Executive Summary | Maps | News Release

Download the report.
This PDF is currently unavailable. for a print copy of the body of the report.

Appendix A: Toxic Discharge Data Tables

Appendix B: Permit Compliance Data Tables

Appendix C: EPA Memorandum

Appendix D: Discharge Summaries for Major Multi-State Bodies of Water

Appendix E: State-Specific Discharge and Compliance Data.
Note: This is a 1MB PDF file which includes data for every state.

Addendum: Alabama Information for Appendix E

When Congress passed the Clean Water Act in 1972, there was a visible water crisis that made a compelling case for action. The Cuyahoga River literally caught on fire in 1969, and a spill off the coast of California had left millions of gallons of oil along the coastline. The goals of the Act—clearly stated—were to return all waterways to fishable and swimmable conditions by 1983 and to eliminate the discharge of all pollutants by 1985. Nearly 30 years later, while the visible signs of pollution may not be as evident as a burning river, a careful examination of the facts reveals a continuing water pollution crisis in this country. Approximately 40% of our waters are still not safe for swimming or fishing; there have been nearly 30,000 beach closings and advisories since 1988; and in 1998, 47 states issued fish consumption advisories because of high levels of dangerous chemicals.

In order to look at the nation's continued failure to move toward the goals of the Clean Water Act, this report summarizes the hundreds of millions of pounds of toxic chemicals discharged to our nation's waterways by analyzing data in the Toxics Release Inventory (TRI). Our summary of pollution, water body by water body, shows widespread toxic pollution of our rivers, lakes, and streams—large industrial facilities and sewage treatment plants dumped almost 270 million pounds of toxic chemicals into our waterways in 1997.

To explore the behavior of facilities discharging pollutants to our waterways, this report also examines the government's listing of facilities that are in "Significant Noncompliance" with their Clean Water Act permits, information obtained through the Freedom of Information Act. Nearly 30 percent of major facilities examined were in Significant Noncompliance with their Clean Water Act permits for at least one quarter from September, 1997 through December, 1998.

Among the report's other major findings:

• The rivers receiving the largest amounts of toxic chemical releases were the Mississippi River, the Connequenessing Creek (PA), the Brazos River (TX), the Alafia River (FL), and the Houston Ship Channel (TX).
• More than 8 million pounds of persistent toxic metals (like lead and mercury) were released into our waterways, an increase of more than 50% from the previous year and the largest amount since at least 1992.
• Nearly 900,000 pounds of reproductive toxins (like toluene) were released into our waterways, an increase of 60% from the previous year and the largest amount released since at least 1992.
• More than 2.5 million pounds of carcinogens (like vinyl chloride and benzene) were released into our waterways.
• The top ten states with the greatest number of major facilities in Significant Noncompliance were Texas, Florida, Ohio, New York, Alabama, Louisiana, Pennsylvania, Indiana, Tennessee, and North Carolina.
• The top ten states with the highest percentage of major facilities in Significant Noncompliance were Utah, Florida, Rhode Island, Ohio, Alabama, Tennessee, Connecticut, Wyoming, Nebraska, and Indiana.

The continued dumping of hundreds of millions of pounds of toxic chemicals into our waterways and the significant violation of the Clean Water Act by nearly 2,000 large facilities stems from several specific policy failures. At the most basic level, the government, including both state agencies and the U.S. EPA, have failed to properly deter polluters. Meanwhile, the courts have eroded citizens’ ability to file suits in order to enforce the Clean Water Act. In addition, regulators have failed to progressively lower permitted amounts of pollution in order to move toward the zero-discharge goal of the Clean Water Act.

Community right-to-know laws have been another missed opportunity in the government's efforts to reduce and eliminate pollution. The Emergency Planning and Community Right to Know Act which created the TRI led to significant voluntary reductions in reported toxic releases in the early years that TRI data was released. In recent years, however, toxic pollution has begun to increase. Also, because TRI has focused on end-of-the-pipe releases, the generation of toxic waste has consistently risen even in cases where direct releases have decreased, meaning that government and industry are failing to prevent pollution.

In order to make progress toward the basic goals of the Clean Water Act, U.S. PIRG recommends the following:

1. Mandatory minimum penalties should be set that prevent polluters from profiting by breaking the law. This approach has proved successful for New Jersey, which passed a tough Clean Water Enforcement Act in 1990 which helped to reduce the state's overall ranking in terms of percentage of major facilities in Significant Noncompliance to 41^st (not including U.S. territories). In 1995 they were ranked 16^th, and in 1997 they were ranked 36^th by percentage of major facilities in Significant Noncompliance

2. The obstacles citizens face in the courts should be removed. This means that citizens should be able to sue for past violations and be able to sue federal facilities.

3. Congress and the EPA should expand the current right-to-know program in order to fully honor the public's right to know and to effectively use public information as a tool for eliminating pollution. This means requiring all polluting facilities to report all of their pollution, much of which is currently exempted. Congress and EPA should also require reporting not just on end-of-the-pipe pollution, but on toxic chemical use. This ‘materials accounting’ reporting is required in Massachusetts and New Jersey, and both states have seen dramatic reduction not just in direct releases, but in the generation of toxic wastes and in the overall use of toxic chemicals.

Download PDF | High Resolution JPG

High Resolution JPG