what tri means

["Michael R. Meuser" <meuser@mapcruzin.com>]

EPA just released the 1997 Toxic Release Inventory (TRI) data.  It
indicates that their was a slight increase in total releases compared to
the previous year.  

There are at least four things to think about when considering incremental
increases or decreases in TRI releases between years.  First, 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.   

Second, TRI releases account for only a small amount of toxic chemicals. 
In 1997 total releases totalled 1.9 Billion (1,941,870,147) pounds, an
amazingly large quantity.  But this is just the tip of the toxic iceberg.
1997 production- related TRI waste was 24.7 Billion (24,725,396,745
pounds.  As an ex-truck driver who still has permits to transport all
types of toxic and hazardous waste in any legal combination of vehicles, I
look at this in terms of the number of truckloads required to handle all
of this toxic material.  This amount of toxic waste can be better
understood as 618,135 semi trucks each holding 40,000 pounds. Assuming
that each truck is 65 ft. long, that equals 40,178,770 ft. or 7,610 miles
of trucks full of toxic waste. That's enough trucks bumper-to-bumper to
stretch from San Francisco to New York, to Atlanta and back to SF.  Or to
stretch a little over 1/4 of the way around the World.   

Third, as amazing as this seems, we are so far only talking about TRI
chemicals - only 650 of the 70,000 chemicals in use today.  One can only
imagine what our total nationwide toxic "load" might be if we began to
more fully account for the production, use and disposal of all of these
chemicals.  

fourth, 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
(9/25/96) 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 Bophal like catastrophe.   

In a political atmosphere where Congress blatanly attempts to use the
recent tragedy at Columbine HIgh School in Colorado to serve
special-interests instead of the public by opening more gun buying
loopholes, allowing more lethal firearms into our communities, not less,
how can we believe that they are acting in our best interest. We cannot.
They are not.  

So, we have to be very careful and very critical when we read statements
such as this: EPA Administrator Carol M. Browner said, "The Clinton
Administration has worked hard to expand the public's right to know about
toxic chemicals released into local communities.  Putting this information
into the hands of citizens is one of the most powerful tools available for
reducing pollution.  Over the last 10 years, pollution has been reduced by
almost 43 percent, and we believe it will continue to decline in the long
term." We also have to remember that Administrator Browner, though she
does not say so, is only referring to TRI pollution - a small portion of
our toxic landscape.  

So far, our Right-To-Know means we don't know much.

Links for further information:

  EPA Cumulative Exposure Project:
    http://www.epa.gov/oppecumm/index.htm
  EDF Cumulative Exposure Project data:
    http://www.scorecard.org/env-releases/hap/
  EPA TRI Phase 3:
    http://www.epa.gov/opptintr/tri/program.htm
  More links and discussion about Phase 3:
    http://www.mapcruzin.com/scruztri/docs/future.htm
  Worst Case Scenario links, articles, maps:
    http://www.mapcruzin.com/scruztri/docs/cep02011.htm
  RTK Net Worst Case Scenarios
    http://www.rtk.net/wcs

(c)1999 Michael Meuser

http://www.mapcruzin.com/
For Right-to-Know News, 
free GIS, maps and data,
Community Mapping Resources

Michael R. Meuser
Clary-Meuser Research Associates
GIS and WWW Mapping Application Development
Mapping for Community Right-To-Know
"making data make sense"
meuser@mapcruzin.com