Health, Environment and Justice. "Citizens not only want to know how much pollution is being released into their communities, they want facilities to prevent releases in the first place."

"To promote pollution prevention, industries should track and report toxic chemical uses, not just releases," said Becky Stanfield of U.S. PIRG. "States that collect chemical use information are reducing production waste, contrary to the national trend," Stanfield said. "President Clinton should require federal facilities to track and report toxic chemical use. This would make the federal government a pollution prevention leader and leave a lasting right-to-know legacy."

"Unfortunately, the Administration is considering proposals that threaten the future of public right-to-know about toxic pollution. We are very concerned about any proposal that weakens the public right-to-know," said Lisa Mosca of the Working Group. "We should close current loopholes, not create new ones."

The Emergency Planning and Community Right to Know Act passed in 1986 as part of Superfund, the nation's toxic dumpsite cleanup law. The data released today covers the 1998 reporting year, and while incomplete, is nonetheless the best information available to the public on toxic pollution in many communities across the country.

This release is provided by the Working Group on Community Right-to-Know, a national network of activists concerned with the public's right-to-know about chemical hazards and toxic pollution.

For more information contact (phone numbers above):

• Mining pollution -- Mineral Policy Center
• Utilities pollution -- Clean Air Network
• Toxic waste and communities -- Center for Health, Environment and Justice
• Toxic waste regulation -- Environmental Defense
• Pollution prevention -- U.S. PIRG
• Phantom reductions--Working Group on Community RTK

EPA is releasing the national 1998 TRI data today at www.epa.gov/tri/

Additional environmental databases are available through the Right-to-Know Network (RTK-NET) at www.rtk.net

Risk Management Plans: Learn more about Chemical Hazards in Your Community

• Worst Case Scenario links, articles, maps
• Spills & Emergencies
• Search Risk Management Plans on the RTKnet website

http://www.actionpa.org/tri/