Proposed expansion of the TRI: The materials accounting controversy

Environmental Quality Management

Volumn 5, Issue 4, 1996, Pages 85-91

  Bryson, Nancy S ^a   Donohue, Brian G ^b  

^a Crowell and Corals Moring LLC   (United States)

^b United States Department of Justice   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 0642362370     PISSN: 10881913     EISSN: 15206483     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1002/tqem.3310050410     Document Type: Article

References (10)

1. 42 USC $11001, et seq.
2. This is another example of the federal government's growing sensitivity to the environmental consequences of products containing toxic chemicals, which eventually find their way into the waste stream. Indeed, that topic was discussed in the last issue of this publication. See Bryson and Donohue, “Risk Reporting Requirements: Is Your House in Order?” Total Quality Environmental Management, Winter 1995/96, at 95.
3. 42 USC §13101, et seq.
4. “Expansion of the Toxic Release Inventory (TRI) to Gather Chemical Use Information: TRI-Phase 3,” Issues Paper #2, EPA/OPPT, October 4, 1995 (hereinafter referred to as “Issues Paper #2”), at 2.
5. “Expansion of the Toxic Release Inventory (TRI) to Gather Chemical Use Information: TRI-Phase 3,” Issues Paper #1, EPA/OPPT, September 24, 1994.
6. “Expediting Community Right-To-Know Initiatives,” White House Memorandum for the Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency and Heads of Executive Departments and Agencies, August 8, 1995.
7. Issues Paper #2, at 6.
8. Issues Paper #2, at 8.
9. 15 USC §2601, et seq.
10. BNA Daily Environmental Reporter, March 13, 1996, at A-6.